Hampshire

[markill]

I always felt like Smith was a valuable player and was consistently good and did perform when it mattered. For that reason I never really saw the benefit of removing him, switching Williams and bringing Hampshire in as we had a lot of experience, leadership, game management to lose.

Looking back on the last few months of the season, I really fail to see what Smith offers. His tackling has worsened, he never makes breaks or half breaks, he has no leadership, error prone.

Worst of all, his field kicking absolutely kills us. Bowen took over the goal kicking to enable Smith to focus on his game more which to me shows that there were some problems.... His game didn't improve, and what does this mean for next year?

The reason Hampshire won't be played is because of defensive abilities and the fact Wane doesn't favour very creative, expansive and off the cuff rugby. Something Hampshire would likely bring.

Good post. I'd probably go along with this too. Smith was good enough for me before this year. This year he didn't show me enough, particularly in the later stages of the season, or games away from home, that he can lead the team when he has to both help the young players in the backs around him and direct the pack around the park when Lockers is out injured. Basically, I don't see things from him being any better so early next year would have been time to find out IF Rocky can make it as a half at the top of Super League. It's an if because he is not proven, whatever his junior/academy records show he was able to do at that level. It doesn't seem like we're going to find out though

When certain players weren't performing they were dropped, an example being Matty Bowen and Ryan Hampshire. Was this classed as resting a player ?
When Smith under performs he still gets selected. Is this classed as favouritism or should he have been rested too ?

Sorry, not really sure what question you're asking because Bowen and Hampshire were surely dropped, not rested. I'm not sure when Smith had a bad run of games back to back, because he always seemed to play better at home than away. With Smith, for me, it more a realisation that we've seen the best of him and he isn't getting any better. He isn't more of a leader that we need him to become, so it needs to be reconsidered at least over whether we pin him as a leadership role.

So there's no harm in seeing, for a handful or so games, what Hampshire could do with Williams at the senior level. The aspect holding him back is that unlike Williams and Powell, who could drop in at hooker, Hampshire hasn't had the opportunity to show he's physically up for playing in the line in senior rugby. I would prefer for him to get that chance so we finally know if this sparkling junior can translate to to level senior.

I do think it's a little petty for posters to star talking about proving people wrong / people not wanting to be proved wrong. What if Hampshire goes to Castleford and is behind incumbents Gale, Roberts and Dorn at fullback too?

[Wiganer Ted]

Smith got flogged last season.
Main playmaker, look after a young no.6, do the field kicking, do the goal kicking, playing 80 mins in each match and missed perhaps one game.
If he's flogged the same 2016 then come 2017 burn out is a distincy possibility. No wonder his form varied.

If Ryan does go on loan then I think he'll return 2017 and be better off for the break.
Waney, IMO, should have rotated his half backs but he chose to stay with just two of them. The team's play then became routine and predictable. It looked like the opposition coaches could predict everything we were about away from the DW, hence our poor results.

Smith has one maybe two seasons left at the top level for Wigan and we'll need a ready made SL quality replacement.
Hampshire can and will be that replacement. He has to gain his SL experience somewhere re the loan deal.

As for the back up players, Gildart will be the third centre to Gelling and Sarginson and Tierney full back and wing replacement.
That seems ok to me.

[Panchitta Marra]

Good post. I'd probably go along with this too. Smith was good enough for me before this year. This year he didn't show me enough, particularly in the later stages of the season, or games away from home, that he can lead the team when he has to both help the young players in the backs around him and direct the pack around the park when Lockers is out injured. Basically, I don't see things from him being any better so early next year would have been time to find out IF Rocky can make it as a half at the top of Super League. It's an if because he is not proven, whatever his junior/academy records show he was able to do at that level. It doesn't seem like we're going to find out though

When certain players weren't performing they were dropped, an example being Matty Bowen and Ryan Hampshire. Was this classed as resting a player ?
When Smith under performs he still gets selected. Is this classed as favouritism or should he have been rested too ?

