Alker???

[GeoffN]

lancaster077 posted:
Who would you sooner have Millard or Alker? I for one would welcome Alker and Korky and thats all from Salford.

I dont know why we want 4 hookers but im thinking Millard will be off loaded.

So we will have 3 and Alker can also play scrum half which he did when Robinson was injured and he also had a few games there for Leigh, So there will be competition for places at hooker and scrum half also whoever the opposition is we could change our tactics and more options.

He is also the leading Tackler in Super League for last season can you imagine Alker and Lockers on the same pitch Wigan would only need bloody 2 players in defence through the middle, This would keep the props fresh and we might get more game time from Feka.

If Millard goes, then yeah, fair enough, but he's still got another year to run on his contract. I wouldn't like Alker to take McIlorum's "second" spot, though.

My main concern is that there are so many other positions we need to strengthen first, before looking at hookers.

[lancaster077]

But would you agree about strength in depth and competition for places i agree other areas need adressing but starting on the front row and working back would be a start.

Alker would not command a high wages and after all he is a hard worker and tackles anything that moves.
Also he is creative and gives us options.

Add a 2 props 2 centers and possibly a full back and were there.

[Matthew]

It's a nice idae - the rumour about Millard leaving. But unless we intend to use some of our RFL salary cap credit to pay the last year of his contract; I think that it is unlikely that he will leave - I mean; who is going to sign him!?

Unless of course Nobby has been playing him to "put him in the shop window"? If so it hasn't worked!

Millard will not leave otherwise; he has a contract for another year and I imagine would happily play out his career in the under 21s

[GeoffN]

lancaster077 posted:
But would you agree about strength in depth and competition for places i agree other areas need adressing but starting on the front row and working back would be a start.

Alker would not command a high wages and after all he is a hard worker and tackles anything that moves.
Also he is creative and gives us options.

Add a 2 props 2 centers and possibly a full back and were there.

Of course we need strength in depth, but taking 3 of our 20/25 spots up with hookers doesn't seem logical to me. At present, McIlorum isn't in the 20, but he will deserve to be when his contract is up next year (when Millard leaves).

The 20 should look something like:
4 props
2 hookers
4 second rows
2 half backs
3 wingers
3 centres
1 fullback
1 "utility" back/half back

who would you sacrifice to get an extra hooker in there?

[butt monkey]

Would not surprise me, knowing Wigan's record, for them to release McLorrum! :eh:

[butt monkey]

The 20 should look something like:
4 props - Fielden, Feka, (O'Carroll) (Prescott)
2 hookers - Higham, McLorum
4 second rows - Hock, O'Loughlin, Hansen, (Tomkins)
2 half backs - Barrett, Leuluai
3 wingers - Richards, Calderwood, (Colbon)
3 centres - Goulding, Bailey, ?
1 fullback - ?
1 "utility"/half back - (Millard)

GeoffN

I have used your hypothesis for players next season, based on assumptions that there will be no major shock releases nor sales. Also that you plan to include in next years 20/25 squad, the players I have bracketed. It leaves only room for the signing of, at most two players. Not much room for manoeuvre in reality - IMO. Never mind what happens to the likes of Hill, Flanagan etc. I am also basing the assumption that the "bracketed" player's are contracted to Wigan for next year too!

This is before we sign anyone - Coley for starters!

[bertina]

GeoffN posted:

lancaster077 posted:
Who would you sooner have Millard or Alker? I for one would welcome Alker and Korky and thats all from Salford.

I dont know why we want 4 hookers but im thinking Millard will be off loaded.

So we will have 3 and Alker can also play scrum half which he did when Robinson was injured and he also had a few games there for Leigh, So there will be competition for places at hooker and scrum half also whoever the opposition is we could change our tactics and more options.

He is also the leading Tackler in Super League for last season can you imagine Alker and Lockers on the same pitch Wigan would only need bloody 2 players in defence through the middle, This would keep the props fresh and we might get more game time from Feka.

If Millard goes, then yeah, fair enough, but he's still got another year to run on his contract. I wouldn't like Alker to take McIlorum's "second" spot, though.

My main concern is that there are so many other positions we need to strengthen first, before looking at hookers.

Absolutely agree Geoff. What the hell do we need Alker for even if Millard does go ?, we have Higham and mcillorum. Wether Alker would be first, second , or third choice at Wigan is in some way irrellevant, because he would still be taking up some of the cap that could be spent on positions in which we are lacking, and as we all know there are enough of those.

[jaws1]

Alker would be agood swap for Millard wage for wage as he can cover at scrum half as he did at Salford.

[DaveO]

jaws1 posted:
Alker would be agood swap for Millard wage for wage as he can cover at scrum half as he did at Salford.

We should not sign Alker for Millard. If Millard leaves then we have two hookers in McIllorum and Higham and next seaosn it is time for McIllorum to take the second spot hooking role full time.

If Alker came he would want paying more than £25K and since Higham is contracted to us next year that means two slots in the 20/25 taken up by hookers.

He would also I expect, want longer than a one year deal.

If we gave him that then come 2009 what happens to McIllorum and Higham? Alker is 29 so by them would be coming to the end of his career. Both Higham and McIllorum are younger and come 2009 the club ought to want to give McIllorum a pay rise taking him into the top 20 earners.

So if we signed Alker till 2010 on a two year deal that is three hookers in the 20/25 which is stupid.

Of course we could get rid of Higham in 2009 but that would mean we would be doing so for a 30 year old player who already looks injury prone.

Can't see the logic of this signing at all when you take into consideration the 20/25 and who we have on the books already.

Dave[/quote]

[Matthew]

Hopefully he will stay at Salford:

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... McRae.html

sporting life
Long-serving captain Malcolm Alker, who rejected a move to Australia last year in favour of signing a new three-year contract, has told McRae he is willing to stay.