WiganWarriorsFans.com

Wiganer Ted wrote:Why do we need to get Joel at prop out of our heads.
It's my opinion, nothing more.
We'll find out anyway when he plays.

Absolutely your opinion which you are entitled to, however in my opinion Joel has never been a prop as long as I have a........well you know the rest!! Like you say, time will tell!!

If Wigan have bought Joel Tomkins to play as a prop I think its a poor move.
He is unproven in that position and to me if Wigan want him as a prop they see a player that has lost the best assets he had when he left to yawnion with his pace and good timing onto a pass. At 27 he shouldn't have lost his pace being at the age for peak fitness and strength so why waste that at prop forward.
Sorry I've gone off thread but to get back to it Fui Fui should be a definite NO NO.

Panchitta Marra wrote:If Wigan have bought Joel Tomkins to play as a prop I think its a poor move.

They haven't. There is only one person on the planet who thinks this might be an idea and it's Wiganer Ted

Yup, just me.
So which one of Bateman or Farrel would anyone drop to then replace with Joel?
However, it has been known for a 2nd rower to go to prop and some of those who have went on to make a great success of it.
I also think he could be used at loose when Lockers doesn't play, that IMO would be next season.
I think he could be used at prop, 2nd row and loose when required.
That's why his re-signing is good business.

Wiganer Ted wrote:Yup, just me.
So which one of Bateman or Farrel would anyone drop to then replace with Joel?
However, it has been known for a 2nd rower to go to prop and some of those who have went on to make a great success of it.
I also think he could be used at loose when Lockers doesn't play, that IMO would be next season.
I think he could be used at prop, 2nd row and loose when required.
That's why his re-signing is good business.

Joel will be the best right sided 2nd rower which means Bateman can play LF when Lockers is rested.

Seems to me Lockers is nearly finished,so retire him next year? Bateman is small for loose forward ,never mind second row. Our forwards are same size as 15 years ago,while top teams are 15% bigger at least. We were promised bigger players after WCC early this year. In top 17, give Bateman LF WITH Tomkins at 11 and Gelling at 12 and Farrell/ Hughes on the bench. BESTS

menpond wrote: Seems to me Lockers is nearly finished,so retire him next year? Bateman is small for loose forward ,never mind second row. Our forwards are same size as 15 years ago,while top teams are 15% bigger at least. We were promised bigger players after WCC early this year. In top 17, give Bateman LF WITH Tomkins at 11 and Gelling at 12 and Farrell/ Hughes on the bench. BESTS

Whats size got to with it?

Over the years, there have been a number of below average height players who have been outstanding.

The name of Prop Stevie Pitchford at Leeds and known as the pocket battleship, springs to mind!

Whelley Warrior wrote:

menpond wrote: Seems to me Lockers is nearly finished,so retire him next year? Bateman is small for loose forward ,never mind second row. Our forwards are same size as 15 years ago,while top teams are 15% bigger at least. We were promised bigger players after WCC early this year. In top 17, give Bateman LF WITH Tomkins at 11 and Gelling at 12 and Farrell/ Hughes on the bench. BESTS

Whats size got to with it?

Over the years, there have been a number of below average height players who have been outstanding.

The name of Prop Stevie Pitchford at Leeds and known as the pocket battleship, springs to mind!

WW I think it was a conclusion our coaches came to after the WCC.

I have extracted the relevant bit from Rads report.

"They had players all over the field with salaries of £400-£500k per year. This is a dramatic difference to our players, possibly as much as ten times more in some circumstances. The size of the players salaries matched the size of the players. They were massive. Do we need again to look at our recruitment policy in this area, probably. There were some positive performances from our players. Eddy was exciting and matched their big guys, Wigan fans are going to love him."



http://www.wiganwarriors.com/WBlogp.aspx?id=21

Wiganer Ted wrote:Yup, just me.
So which one of Bateman or Farrel would anyone drop to then replace with Joel?

Neither. A team with Faz,Joel, Lockers starting with Bateman on the bench looks good to me.

And as Wane himself has said he's probably over-played Bateman so it also gives him a chance to do a bit of squad rotation.

However, it has been known for a 2nd rower to go to prop and some of those who have went on to make a great success of it.

That may be Clubb. Not up to much in the 2nd row but looks OK at prop. He certainly looks more like a peop than Joel ever will IMO.

I also think he could be used at loose when Lockers doesn't play, that IMO would be next season.
I think he could be used at prop, 2nd row and loose when required.
That's why his re-signing is good business.

I don't see big problem with him at 13 if he has to play there if Lockers is out but it depends how good his ball handling skills are. And once again, no he won't be used at prop and why on earth would he be given even if Taylor leaves we have Clubb, Eddie, Crosby, Dudson and Flower before we even consider any of the younger props on the clubs books? We also have the guy signed from Wakefield who some seem to think has been signed as a prop as well.

If there is a position other than 2nd row Joel has a chance of playing in next season it is centre IMO when Wane realises neither Gelling nor Sarginson can play there against the better sides.

Second oldest player in the NRL and struggling to get into the Parramatta side. His defence at times is poor and the direct hard runs, that he was famous for, are becoming less frequent!