Re: Sam Tomkins : Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:08 am  

Mugwump wrote:

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why they've bothered. Wigan already have plenty of scoring potential in the backs. Right now they haven't got enough slots to keep the existing bunch of players happy. Throw in the young halves coming out the academy. One way or another some good players are going to end up with their noses pushed out. Anyone getting that deja vu feeling, again?

If I were running things at Wigan I'd first be looking for two props, a back row forward and possibly a hooker. I mean, it's one thing playing tick rugby against three years long in the tooth Warrington who appear to have gone on strike in defence. It's quite another when your opponents shut down your width and you are suddenly reliant upon route one.

As usual Sky turned the orgasmatron up to eleven each time Wigan scored a try this evening. But even their full gamut of superlatives couldn't mask the fact that Warrington's defence was woefully inept in the backs. At times I was getting flashbacks to the succession of pastings we handed out to them over a decade. Quite what Warrington's outside backs were thinking each time Wigan expanded the play I've no idea. They couldn't have made it easier had they painted directions to the try line on the pitch. You can't begin to compare the intensity in both attack and defence that Warrington brought to the JJB two or three seasons ago with tonight's.

What happened to the bone-crunching defence that was until recently a regular occurrence in Wigan-Wire games? Even more bizarre was the fact that until eight minutes to go - Warrington could easily have stolen the game! Granted, they didn't deserve it. But since when did fairness have anything to do with life?

Sure, I suppose with Tomkins playing they win by twenty points instead of fourteen. But they could just as easily equal or exceed said points difference adding steel to the pack. The advantage offered by the latter being a reliable plan B should Hollywood-ball fall flat. Oh ... and the trifling positive that is a rock solid defence. Because whilst Wire were tragicomic without the ball - Wigan didn't look too bright themselves on those rare occasions when their opponents managed to string four passes together without spilling the damned thing.

I agree with a lot of that. Some of the Wigan tries were excellent, but Wire far from made it hard from them. The way wigan broke for the 2nd try (I think) after a loose ball from Williams went to ground, but still opened up the defence, summed this up. You can only beat what's in front of you.

Adding Tomkins to the mix makes them a formidable squad. Whether you rate the individual backs or not, they are excellent at manufacturing breaks. They have an excellent set of back rows and a solid set of props who have a good mindset, marshalled by a solid hooker. With TOmikns they'll also have that bit of magic that may pull it out the bag when "the system" is not working for them.
However, he can't catch a bomb so well, so hopefully every team will pepper him to death and spoil his return.

It will be genuinely interesting to see who looks the better all-round #1 between him and Hardaker, now that they're back in the same division. I just wish J-Lo's luck hadn't knocked him out of that particular race.

Re: Sam Tomkins : Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:13 am  

The cap won't be a problem, they'll just bin off Bowen who won't have been cheap, and some of their youngsters. He's a bit of a panic buy IMO, they wanted a big name as they've not had one for a while, but whilst he will improve their team (I'm not sure that theres a SL team that he wouldn't), I'm not sure full back is where their greatest weakness is.

Re: Sam Tomkins : Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:26 am  

Definately agree with the issue of the younger players making way for the Tomkins show.

Hampshire was clearly affected by the impending news, he should have been given the chance when he left for the NRL. He then displaces Bowen only to be told he's surplus to requirements now that the messiah returns.

If I was his agent, I'd be calling round the SL coaches as we speak seeing if anyone needs a full back.

I'd definately have him at saints.

Re: Sam Tomkins : Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:38 am  

The Chief wrote:

Definately agree with the issue of the younger players making way for the Tomkins show.

Hampshire was clearly affected by the impending news, he should have been given the chance when he left for the NRL. He then displaces Bowen only to be told he's surplus to requirements now that the messiah returns.

If I was his agent, I'd be calling round the SL coaches as we speak seeing if anyone needs a full back.

I'd definately have him at saints.

Hampshire and the players knew about the "news" last week. It didn't stop him giving a m.o.m. performance v Catalan and bar the two dropped balls didn't play poorly at all last night Young players make errors at times, it's how they react that will tell.

He still has one and a half years left on his contract plus a further year (in Wigans favour) option so I don't see him going anywhere in the near future.

Re: Sam Tomkins : Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:46 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Hampshire and the players knew about the "news" last week. It didn't stop him giving a m.o.m. performance v Catalan and bar the two dropped balls didn't play poorly at all last night Young players make errors at times, it's how they react that will tell.

He still has one and a half years left on his contract plus a further year (in Wigans favour) option so I don't see him going anywhere in the near future.

You've got two other halfbacks who aren't going anywhere (you'd have thought).

Watching highlights of Hampshire play for England under-whatevers against Australia, he looked like a classic half back, taking the ball at first reciver and teasing the defence before dropping off the runner, or going himself. After that, I was surprised to learn he was more of a 6 than a 7.

For me, with Walsh leaving sooner or later, I'd be looking at Hampshire and Joe Mellor (maybe both for when Burns also goes).

Re: Sam Tomkins : Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:05 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

I agree with a lot of that. Some of the Wigan tries were excellent, but Wire far from made it hard from them. The way wigan broke for the 2nd try (I think) after a loose ball from Williams went to ground, but still opened up the defence, summed this up. You can only beat what's in front of you.

Adding Tomkins to the mix makes them a formidable squad. Whether you rate the individual backs or not, they are excellent at manufacturing breaks. They have an excellent set of back rows and a solid set of props who have a good mindset, marshalled by a solid hooker.

