Re: rl : Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:44 am  

Last Son of Wigan wrote:

Are you forgetting the last part of my 100s of posts? Please read before gripping.

"Long would be a good signing along with Myler"

Don't expect people to actually quote you within context.

Re: rl : Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:09 am  

Boris wrote:

Get rid of Piggy. Why is Tomkins moving to fullback so "ludicrious"? Have you ever watched the NRL and seen what the "ball playing" fullbacks can do?

Tomkins would be a sitting duck at fullback that is one reason why he should not be left there totally exposed. It is a daft idea forwards would have a field day on his kick returns.

Tomkins is not a ball playing 1. He is a half back pure and simple. I have seen people use Edwards as an example of trying to justify it but that was in a different game with a very different player and world class players around him to protect him. I have also seen Lockyer used to try to justify this move, but Lockyer came from an Aussie rules background so was already schooled on how to take the ball under huge pressure, and was far more robust than Tomkins is, playing in the centres for Brisbane prior to settling at 1.

Why for the love of god would you want to pick a lad who is showing up well at 6, just been selected in his country's national squad as a 6 at 1? It makes no sence at all. You have to treat each player individually, you cannot say because x,y or z did it it will work with Tomkins. In the modern game all the ball playing ones are first and foremost fantastic athletes, world class athletes. While Tomkins does have some fantastic athletic traits he is nowhere near the standard required at the moment to be left at the back isolated and having to return kicks against oncoming forwards on a kick chase, he would be cannon fodder.

: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:12 am  

Its a nice idea but the game is different now to when Edwards played FB. Tomkins would be left exposed and would get absoloutly nailed at every opportunity.

: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:52 am  

I cannot get over people's obsession with how NRL 1's and 6's are interchangeable.

This is not applicable in the SL, mainly because fullback is a completely different position, with different expectations.

It stems from the grapple and dominance of the park in the middle of the pack within the NRL. They do a hell of a lot of defence in the centre of the park so that the full back does not get exposed. For that reason, many NRL teams choose fullbacks for their attacking skills over and above their defensive skills.

The Aussies like Mathers and they would have loved Chris Ashton. It's now creeping into SL, the Huddersfield pack are playing very much like an Aussie pack to get the best out of Hodgson.

At Wigan we don't have the players to do this, and still require great defensive FB's in the style of Radlinski and Wellens. So effectively its a non starter putting Tomkins there, besides he's a much better 6 already.

Re: rl : Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:14 am  

Boris wrote:

Get rid of Piggy. Why is Tomkins moving to fullback so "ludicrious"? Have you ever watched the NRL and seen what the "ball playing" fullbacks can do?

How do you 'get rid of Piggy'? Do you mean arrange for him to be assassinated? Because that would be easier than releasing a player who's only just embarked on a lengthy, lucrative contract and doesn't want to lose it.

And all for the sake of trying Sam out at full-back (where he's never played before) so that you can bring in two brand new halfbacks?

And we talk about not wanting to cause too much disruption!

Re: rl : Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:15 am  

Boris wrote:

On the condition that Myler was brought in and Tomkins was moved to fullback to play a floating Lockyer esque role. Please keep up.

I am "up".

sam at FB is a laughable idea. i have quite clearly stated this in the post above.

please keep up

Re: rl : Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:06 am  

tugglesf78 wrote:

I am "up".

sam at FB is a laughable idea. i have quite clearly stated this in the post above.

please keep up

Why is it?

Re: rl : Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:42 am  

tugglesf78 wrote:

Hang on a minute, don’t spit your dummy out just because 1 more poster (me) is getting tired of your constant wild theory’s or solutions.

If we signed long (madness) or orford (sensible) on a two year contract then we would STILL be in the same place in 2 years.

If we were also to sign myler (who would command a good wage) to play alongside Long (not as much as what he is on at saints but not much less) we would not have room in the team for arguably our best halfback prospect in years.

So let me get this straight

1. Sign a player that is despised by the majority of Wigan fans
2. Sign an excellent young player from Salford, therefore pushing another excellent young halfback to the fullback spot.
3. Now we have this excellent halfback playing out of position in the full back. Whilst the two scrum halves we have signed try to gel.

Now this is where I wonder what other "ideas" your theory will give us.

1. Where do we play Pat and Phelps?
2. What happens to this promising young half back of ours when Sean long/matt orford retires? He now has to play 6 or 7 but has forgotten how to do it because he has spent the last two years catching high bombs and getting crunched in last ditch tackles.

Basically the knock on effects of signing not one!!! But two!!! Number 7s would have knock on effects throughout the whole squad, would test the salary cap to the limits and would hamper us is in signing a top class prop forward.
The worst thing about your posts is that you actually believe that this would work.

You my friend need to have a cup of tea and engage your brain before you sit down at the keyboard

Hmmm right there it seems.

I don’t have to say anymore on the subject because Cruncher, Steinlager, Neil and jonh have all posted the reasons why.

Stupid idea brought on by your and Last sons attempt to say that signing Sean Long would be a good idea.

Seems like me that you have just posted this in the first place in order to make yourselves look "visionary" and "controversial" but in reality it has made you look “naive” and “silly”

: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:25 am  

what gets me is those who have been slating Orford as a signing because he has not played in SL and is not used to the style etc are/were advocating signing Long and using Tomkins as an NRL style fullback, in a SL competition?

The styles and requirements are poles apart, as is the athletic ability and robustness experience of Tomkins. It would take him 2 years to adapt to the role of a 1 at least, by which point they would be then asking him to move back to the halves, negating the point of moving him anyway!

A total lack of consistency.

: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:48 am  

jonh wrote:

what gets me is those who have been slating Orford as a signing because he has not played in SL and is not used to the style etc are/were advocating signing Long and using Tomkins as an NRL style fullback, in a SL competition?

The styles and requirements are poles apart, as is the athletic ability and robustness experience of Tomkins. It would take him 2 years to adapt to the role of a 1 at least, by which point they would be then asking him to move back to the halves, negating the point of moving him anyway!

A total lack of consistency.

You always attach a level of technical expertise to your posts, Jon, which I find quite persuasive.

I just think this idea verges on the completely daft because it would involve wholesale tampering with the Wigan team - i.e. bringing in a completey new halfback pairing (despite Sam showing all the signs that he's going to be either our 6 or 7 for years to come) - purely to accommodate a 33-year-old who's after a final payday. And because it refuses to take into account that you can't just 'get rid' of people who are on contracts (i.e. Riddell).

It was an interesting idea to put forward for a bit of speculative chat. But I'm surprised that anyone is prepared to defend it.