Re: Sutcliffe or Williams? : Sat May 02, 2015 8:11 pm  

I thought Williams was magnificent last night, an exceptional prospect but IMO (and without Rhinos tinted glasses) I think as it is right now, Sutcliffe just edges Williams as a more complete player. I don't want to take anything away from Williams but HKR were extremely poor which made him shine a little brighter than perhaps he would have done against better opponents but still a superb effort.

I was talking to the missus last night and we concluded that it is no coincidence that the best teams that the SL has seen are also the same teams that consistently produce young, exciting players like Williams and Sutcliffe (and also the same reason that Salford are in the position they are in right now).

Re: Sutcliffe or Williams? : Sat May 02, 2015 8:40 pm  

Two excellent prospects but both need to perform at a high level on a more consistent basis.
Wouldn't it be great for the game if they both went on to become internationals of the highest class to at last give those bloody Aussies something to think about.
Oh by the way it has to be Williams but that's obviously a view based on that at the moment I have seen a lot more of Williams than Sutcliffe.

Re: Sutcliffe or Williams? : Sun May 03, 2015 12:18 am  

From a Wigan perspective, I think Williams was largely anonymous in the early season and put all responsibility on Smith(possibly contributing to his early poor performances) but as the pitches have hardened and he's settled more into the 6 role he's looking a class act. Everytime I've seen Sutcliffe which is obviously just the sky games, he's really impressed me, bar the Warrington game where I think the whole Leeds team just didn't show up, not just Sutcliffe. Not sure how many SL games both have played, but excellent prospects for both sides.

Re: Sutcliffe or Williams? : Sun May 03, 2015 10:11 am  

The interesting thing is that Wigan still have Hampshire who is probably a better natural #6 than either Wiliams or Sutcliffe. He outplayed Sutcliffe at u19 academy level. At the moment both Williams and Sutcliffe are better developed physically but that should change over the next two or three years. I've always thought that Sutcliffe would make an excellent #13.

It'll be interesting to see what Wane does next year when Tomkins returns, to have his and Hampshires pace in the side will cause a lot of problems for the opposition.

Re: Sutcliffe or Williams? : Sun May 03, 2015 10:30 am  

I too see Sutcliffe moving up to 13.
If I was Wane I'd play Williams & Hampshire at 6&7 next season & get rid of Smith. He reminds me of Deacon without the kicking ability. He always gives the impression of getting through a ton of work but produces very little of quality.

Re: Sutcliffe or Williams? : Sun May 03, 2015 10:54 am  

tigertot wrote:

I too see Sutcliffe moving up to 13.
If I was Wane I'd play Williams & Hampshire at 6&7 next season & get rid of Smith. He reminds me of Deacon without the kicking ability. He always gives the impression of getting through a ton of work but produces very little of quality.

I think Williams #7 and Hampshire #6 is a bit risky so soon. We tried it a few years back with Brown and Robinson, and Saints did the same with Gaskell and Lomax. All were very good players but weren't quite ready for that step up together. If you remember Leeds with Burrow and McGuire, they brought in Andrew Dunemann for around three years to allow the young halfbacks time to bed in, so they were around 22/23 years of age before they became the chosen pair. Williams and Hampshire are still only 20.

Re: Sutcliffe or Williams? : Sun May 03, 2015 11:06 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

I think Williams #7 and Hampshire #6 is a bit risky so soon. We tried it a few years back with Brown and Robinson, and Saints did the same with Gaskell and Lomax. All were very good players but weren't quite ready for that step up together. If you remember Leeds with Burrow and McGuire, they brought in Andrew Dunemann for around three years to allow the young halfbacks time to bed in, so they were around 22/23 years of age before they became the chosen pair. Williams and Hampshire are sill only 20.

I couldn't see Wigan dropping Smith just like that anyway. Looks like it'll be a case of biding his time for Hampshire next season with the return of S.Tomkins to FB.

How are you for wingers with Burgess leaving? I know Charnley and Manfredi will be the starters but what's after that (considering Charnley does seem to pick up a few injuries nowadays)? Would he throw Hampshire on the wing whenever of those were missing?

Re: Sutcliffe or Williams? : Sun May 03, 2015 12:34 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

I think Williams #7 and Hampshire #6 is a bit risky so soon. We tried it a few years back with Brown and Robinson, and Saints did the same with Gaskell and Lomax. All were very good players but weren't quite ready for that step up together. If you remember Leeds with Burrow and McGuire, they brought in Andrew Dunemann for around three years to allow the young halfbacks time to bed in, so they were around 22/23 years of age before they became the chosen pair. Williams and Hampshire are sill only 20.

I would cash in on Smith, as Cas did with Sneyd, while there are still some deluded fools who think he is an international HB. You could bring in Douglas Bader for a year to do what Smith does if you want to wait.

Re: Sutcliffe or Williams? : Sun May 03, 2015 1:30 pm  

Bader's a good prospect Tigertot but he just doesn't have the legs.

Re: Sutcliffe or Williams? : Mon May 04, 2015 2:41 am  

I don't get the idea of Sutcliffe to 13 at all. He's a big stand off - like several great players have been before him. The ball-handling 13 is a dying breed, and not soon enough for me.