Wigan's back row is ok - providing the front row does its job. The moment Clubb, Mossop and Tautai go missing the likes of Bateman and Farrell are forced back into midfield where their comparative lack of size and power makes them easy meat to pick off.

To be honest, I'm beginning to think Farrell is a bit of a one-trick pony. The Australians provided an object lesson in how to handle him. Track his movements - particularly with respect to the drop-off and he's practically useless. I mean, he's going nowhere down the centre channel and he doesn't possess a core set of rugby skills which might enable him to perform a second or third function should chances be few and far between. As for Bateman, I'm confused as to precisely how big he is because - like Farrell - he seems completely unable to generate any kind of yardage without a gap to run into.

Given Wane's recent comments about Farrell and the frequency either Gelling or Tomkins have been drafted into the pack (where neither is effective and don't possess anywhere near the levels of dogged persistence and willingness to take one for the team) it's patently obvious Wigan aren't happy with the back three.

This is the reason O'Loughlin really is a make-or-break player. He's the only forward who really can perform as a yardage earner, link player and all-round-grafter. The rest are bits of a second-row.

With TOmikns they'll also have that bit of magic that may pull it out the bag when "the system" is not working for them.
However, he can't catch a bomb so well, so hopefully every team will pepper him to death and spoil his return.

Undoubtedly Tomkins will add some additional threat. But it's not like Wigan are in the same boat as us when we purchased Paul Newlove. We desperately needed a player of Newlove's calibre - and the hefty wages we forked out were ultimately worth it because he was the difference between winning SL and finishing a gallant second.

It's like us signing Iestyn Harris whilst we already had Sullivan, Newlove, Iro, Martyn etc. etc. in the team. Sure, Harris would give us that bit more of a threat. But is that "bit" worth the £200k we would have been forced to shell out? Would that "bit" lead to more tries than if we instead acquired the services of two very good props who would serve to cement a rock solid foundation for the likes of Sullivan, Newlove, Iro, Martyn et al to capitalise on? I know which option I'd prefer to take.

Re: Sam Tomkins : Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:11 pm  

More absolute tripe.

When did Gelling play at second row for Wigan?
Joel Tomkins is first choice second row and only played in the centres this year due to injury to Sarginson and Thornley.

Re: Sam Tomkins : Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:45 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

More absolute tripe.

When did Gelling play at second row for Wigan?

I think you need to get your free OAP eye-test for this year - Gelling packed down in BOTH the Widnes and Brisbane games. Admittedly he was filling in for one reason or another - but that's neither here nor there.

Joel Tomkins is first choice second row and only played in the centres this year due to injury to Sarginson and Thornley.

Whose "first choice" - yours? Right now he's undoubtedly your first choice centre - not least because he's better than the other two put together. Playing him in the pack is pointless because given what passes for your front row you need a pair of grafters to carry their dead weight. And whilst Tomkins is many things - a grafting second row he aint.

Re: Sam Tomkins : Fri Apr 17, 2015 1:45 pm  

Mugwump wrote: I think you need to get your free OAP eye-test for this year - Gelling packed down in BOTH the Widnes and Brisbane games. Admittedly he was filling in for one reason or another - but that's neither here nor there. Whose "first choice" - yours? Right now he's undoubtedly your first choice centre - not least because he's better than the other two put together. Playing him in the pack is pointless because given what passes for your front row you need a pair of grafters to carry their dead weight. And whilst Tomkins is many things - a grafting second row he aint. More tripe. Gelling has never played second row for Wigan this season if ever. http://wigan.rlfans.com/readarticle.php?article_id=2171 But I suppose Liam Farrell has played stand off because he was first receiver from a scrum on a couple of occasions. Back on topic. Good to see Sam Tomkins back playing for Wigan. 23 tries and 21 assists in his last season at Wigan. More of the same please.

Mugwump wrote: I think you need to get your free OAP eye-test for this year - Gelling packed down in BOTH the Widnes and Brisbane games. Admittedly he was filling in for one reason or another - but that's neither here nor there. Whose "first choice" - yours? Right now he's undoubtedly your first choice centre - not least because he's better than the other two put together. Playing him in the pack is pointless because given what passes for your front row you need a pair of grafters to carry their dead weight. And whilst Tomkins is many things - a grafting second row he aint. More tripe. Gelling has never played second row for Wigan this season if ever. http://wigan.rlfans.com/readarticle.php?article_id=2171 But I suppose Liam Farrell has played stand off because he was first receiver from a scrum on a couple of occasions. Back on topic. Good to see Sam Tomkins back playing for Wigan. 23 tries and 21 assists in his last season at Wigan. More of the same please.

Re: Sam Tomkins : Fri Apr 17, 2015 1:59 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote: More tripe. Gelling has never played second row for Wigan this season if ever. http://wigan.rlfans.com/readarticle.php?article_id=2171 But I suppose Liam Farrell has played stand off because he was first receiver from a scrum on a couple of occasions. Taking the ball at first receiver hasn't equated to being a stand-off in decades. But packing down in the scrum behind the props and in front of the loose forward means you are, by definition, playing second row. Not least because it would be demonstrable lunacy to say you're packing down at centre, or full-back or on the wing.

Rogues Gallery wrote: More tripe. Gelling has never played second row for Wigan this season if ever. http://wigan.rlfans.com/readarticle.php?article_id=2171 But I suppose Liam Farrell has played stand off because he was first receiver from a scrum on a couple of occasions. Taking the ball at first receiver hasn't equated to being a stand-off in decades. But packing down in the scrum behind the props and in front of the loose forward means you are, by definition, playing second row. Not least because it would be demonstrable lunacy to say you're packing down at centre, or full-back or on the wing.