Re: Gildart Signs : Fri May 18, 2018 6:47 am  

Phuzzy wrote:

Couldn't agree more NK. I never got the negativity from certain fans as it just didn't equate with what we saw on the field, the opinion of his peers or, most tellingly that of the coaches he played under. I truly think the only reason was the old line that I heard peddled at the time that he wasn't Andy Farrell. As I used to say when I heard this "and Andy Farrell is no Ellery Hanley.. What's your point?"

Tbh, this is the main reason I called LSOW on his post. I thought we'd left this revisionist view in the trash heap of history where it belongs. Even opposition fans (well, enlightened ones anyway!) no longer subscribe to this view. I've seen Saints fans call him the best player in Superleague, I've seen Leeds fans say his withdrawal was the difference between us winning and losing the World cup this year. I guess it just galls me when our own fans trot out a long debunked line. Maybe it should be water off a duck's back by now! lol.

I'll share a little story with you though. When Daz Goulding was coming through the ranks I remember chatting to him (he was a good friend of a neighbour) and all he could talk about was how hard Gaz Hock was and how good Sean O'Loughlin was. I've seen nothing over the years to cast doubt on either of those appraisals!

The link to Farrell and our lack of success made it hard for him and it’s a credit to him that he didn’t crumble. I remember winning that Grand Final in 2010 and feeling as pleased that he’d got to lift a trophy as I did for the club winning the thing.

It’ll be a sad day and a scary one when he calls it quits.

Re: Gildart Signs : Fri May 18, 2018 7:41 am  

NickyKiss wrote:

The link to Farrell and our lack of success made it hard for him and it’s a credit to him that he didn’t crumble. I remember winning that Grand Final in 2010 and feeling as pleased that he’d got to lift a trophy as I did for the club winning the thing.

It’ll be a sad day and a scary one when he calls it quits.

What separates Lockers from the vast majority of players is not only his incredible ability and determination but moreso the sheer consistency that he’s played at that level over many years. I too was made up for him as an individual as well as for the club for the 2010 success.
He has a genuine aura around him and it’s clear as day that other clubs fancy their chances against us a lot more when he’s not in the 17. He has the respect of players, coaches and fans all around the world and rightly so. The day he hangs up his boots will be a very sad day for rugby league in this country.

Re: Gildart Signs : Fri May 18, 2018 8:00 am  

RichieS wrote:

I honestly think Dec Patton would be a shrewd bit of business, seems a little under rated by Price/Warrington and paired with Williams, would make a superb 6/7 combo....just my two pence worth, but I don't think we need to throw silly money at it.

I believe he is a bit of a big time Charlie, loving himself and thinking he is above everyone, hence why Wire shipped him off to teach him some manners and humility. I rate him, but he hasn't really done too much to warrant wigans' interest in my opinion.

Re: Gildart Signs : Fri May 18, 2018 8:07 am  

not sure why this topic has derailed from Gildart so much, but in the interests of keeping up with you lot.... can you imagine not only (potentially) losing Lockers but also Bateman at the seasons' end? I'm not saying Bateman is Lockers' replacement long term, but Wigan should absolutely do everything to retain Bateman in my opinion.

you are comparing Bateman and Lockers at the same age, fair enough. But Lockers wasn't much bigger than Bateman currently is when he was Batemans' (current) age. Lockers has evolved as a player in skill, strength and size under Wigan's tutelage and I cannot see any reason why Bateman won't do the same given the opportunity. he perhaps isn't worthy of a Marquee spot I agree, but if money is the issue, which I very much doubt it is considering I am hearing all sorts of reasons he will stay such as his young family etc, then wigan now have the means to retain his services - they should do so and nothing less.

i'd go as far to say that bringing in some big NRL Marquee will not replace Bateman, actually. he has the potential to be Harrison Hansen, Ryan Hoffman and Lockers all rolled up into one.

Re: Gildart Signs : Fri May 18, 2018 8:11 am  

I think Williams would make a good 13 in the near future, he has the size, pace and can tackle above his weight. There you go loose problem solved

Re: Gildart Signs : Fri May 18, 2018 12:41 pm  

Wigg'n wrote:

Considering Gildart (seemingly) hasn’t been given marquee status, one could assume that Bateman would receive it or we have a signing in the pipeline (if Bateman goes)?

