boggart wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 3:39 pm
There’s controlled aggression or stupidity, Ollie is more on the stupid side.
Acts the hard man, gives away silly penalties.
He’s not good enough either
Its sad the way fans take against certain players, but typical. Oliver Partington is an honest tryer who never gives anything less than 100%. He sometimes crosses the difficult border between controlled aggression and foul play, but don't knock his committment, enthusiasm and energy. Not big enough (but certainly aggressive enough) for a barn-storming prop, but not through lack of effort and can contribute to anyone's team as a back rower or loose-forward or when brought off the bench. Give the young man a break. He'll be a loss to the team if he's allowed to go.
[/quote]
Cracking post. Always liked Ollie
Anyone can support a team when it is winning, that takes no courage.
But to stand behind a team, to defend a team when it is down and really needs you,
that takes a lot of courage. #18thMan
Last season's players to be knocked on here was Harry Smith. That's changed a bit now, and how!
This season it seems to be Oli P.
Given the current selection tactic of playing a prop at 13 then Oli is a pretty good fit.
Firestarter wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 9:46 pm
I remember the comments about smithies not being big enough……. How times change
Nailed it!
The big factor for me is the fact Partington is only 23, we could potentially get another 13 seasons out of him! He gives 100%, has old school aggression (which can be placated at times) and is versatile if we play a prop at 13.
His only downfall is he needs a stone or two extra. The argument about his size is flawed, you get people then moaning saying Mago is the size of tank and does nothing.......who wins this battle
I'm going to "throw" this out there - because - you know - it's the number one excuse why we cannot sign so and so
We are in a salary capped sport and unless the rules change to allow the players wages for those who came through the ranks to be either exempt or dramatically reduced, we face losing KPP and/or others just because individuals came through the ranks or are thoroughly nice in training
The club has to be ruthless or faces losing Nicholson or McDonnell or Havard or Paul and the list goes on. The backwards thinking sees us keeping a multitude of back rows so they can play centre - because the centre position is not "important" to fans as long as we keep everyone "happy" despite players moving on of their own design when it suits them
They may not be able to play in their preferred position because of other, maybe senior or international players ahead of you in the pecking order. And feel that it’s a detriment to their growth & improvement in the sport if they don’t move on.
Anyone can support a team when it is winning, that takes no courage.
But to stand behind a team, to defend a team when it is down and really needs you,
that takes a lot of courage. #18thMan
Rock and a hard place with a cap and one of the top youth systems running side by side, in a world where union or NRL can take a risk and pay a youngster twice the going SL worth. How do you keep players without releasing potential, or making errors keeping one's who never will quite be what we need.
I'm thinking we do pretty well... Reason being at this point someone normally mentions Sean Long.
Have we lost good players? Yes , do we manage it pretty well? yes, I believe we do though not to the impossible levels some want.
What is apparent is that if you get a good batch it's hard to keep them all, especially on the back of sucsess. It puts them in the shop window and once they win things early they want a new challenge and so on. That's really happened to us more because that youth system has been number one almost every year.
What about Saints.... well Roby Walmsley would have got gigs in the NRL but not sure how many more, Knowles is probably next on that list. Graham and Thomo went. I believe Makinson would have been able to make it but his early years was spent with injuries and in an average side.
Lomax has won quite a bit with them now but again like Makinson all have been parts of teams that was a little off.
Like Matt Peet says it's what this team do now stay create something with a desire to improve or do the look at me NRL I'm great how bigs the pay rise.
I'm pretty sure Havard, Smithies, Byrne and KPP will have been looked at and the next players in the system because at the end of the day where they play.
Our hope can only be the culture and way we improve on and off the field keeps the lads we want to have here happy.
He may actually want to leave. The first 17 that played in the final is Wigan’s strongest. He might therefore only get a game due to squad rotation or suspensions. So some players are going to miss out in the big games and maybe he thinks he has a better chance at first team footy elsewhere.
No doubt about the lads heart and fight but he needs to put on 2 stone to start making dents in the opposition defence and I cant see him being able to do it.
Partington always puts in a huge amount of effort but he's definitely not part of our strongest team at the moment and it might be that he's at the stage in his career where he wants to be playing week in week out and feels there's too much competition for places at Wigan.
Similarly, Wigan can't just stockpile players, especially in certain positions. The cap means some players may need to leave to free up space.
I always thought we only really had space for either Smithies or Partington but not both. They are both smaller middles whose best position is probably playing 13 with a couple of big props. Right from the start it was clear that Smithies was more effective going forward. He's always run the ball much better than you'd expect for someone his size. Smithies also has a better work rate in defence, not that Partington is particularly lacking in that area.
Partington could still play prop but it's clear we could still do with strengthening that position and so it's common sense to let the weakest of our props go to help make that possible.
The club also need to consider progression for our promising young players. Smithies is still young himself but we've also got Shorrocks competing for a place at 13, plus Nicholson coming through who has bags of potential. I don't think it makes sense to limit opportunities for Shorrocks and Nicholson just to keep hold of someone who can't quite get in the side at prop. Then of course there are the outstanding young props in the academy like Jack Bibby and Toby Brannan who look to have lots of potential. There needs to be a pathway for them to get into the team. There's also Ramon Silva in the mix too.