Sorry, not really sure what question you're asking because Bowen and Hampshire were surely dropped, not rested. I'm not sure when Smith had a bad run of games back to back, because he always seemed to play better at home than away. With Smith, for me, it more a realisation that we've seen the best of him and he isn't getting any better. He isn't more of a leader that we need him to become, so it needs to be reconsidered at least over whether we pin him as a leadership role.

So there's no harm in seeing, for a handful or so games, what Hampshire could do with Williams at the senior level. The aspect holding him back is that unlike Williams and Powell, who could drop in at hooker, Hampshire hasn't had the opportunity to show he's physically up for playing in the line in senior rugby. I would prefer for him to get that chance so we finally know if this sparkling junior can translate to to level senior.

I do think it's a little petty for posters to star talking about proving people wrong / people not wanting to be proved wrong. What if Hampshire goes to Castleford and is behind incumbents Gale, Roberts and Dorn at fullback too?

My post was nothing to do with proving anybody right or wrong. I do however feel that certain players who i see as not consistently performing yet seem to get more chances than others.
As you say, no harm in giving players half a dozen games to prove themselves, but if that's playing in a position they're not necessarily familiar with, is that really a fair assessment of their true ability.
I honestly think Daryl Powell is a good assessor of players and will get the best out of Hampshire, buy hey, I think Powell is a better coach than Wane.
Roberts is a class player if a bit inconsistent, Gale, I'm not a fan of, and Dorn is unlikely to play in the halves with being first choice fullback.
Will and can Wane insist as part of the loan deal that Hampshire plays fullback at Cas, as it was hinted that he played that card when Hampshire went to Workington Town.
My concern is Will Hampshire return to Wigan after his loan spell.

[markill]

Sorry, not really sure what question you're asking because Bowen and Hampshire were surely dropped, not rested. I'm not sure when Smith had a bad run of games back to back, because he always seemed to play better at home than away. With Smith, for me, it more a realisation that we've seen the best of him and he isn't getting any better. He isn't more of a leader that we need him to become, so it needs to be reconsidered at least over whether we pin him as a leadership role.

So there's no harm in seeing, for a handful or so games, what Hampshire could do with Williams at the senior level. The aspect holding him back is that unlike Williams and Powell, who could drop in at hooker, Hampshire hasn't had the opportunity to show he's physically up for playing in the line in senior rugby. I would prefer for him to get that chance so we finally know if this sparkling junior can translate to to level senior.

I do think it's a little petty for posters to star talking about proving people wrong / people not wanting to be proved wrong. What if Hampshire goes to Castleford and is behind incumbents Gale, Roberts and Dorn at fullback too?

My post was nothing to do with proving anybody right or wrong. I do however feel that certain players who i see as not consistently performing yet seem to get more chances than others.
As you say, no harm in giving players half a dozen games to prove themselves, but if that's playing in a position they're not necessarily familiar with, is that really a fair assessment of their true ability.
I honestly think Daryl Powell is a good assessor of players and will get the best out of Hampshire, buy hey, I think Powell is a better coach than Wane.
Roberts is a class player if a bit inconsistent, Gale, I'm not a fan of, and Dorn is unlikely to play in the halves with being first choice fullback.
Will and can Wane insist as part of the loan deal that Hampshire plays fullback at Cas, as it was hinted that he played that card when Hampshire went to Workington Town.
My concern is Will Hampshire return to Wigan after his loan spell.[/quote]

Sorry, I wasn't clear, my final point related to how this thread had gone since my last post. Not aimed directly at you.

You've missed my point on Hampshire not exactly being guaranteed games at Cas. They have good players who are established starters now (deservedly so on 2015 performances) in the halves and full back, the positions that Hampshire CAN play. You don't see him as a full back but others do and he CAN play there and if he is selected there he should be happy to play there.

Anyway, I'm not sure if you understood what my view is. So I'll restate it. Smith now has shown his limitations in my opinion - solid generally, top drawer occasionally, spectacular rarely.