It may be that Gildart, or Hardaker now we have announced his signing or Bateman if he negotiates a replacement contract for next season (he is not in his final year of his current deal don't forget) will take up a marquee slot from next year. Until Sam has actually left though we can't nominate anyone else as taking up a marquee slot as we already have the permitted two marquee players.

Due to the rules on cap exemption it may not necessarily follow that the highest earner takes the slot. Of the three contenders Gildart would effectively cost £75k while the others would cost £150k as marquee. If Gildart was on £125k and one of the others on £150k-£199k then we save more cap wise by putting Gildart as marquee even though in that hypothetical situation he would be taking home less.

Re: Gildart Signs : Fri May 18, 2018 2:32 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

Then quote the like for like facts that support your argument then I have something concrete to debate instead of just taking the "this is my opinion, therefore it's right" line. I've offered you concrete information to disprove your theory and you've offered nothing but your opinion in return. That's why I said you were wrong. If you don't think you are, show me why.

You do realize every criticism you just levelled at me also applies to you, don't you? You want your opinion to go unchallenged and when someone has the temerity to disagree with you you're "disappointed with yourself" for engaging with them. Why is that? I haven't insulted you or even been impolite. I've merely offered an opposing opinion. This is a forum. I'd link you to a definition of what that means but you'd only think me condescending or something similar but suffice to say that is what these boards are for. Why would you take it personally if someone takes the time to enter a discussion with you?

Back to the discussion in hand. I mentioned the captain point because, it disproves your "only became the player we know later" point as he was regarded highly throughout his career. You don't necessarily give the captaincy to your best player but you sure as hell don't give it to one of the worst! By and large it is given to the players regarded among the best and, yes, very often to the best. Look at his rivals for the captaincy at international level if you want further proof.

Look, you're entitled to your opinion (even a wrong one! ), of course you are. But if you object to someone having a different one and saying so you really need to question why you're posting on this board. I'm asking a genuine question here.. Why do you take it personally? I disagree with many posters on here. Look at DaveO for example. I doubt we've agreed on more than a handful of topics in over a decade of posting but he takes it in the spirit it's intended.

Glad to hear Lockers is your favourite player btw. That's something we can definitely agree on!

PS. Which facts and figures have I manipulated? I don't know what you're referring to there.

Right ok...
Firstly I wouldn't classify my comments as a theory, they're an opinion. And of course, which is open for debate. Don't forget the context of my comments; which are that Bateman is worthy of the marquee (I think people aren't realistic about the marquee) and I do, in my opinion feel Bateman is better 'age for age' than Lockers.

You wanted facts? Don't forget Bateman was England academy captain in 2012 taking them onto a tour of Oz, in the same year he won the Albert Goldthorpe rookie of the year award. He's someone, in the same team as Lockers at this point named clubs player of the year 2 years running in 2015/16.
In the same space of time John has won a WCC, a SL title.

(By the way this kills me to compare anyone to Lockers who is my fav player at wigan)
In comparison by 24 Lockers has won... yes you've named it: nothing! And was 28 before his first appearance in a SL dream team.

I think people forget how much Lockers improved in his late 20s.

Re: Gildart Signs : Fri May 18, 2018 2:36 pm  

still only 21 i forget how young he was when he made his debut

Re: Gildart Signs : Fri May 18, 2018 2:38 pm  

jonh wrote:

Bateman is not marquee status!

He's a realistic marquee player. The marquee, at best, is used to retain current players from leaving for the NRL or Union, as larger salaries and more prestige is available in both Union and the NRL.

People, sadly, still think the marquee is a tool for us to bring in someone like who exactly? Greg Inglis? Cooper Cronk? Come on, see the playing field for what it really is.

Since the marquee became a thing, we've had Tomkins (at the time a high calibre player, but realistically only came to Wigan cos its from Wigan and a past player) and Williams. A player who we didn't wanna lose. Bateman falls into the same category as Williams, that is what the marquee is used for.

Re: Gildart Signs : Fri May 18, 2018 2:39 pm  

hatty wrote:

I think Williams would make a good 13 in the near future, he has the size, pace and can tackle above his weight. There you go loose problem solved

Size? For a 13? What?