The idea of this being policy of the club is nonsense. Every case has its' own merits. For example when Mossop returned he had an an offer to go to Leeds. He was an English international prop. He has suffered from injury but when fully fit is a good player as he proved last season at Salford. So he had a pretty good choice of clubs. He chose Wigan. I'm pretty sure that when Sam and Joel came on the market they could have gone to any Super League club of their choice too. IL would have been lynched if Sam had gone to Wire. Likewise with Joe Burgess.



In fact people are using 20/20 hindsight here. I recall no outcry when any of these players returned (though I for one, knew that Tommy would be no replacement for Matty Smith, and I was roundly shouted down)



The club weighs up what it has and decides whether in theory that player can improve the team. In this case is Sarginson a better option than Sa'u? I would say he is, others may disagree. He does have the benefit of being a big game player whilst Sa'u is unproven.

A bit of a first

but I agree with you re every case has its own merits.

The problem I have is that there is no newness. It is all the same old same old. Grey, soulless, lifeless, robotic and play by numbers.

Personally I want some new blood. Something to look forward to. Something different. Something exciting. Sarginson for all his work rate for me, delivers nothing of what I want and if we sign a centre I want one who knows how to pass, when to pass and full awareness of what is going on across the pitch.

Well, I'm going to surprise you now and agree with you!



I also want that from a centre.



But I suppose we need to be realistic and get the best we can. Sarginson is a real workhorse who must be great to play alongside, he always puts his hand up and grafts for the team.



Gleeson and Carmont were really the last of that type of centre that you refer to, although Gildart has the potential no doubt.

I mean, it is a bit of policy though isn't it? Ian Lenagan has all but stated it openly and says pretty much the same thing every time a good player leaves.



Sure, the club don't re-sign every player that is let go, but we've now brought back 5 players who have previously played for us during Lenagan's time in charge and every single one has been worse than when they left.



Also, none could really have been considered the most sensible choice when they were brought back either.



Mossop wasn't a sensible choice. He'd struggled for form for a few years while playing for us, left to go to the NRL, had no form at all to speak of, had injury troubles and was injured when we signed him. Take away the fact that he used to play for us and nobody would have wanted us to sign him!



Joel Tomkins wasn't a sensible choice. He'd struggled with injuries for a few years and was playing a different sport. He was injured when we signed him back and has struggled with injuries ever since. Was he the sensible choice? Of course not. There were countless good players knocking around in Super League and the NRL at the time who were better players then and continue to be better players now. Sure, maybe it's easy to say with the benefit of hindsight but we've seen players return from rugby union before and how many have come back just as good? Any at all? Why did the club think it could buck the trend? It made no sense other than the club could make a fuss about 'bringing someone home'.



Leuluai might have been doing okay for New Zealand Warriors (and no better than okay as he wasn't a stand out player) but he offered absolutely none of the positive attributes of the player he was replacing. We needed a quality halfback. It's debatable whether he's even a decent halfback. There's no way he was the sensible choice to replace Smith, so why did the club sign him? Quite clearly because he used to play for us.



Our other two returnees at least have a bit more sense to them. Sam might have been injured when we signed him (we've really got to question that logic in doing this) but fans would have been furious if he'd been allowed to go to another club. It was obvious that the club was going to re-sign him. Sure, he's been nothing like a marquee player so far but there's logic in this one. He was outstanding for us previously.



As for Burgess, he's still one of the best young prospects in the country and he was starting to find form in the NRL while at the Rabbitohs. He is yet another who left and has been nowhere near as good on his return but at least there's time for him to improve.



With Sarginson, he may well fall into the same category as Burgess, he's not been gone for long, he's still quite young and was decent for us. But you still have to question whether he's the best available. Maybe Gelling's (probable?) departure complicates things and we're left looking for a late replacement and there aren't many options available. But still, would we be interested if he hadn't played for us before? Is he that good? Maybe he is and will be a success. I hope so.



Either way, it's definitely a policy to bring players back if we're in the market for someone, even if we don't necessarily need them or they don't appear to be the smart option.

Quote Aboveusonlypie="Aboveusonlypie"The idea of this being policy of the club is nonsense.'" Of course it's a policy of the club. Have you completely forgotten the lengths that IL went to to explain it when players left? Or how when players returned, particularly Sam T how he lauded the policy was working? Here is one of many quotes that shows it is a policy: Lenagan said: “What’s the point of fighting the competition when it’s there? “It’s far better to have a strategy that facilitates these players going, makes money for Wigan, and encourages them to come back. And I believe 50 per cent who leave for the NRL will come back to Wigan, and they’ll be better players when they do. “We already have them signed up to salaries, there are no negotiations to do." Read more at: https://www.wigantoday.net/sport/rugby- ... -1-5608647

Quote Aboveusonlypie="Aboveusonlypie"The idea of this being policy of the club is nonsense.'" Of course it's a policy of the club. Have you completely forgotten the lengths that IL went to to explain it when players left? Or how when players returned, particularly Sam T how he lauded the policy was working? Here is one of many quotes that shows it is a policy: Lenagan said: “What’s the point of fighting the competition when it’s there? “It’s far better to have a strategy that facilitates these players going, makes money for Wigan, and encourages them to come back. And I believe 50 per cent who leave for the NRL will come back to Wigan, and they’ll be better players when they do. “We already have them signed up to salaries, there are no negotiations to do." Read more at: https://www.wigantoday.net/sport/rugby- ... -1-5608647

It was quite well bandied about by Lenegan and the club, that we would have 'first dibs' if these players came back . That was used IMHO to quell the rising anger by fans when we sold Sam .