We are not aware of Hampshire's capacity as a senior play, let alone his limitations. I'd happily see him given a run with Williams alongside him in the halves to find out more about what he might be able to do, as a senior half back. Doesn't look like we'll get a chance to see it.

[DaveO]

Smith got flogged last season.
Main playmaker, look after a young no.6, do the field kicking, do the goal kicking, playing 80 mins in each match and missed perhaps one game.
If he's flogged the same 2016 then come 2017 burn out is a distincy possibility. No wonder his form varied.

To say Smith got flogged last season is ridiculous.

Being the goal kicker doesn't constitute being flogged and neither does being expected to show some leadership when you are a senior player.

As first choice half back you'd also expect to play in every game if fit.

There was nothing out of the ordinary for a half back in Smith's duties or his season in 2014/15.

In any case he was as average at the start of it before he'd been "flogged" as he was at the end of it so it's a pretty lame excuse.

He's going to have the same duties again next season so I guess we can look forward to another distinctly average one from him.

As for the back up players, Gildart will be the third centre to Gelling and Sarginson and Tierney full back and wing replacement. That seems ok to me.

Given Gildart has shown himself the better player than Gelling if Gildart is third choice centre he's every right to be as fed up as Hampshire is supposed to be.

As I predicted before the start of last season centre turned out to be a big problem position for us. Both Sarge and Gelling were inexperienced and it showed (and putting the problems they both have with their games down to inexperience is being kind).

If we go with those two as centres and Smith as a goal kicking 7 in 2016 Wane won't have addressed ANY of the major issues we had last season.

[cpwigan]

There is no consistency of approach and 99.9% of the time that depends on whether or not your face fits with Wane. Wigan back their coaches and for whatever reason the potential versatility of Hampshire has been abused by Wane who was for much of 2015 faced with having to replace Matty Bowen and seemed to see Hampshire as the ideal replacement given he felt he had suitable options in the half backs. Sam T returning created a dilemma, a happy one but nevertheless one not previously anticipated.

Mike made an interesting point. Sadly; right or wrong; I think Wigan fans place far greater emphasis on what a player does playing for Wigan than elsewhere. You can play fantastic 6 games on the bounce for whomever but if you play fantastic once for the Cherry & White fans deman to see you the week after.

Watching England v NZ what struck me is that at the highest level any half-back needs to be able to take the line on themselves. Now, if you ask most fans who is the greater threat at taking on the line? George or Matty? then answer will be George. Same question but Rock or Smith and the answer will be Rocky.

I do think watching today that we need to be bold and risk sending young players Down Under. IMO, every player for England that played Down Under looks a more complete player than their SL team mates. The one exception being Lockers. Far better a season Down Under than a Loan, dual contract in SL.

[ian.birchall]

[quote="Wiganer Ted"

As for the back up players, Gildart will be the third centre to Gelling and Sarginson and Tierney full back and wing replacement.
That seems ok to me. [/quote]
Not to me. I believe Gildart in the few games he played so well at the end of the season showed clearly he is already a far better centre than Sarginson, he may need a break after a run of matches but after that break he should recover the number four position from Sarginson.

[cpwigan]

If Sarge is planning to leave then we need to continue developing Gildart. Gels has a lot to prove. Riding a BMX does not equate to a Wigan legendary centre IMO.

[Kittwazzer]

I do think watching today that we need to be bold and risk sending young players Down Under. IMO, every player for England that played Down Under looks a more complete player than their SL team mates. The one exception being Lockers. Far better a season Down Under than a Loan, dual contract in SL.

Certainly bold and risky. Most of us are anxious to stop our talent going down under!

[cpwigan]

The way I see it Kitt the risk would be worth it. We may lose the odd one but all the ones returning would be far better for it and we would get their peak years whereas now we lose them at their peak. I am not sure many players would enjoy a decade of NRL grind on harder pitches v fierce opponents week in week out. I think even Sam B and SBW saw Union as a break on the wear and tear that RL brings to ones body.