: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:08 pm  

'I also feel Hock has the potential to move up to Prop. Considering the depth in the backrow replacing him if he were to move up to prop wouldn't be an issue.'


OH. MY. GOD.

Some people on here really don't have a fu*king clue - I even heard one bloke say that we should put pryce at 6 because 'if his brother can do it so can he.' I'm still waiting for someone to recommend putting fielden on the wing, feka at full back and roberts/smith at prop...

[DaveO]

: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:13 pm  

Andy Greg wrote:

This is how it should be for at least the next 6 games

Regardless of whether Tomkins is ready or not the bigger issue is surely Smith's defence? He is a complete liability at the moment and unless Nobby can devise a way of protecting him or Smith starts tackling then in 6 games time the season will be as good as over.

Dave

[DaveO]

: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:24 pm  

cadoo wrote:

I appreciate people do not want to rush Sam Tomkins but I do not think we are rushing him at all in fact I think the opposite we have been far too slow to bring him into the first team. He needs more game time and seems to thrive on the expectation put on him. He is also very solid in defense as was evident against Harlequins. We looked a far better team with Smith off the field and Sam Tomkins on it. I don't care what age he is, if we're a better team with Sam Tomkins on the field then he should start next week against Bradford. He's ready.

He is 19 soon to be 20 and I agree with what you say above especially the bit in bold as I don't believe Noble when he says "I've never been frightened to use young players ...". I can't comment on the Qunis performance but it seems he IS ready from what Ihave read and more ready than Tim Smith.

Where has this kid glove appraoch come from with players of his age and ability?

As for Smith IMO he needs a few extra sessions with Mike Forshaw as he does not look fit enough to play consistently for 80 minutes. He needs a lot more work on his tackling technique and we'll see how it goes from there. I'm sure there is a good player in Tim Smith somewhere but so far there has been little evidence of this and it's something we need to address to benefit both Wigan and Tim Smith. He's had a long time out of the game so I'm willing to accept to a certain extent but some of the tackles he's made this season have been shocking and he seems very rusty in that department and unfit. Something which can be fixed and IMO we should give him a couple of weeks out to address these issues, Sam Tomkins is more than capable of filling in for him until Tim Smith is ready for first team action again but until then he should not be playing next week.

Agree with this also. I'd like Smith to succeed at Wigan and every now and again he produces a flash of good play that was the sort of thing that no doubt got him his previous awards but he seems too big a liabilty in defence to persist with him in the 1st 17 at the moment.

Dave

: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:07 pm  

If you pick players on form, then there's no other option than to drop Smith, keep Mathers out, and have Tomkins and Ainscough in the team. 2 of our best players on the park on Saturday.

If Smith's going to become a great player through time, then he could spend a bit of that time in the reserves - least that way he'd know there was competition for his place. Few others could do with it, too!

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:09 pm  

LordLoveRocket87 wrote:

'I also feel Hock has the potential to move up to Prop. Considering the depth in the backrow replacing him if he were to move up to prop wouldn't be an issue.'


OH. MY. GOD.

Some people on here really don't have a fu*king clue - I even heard one bloke say that we should put pryce at 6 because 'if his brother can do it so can he.' I'm still waiting for someone to recommend putting fielden on the wing, feka at full back and roberts/smith at prop...

He's a Noble style winger

Agree with what your saying though

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:20 pm  

LordLoveRocket87 wrote:

'I also feel Hock has the potential to move up to Prop. Considering the depth in the backrow replacing him if he were to move up to prop wouldn't be an issue.'


OH. MY. GOD.

Some people on here really don't have a fu*king clue - I even heard one bloke say that we should put pryce at 6 because 'if his brother can do it so can he.' I'm still waiting for someone to recommend putting fielden on the wing, feka at full back and roberts/smith at prop...

Really. Expect Hock to be playing regularly at prop forward before he's 30.

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:24 pm  

Bridger wrote:

Really. Expect Hock to be playing regularly at prop forward before he's 30.

History would say so wouldn't it

Faz
Peacock
Morley
Fletcher
I’m sure there have been more also?

All large, strong SR who've been shoved up to the front row as their careers progressed. It’s very, very feasible that Hock will go the same way as the above mentioned

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:35 pm  

thepriestman85 wrote:

History would say so wouldn't it

Faz
Peacock
Morley
Fletcher
I’m sure there have been more also?


All large, strong SR who've been shoved up to the front row as their careers progressed. It’s very, very feasible that Hock will go the same way as the above mentioned

Our best props have been former back-rowers. I did a post on this a few years ago.
Brian McTigue, Terry Clawson, Kevin Ward, Andy Platt, Kurt Sorenson to name a few.

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:50 pm  

Bridger wrote:

Really. Expect Hock to be playing regularly at prop forward before he's 30.

Only time will tell if this is the best thing for Hock but at the moment it looks like by the time hes 29/30 he will be in the front row

I don't care where he ends up as long as its the right thing for him and the team

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:01 pm  

Salty wrote:

Our best props have been former back-rowers. I did a post on this a few years ago.
Brian McTigue, Terry Clawson, Kevin Ward, Andy Platt, Kurt Sorenson to name a few.

Guess we all know F all then according to one poster.....