I can’t believe, even with hindsight that anybody would try to say that TL is not a better player than Smith! You talk about his positive attributes but for me he had only 2. His effort and his odd drop goal. His negative attributes on the other hand far outweigh them. He’s slow, has poor passing accuracy, can’t defend, puts most of his kicks straight into the fullback or wingers hands and makes far too many poor decisions.



Leuluai may not have had a great season but I’d rather we had him in the side than Smith every day of the week!



As for players coming back, it says an awful lot about SW and the club that practically every player that leaves wants to come back when the opportunity arises! SW has been hammered on here by some for being a bully and having his favourites but surely they’re not all his favourites and if his bullying reputation is accurate, these lads wouldn’t be coming back.



There was good reason to be positive about every returning player at the time they were brought back and maybe, again with hindsight some haven’t worked out as well as we’d hoped but nobody has a crystal ball and IL, SW and KR are doing the best the can for the club within the salary cap rules. I hope agelling comes back but if he doesn’t, we’re not in a position to get a Greg Inglis or a Gene Miles and Sarginson is probably as good as we could hope for in the modern era.

It's a job. If it says anything it is there was no better offer on the table from any other UK club.







You didn't need to crystal ball to work out they would only be back if things didn't work out. IL's justification for this was they would see contracts out in the NRL (or RU) then after a while come back better players. That has not happened with any of them and [iit never was going to happen[/i. If they had been as successful as James Graham they would not be back.

Yeah i am going to disagree with that one Aboveus. I would say Sa'u stands out above Sarginson from what i have seen. Very true that Sa'u is unproven but so was Sarginson and for me is still relatively unproven. His bad games far outweigh his good ones for me. Sa'u for me has the much better potential. Also Sarginson is a trouble maker. I won't go into detail because my post will be deleted but he is.

Funnily enough I don't believe anyone would try to say that TL is not a better player than Smith either. That's why I didn't say it.



What I did say is that Leuluai can't do any of the few things that Smith could do well. Now obviously by the end of his time at Wigan Smith wasn't doing anything particularly well. However, we know what he could do when he was on form. He had one of the best kicking games in Super League. What we needed on top of that to improve was a halfback who had a good kicking game and who was creative. Someone who could play to a structure but make smart plays by reading the game too.



Tommy doesn't offer that. Tommy has never offered that. Sure, at New Zealand Warriors he was a steady player alongside a more creative and dangerous attacking threat (Johnson) just as Smith was for us alongside Williams. Tommy has never been a creative half. He's never really played like a playmaker. When he was with us last he was a runner and played far more like Williams than Smith. And of course there's the issue that Tommy's kicking game is poor and inconsistent and his long kicking game pretty much doesn't exist. So to that extent, Tommy didn't do any of the good things that Smith has done for us in the past.



What benefits have we got from Tommy instead of Smith? Literally every single negative you've put against Smith applies to Leuluai except for poor defence. And there is the only benefit so far - his defence is far superior. If that's all we wanted for improvement we could have put a back row forward in the halves instead.



There are reasons why Tommy has ended up at hooker so often in his career. One of them is that he's never been good enough at halfback to nail it down as his best position. Yes, given the choice between Smith and Leuluai at halfback I'd always choose Leuluai, but I'd rather choose neither.



Perhaps there were reasons to be positive about the players coming back - Joel was quality early in his RL career and was an RU international before injury, Sam was a huge star first time round, Tommy still a NZ international, Budgie one of the most exciting wingers in the comp and Mossop, well, no seriously there's absolutely no common sense or logical reasoning for making that signing. I think he came in the same year Leeds signed Cuthbertson. There never has been and never will be any argument to convince me that bringing Mossop back wasn't just plain stupid.



Taken in isolation you can justify some of the re-signings. However, looking at the bigger picture 0 from 5 have come back as better players, which is something Lenagan stated they would do. So I don't think you could blame anyone for being underwhelmed and pessimistic about the prospects of Sarginson returning, especially after a year out through injury and having no form before that.

On Junior Sa'u, I'm no big fan, but he played in the NRL for Newcastle for years, he's been at Salford a fair while now, in what on earth sense is he "unproven"? He's 30 years old! Hardly an untested rookie.

Sarginson officially released by the Titans. SURELY he isn't coming back to us?



I hope he goes to Hull KR as rumoured.