Rocky

Discuss all things Wigan Warriors. Comments and opinions on all aspects of the club's performance are welcome.
Post Reply
medlocke
Posts: 10917
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Millom
Contact:

Re: Rocky

Post by medlocke »

slimshady wrote:
medlocke wrote:Anyone would think he'd turned water into wine and fed the Five Thousand by the way some are going on about him on here, it's starting to get cringeworthy ffs and for such an unproven player at SL level as well :thum:
At last a voice of reason
Don't get me wrong, if he get's his chance, proves himself and takes the number 6 spot then fair enough, good on him, however theres only room for one young half back
cpwigan
Posts: 31247
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:03 pm

Re: Rocky

Post by cpwigan »

Tuigamala wrote:
Whelley Warrior wrote:
cpwigan wrote: From inside the club Smith was supposedly under pressure for his place 4+ weeks ago. The club and I daresay Smith himself are that happy with his efforts this year. However, experience owing to the dreadful inconsistency of the team won through (odd as it may seem).

You could argue George needs a break but when has Rocky been given that halfback opportunity? NOBODY incl Sam T as a youngster has been so blatantly ignored for his preferred position than Rocky.

However, a question to ponder, maybe George would play better in partnership with Rocky. Certainly Matty Smith has been poor more often than not this season.
So has Williams as well and in spite of being a good young player, he is not experienced enough to be handling the important playmaker/organiser Stand Off role which in my opinion is the root of the problem of why we are not effected as we should be in creating more options in attack.

The same happen last season when Green was out injured and we did not play well then, but that was for a limited period only and not for the full season like it has been this season.

Why do you think that Leeds, sometime ago switched Sinfield to Stand Off and moved McGuire to Scrum Half with Burrow on the bench?

We need to sign a top class playmaker/organiser Stand Off and one who perhaps, is also a top class goal kicker as a bonus.

Ratchford would have been alright, but one from down would be even better!

I disagree with that statement George could organise and so could Rocky if they where given the chance the fact is there is a roster at Wigan and always has been and the more experienced players are favoured more often than not regardless of their form. Call it a justification of salary or whatever you wish but I can count the above average performances Smith has produced this season on one hand. He is the organiser of plays and that's fair enough but that's not his sole job role when he's out on that field but unfortunately his performances do indicate that he struggles with the other element of his role which should be taking the line on. Rocky terrifies defences and I have seen him and Williams organise perfectly well in the reserves so there's no reason they couldn't do this at super league level.

Id say attacking wise Rocky is the best of all of them but has only played a handful of games this year so lets compare the attacking attributes of Williams and Smith.


Taking on the Line - Williams does it far more often than smith

Organising - Smith wins because there are no other options

Side Step - Williams all day long

Kicking Game - Williams hands down has put more kicks onto budgies chest and in to score than Smith has produced useful kicks this year never mind field position.

Speed - Williams hands down again has scored a few 80 metre try's can't remember a Smith full lengther in his career.

Tackle Busts this Season- Williams - 54 - Smith - 18 -NO CONTEST!

Metres Gained - Williams - 1247 Average Gain (6.17) - Smith - 719 Average Gain - (4.23)

Now somebody earlier in the thread stated smith has been better all over than Williams this year. I ASK THE QUESTIONS HOW AND WHY?
Excellent Post
cpwigan
Posts: 31247
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:03 pm

Re: Rocky

Post by cpwigan »

medlocke wrote:
slimshady wrote:
medlocke wrote:Anyone would think he'd turned water into wine and fed the Five Thousand by the way some are going on about him on here, it's starting to get cringeworthy ffs and for such an unproven player at SL level as well :thum:
At last a voice of reason
Don't get me wrong, if he get's his chance, proves himself and takes the number 6 spot then fair enough, good on him, however theres only room for one young half back
Good point as Burrow and McGuire proved :lol:
medlocke
Posts: 10917
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Millom
Contact:

Re: Rocky

Post by medlocke »

cpwigan wrote:
medlocke wrote:
slimshady wrote: At last a voice of reason
Don't get me wrong, if he get's his chance, proves himself and takes the number 6 spot then fair enough, good on him, however theres only room for one young half back
Good point as Burrow and McGuire proved :lol:
please name all the other young half back pairings who have brought success to all the other clubs
cpwigan
Posts: 31247
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:03 pm

Re: Rocky

Post by cpwigan »

Burrow and McGuire with a young loose forward too. I thought you said it wasn't possible? Peter Sterling and Brett Kenny; I thought you said it wasn't possible? DC Evans & K Foran (2011 GF winning half back pair; I thought you said it wasn't possible? Alex Murphy / Dave Bolton; I thought you said it wasn't possible?

Need I go on?

REPEAT AFTER ME

2 young halfbacks can be very successful, I was wrong .....
medlocke
Posts: 10917
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Millom
Contact:

Re: Rocky

Post by medlocke »

cpwigan wrote:Burrow and McGuire with a young loose forward too. I thought you said it wasn't possible? Peter Sterling and Brett Kenny; I thought you said it wasn't possible? DC Evans & K Foran (2011 GF winning half back pair; I thought you said it wasn't possible? Alex Murphy / Dave Bolton; I thought you said it wasn't possible?

Need I go on?

REPEAT AFTER ME

2 young halfbacks can be very successful, I was wrong .....
I never said it wasn't possible, and by your reckoning theres been 4 successfull partnerships over the last 57 years (2 this century, 1 in the 80's and 1 in the 50's), not really proving your point is it, the way you rattle on about it i was expecting 20+ partnerships being mentioned
Owd Codger
Posts: 5628
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:20 am

Re: Rocky

Post by Owd Codger »

cpwigan wrote:
medlocke wrote:
slimshady wrote: At last a voice of reason
Don't get me wrong, if he get's his chance, proves himself and takes the number 6 spot then fair enough, good on him, however theres only room for one young half back
Good point as Burrow and McGuire proved :lol:
True, but Leeds changed it to Sinfield and McGuire with Burrow on the bench as evidently they considered the combination at half back was not good enough.

We now have the same problem of three with Hampshire, Williams and Smith.
markill
Posts: 3675
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Rocky

Post by markill »

cpwigan wrote:
medlocke wrote:
slimshady wrote: At last a voice of reason
Don't get me wrong, if he get's his chance, proves himself and takes the number 6 spot then fair enough, good on him, however theres only room for one young half back
Good point as Burrow and McGuire proved :lol:
Leeds had players like Ben Walker and Andrew Dunemann play a lot of games with one or the other whilst they developed in their early first team outings CP. It wasn't a case of throw the kids in together and leave them to it.
in the world of mules, there are no rules

LATEST PODCAST EPISODE
https://www.spreaker.com/user/superleaguepod
old hooker
Posts: 1980
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:53 pm

Re: Rocky

Post by old hooker »

medlocke wrote:Anyone would think he'd turned water into wine and fed the Five Thousand by the way some are going on about him on here, it's starting to get cringeworthy ffs and for such an unproven player at SL level as well :thum:
Could not have put it better.
medlocke
Posts: 10917
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Millom
Contact:

Re: Rocky

Post by medlocke »

No Rocky again?
Post Reply