markill wrote: or that there's some sort of witch hunt against him by fans
This
If Bateman goes or ends up in that position then I cannot see Mossop remaining either. He would have to play like he was Jamie Peacock mkII and at the moment he is playing like Lee Hansen mkI
Tuigamala wrote:As for Bateman if all is true, this is Wigan rugby league club not Bradford working mons shitouse academy he'll be sent on his merry way and rightly so, Wigan have standards I don't give a shit how good he's been he's not irreplaceable by no means.
How anyone can say that given the leeway and second chances Hock and Flower were given by the club is beyond me. Wigan's "standards" were plain to see there.
If Bateman is sacked the only standards on show from Wigan will be double standards.
I am not sure if this is the right place for this, but isn't it still very early to conclude that Bateman is going to leave the club? The only things we have heard from the club - always a good place to start - is that there is an investigation, and that, though Bateman was not available for selection, that situation is under review day by day.
Both of these seem appropriate and proportionate to me.
People cite the treatment of Flower and Hock as evidence against the club, seemingly, but surely the opposite inference should be drawn. In both cases, the club followed due process, and found a solution that was in the best interests of the club (or, in Hock's case, as they hoped at the time).
There is absolutely no doubt that the best solution for the club is for Bateman to stay. As for this "clique" stuff, players will play with whoever gives them the best chance of winning. Team spirit is vastly over rated, as we as a club have shown for decades. It is unthinkable that IL will rip up Bateman's contract. It would require a fundamental change in his behaviour, and nature and for him to act against the club's best interests on and off the pitch. Wane's days may well be numbered - fail to win a trophy and we'll have a new man at the helm in 2017. IL isn't going to cut loose someone who could be our captain for a decade on the say so of someone in the last chance saloon. Interestingly, it was made clear by the club that Wane was not going to comment in his press conference.
Finally, the club pays close attention to the fans' views - the boos for Mossop, and indeed simply the evidence of his lack of impact on the pitch are as obvious to IL as they are to us.
It is of course open to anyone to say "if they make him walk down King St naked and then sack him, then that would be awful..." But that is tinfoil around the hat, talking to aliens level of paranoia.
The only thing that could fundamentally change the position is if there are police charges, which result in a prison sentence. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that will happen, and it would be astonishingly unlikely given the circumstances,
So far, the club has played a blinder, paying attention to due process and ignoring the hysteria. Which is what they have done in the past.
All will be well. Bateman will be back well in time for the Cup game.
Tuigamala wrote:As for Bateman if all is true, this is Wigan rugby league club not Bradford working mons shitouse academy he'll be sent on his merry way and rightly so, Wigan have standards I don't give a shit how good he's been he's not irreplaceable by no means.
How anyone can say that given the leeway and second chances Hock and Flower were given by the club is beyond me. Wigan's "standards" were plain to see there.
If Bateman is sacked the only standards on show from Wigan will be double standards.
The trouble with that Dave O is that you are not comparing like with like.
In Flower's case, the assault took place on the field of play in the white heat of the opening exchanges in the Grand Final, when you would expect emotions to be running high. The fact that Flower was not sacked tells us the disciplinary panel found mitigating circumstances. I suggest the mitigation was also supported by a prompt and sincere apology, and a previously clean record.
In Bateman's case the alleged incident occurred off the field in a low key social event sanctioned by the club. And Bateman has previous form from his time at Bradford. It was well publicised at the time of his signing that he had a reputation for drunken brawling, and his association with the EDL fitted the profile. Wigan took a chance on signing him, and unfortunately it looks like the wheels may have come off. He may well be lucky and be given a second chance, but if so I wouldn't bet a bean against a repeat performance somewhere down the line.
The club has to make a judgement call on whether or not they can trust him not to offend again. This has to be done by considering this case on its merits, and not by reference to other decisions where the context was quite different.
Whelley Warrior wrote:Looks like Mossop has now replaced Joel as the latest for the treatment.
Oh FFS get over yourself will you??!!
Since when did you think Mossop last played so impressively well for us you though "wow he deserves his man of the match"?
He and Joel have robbed a living since coming back "home" with their tails between their over-rated legs.
Excuses (and that is what they are) have been given for Joel (injuries). What is the excuse for Lee Mossop not pulling his tripe out in games?
On a more personal level. Gelling has cut his errors right down so looks a reasonable centre. I have never really trashed him. As for Sarginson. The guy tries but is so damned poor it amazes me people think he has quality, will not miss him when he goes. Who else do you think has gotten unfair criticism? Smith? you seriously think he has been outstanding for us? Decent kicking game apart his defence stinks, has no pace and he cannot pass either so not bad for a half back!
Every supporter has their own opinions on players, but the point I was trying to make was that when one particular player is singled out, the same posters all jump on the bandwagon.
At the same time, some players who have bad games like Williams and Burke for example can never be faulted by the same posters.
You for example say Sarginson is no good in spite of the fact that he going to a Aussie club who evidently see more in him than some do and as for Smith, if he is so bad, why are opposing Coaches full of praise of him. Anything to do with the fact he is from St Helens, if so young Ganson is in for a rough time if he makes to the first team.
You also say you like Gelling, but he too has been on the end of the treatment of not being good enough by some of your buddies.
I think it's human nature to have favourites and villains in teams. Smith could argue that when the sole play maker he stood no chance of looking better than he did, particularly with second rowers for company in the halves and headless chickens at full back. Despite that we won plenty of games and a number of them could directly be attributed to his kicking. With Sam and Williams for company he has looked much better as he can concentrate on his own game and doing what he does best.
Burke is a good example - I simply do not see what he brings to the team, but he gets far less stick than Mossop whose stats - including average yards per carry - are often very good. Not so good that if one of the fighters needs to be shown the door it shouldn't be him of course...
Tuigamala wrote:As for Bateman if all is true, this is Wigan rugby league club not Bradford working mons shitouse academy he'll be sent on his merry way and rightly so, Wigan have standards I don't give a shit how good he's been he's not irreplaceable by no means.
How anyone can say that given the leeway and second chances Hock and Flower were given by the club is beyond me. Wigan's "standards" were plain to see there.
If Bateman is sacked the only standards on show from Wigan will be double standards.
The trouble with that Dave O is that you are not comparing like with like.
In Flower's case, the assault took place on the field of play in the white heat of the opening exchanges in the Grand Final, when you would expect emotions to be running high. The fact that Flower was not sacked tells us the disciplinary panel found mitigating circumstances. I suggest the mitigation was also supported by a prompt and sincere apology, and a previously clean record.
In Bateman's case the alleged incident occurred off the field in a low key social event sanctioned by the club. And Bateman has previous form from his time at Bradford. It was well publicised at the time of his signing that he had a reputation for drunken brawling, and his association with the EDL fitted the profile. Wigan took a chance on signing him, and unfortunately it looks like the wheels may have come off. He may well be lucky and be given a second chance, but if so I wouldn't bet a bean against a repeat performance somewhere down the line.
The club has to make a judgement call on whether or not they can trust him not to offend again. This has to be done by considering this case on its merits, and not by reference to other decisions where the context was quite different.
Not just a low club event it was a Business club event.
