You seriously think Tomkins, Bateman and, most notably, O'Loughlin are just 'workhorse forwards'?

They don't need to be the creme de la creme, they just need to have a knack of making good runs when down that end. Walters showed a knack for doing it in his appearances yet he's hardly Sam Burgess or Ben Westwood.

While I think there all very good players the three you have mentioned combined scored a grand total of 12 tries between them. I would not put them in a category of really threatening try scoring forwards although I do view O'Loughlin as another pivot if needed (very good one). And to be fair to Tomkins he was injured then getting used to league again. So I have no problem saying that they are more than just workhorses. I wouldn't view them as really threatening near an opposition try line. Wigans back line did score a lot of tries last season. They may be different this season.

Also take your point printer but I would view that as a difficult skill to see the right moment when to sort of tag along a half break or it could be enthuisasm.

Whilst on the face of it the '12 tries between them' (it was actually 14) stat seems to support your view to some extent, in reality it doesn't paint an accurate picture.

O'Loughlin scored 8 tries in 22 games for Wigan which makes him one of the top try scoring forwards in 2014. Given that he's more a try creator than a try scorer, this is especially impressive. Compare this to other' ball playing pivots' though, such as Blake Green (7 tries in 20 matches), Kevin Sinfield (5 tries in 27 matches) or Luke Walsh (5 tries in 17 matches) and it starts to look even more impressive! I'm sure you wouldn't suggest that Green, Walsh or Sinfield don't pose a threat near the line just because they don't necessarily go over themselves all that often. O'Loughlin's return is significantly superior to any of these yet he carries a similar creative threat to all of them.

Joel Tomkins scored 2 tries in just 6 games (1 as sub) after coming back from Union. That's despite no pre season, 3 years out of the game and returning from a serious injury! He played the entire season before leaving league, plus his entire time in the other code, at centre. Not something you can do without carrying a threat. in 2010 he scored 17 tries and in 2011 was again in double figures scoring arguably one of the best tries ever seen at Wembley! Again, I'm not sure what you define as 'not carrying a threat' but whatever your definition, I doubt very much that he qualifies.

Even if we leave Bateman out of the argument (although he did score a try every other game in his last season at Bradford) that still leaves at least 3 forwards at Wigan that can't convincingly be labelled as 'not carrying a threat near the opposition line' which, I think you'll agree, doesn't really tally with the argument you were putting across originally.

It's not even about scoring tries to an extent even though I criticised the lack of tries for Leeds forwards......it's about making the runs that draw defenders in that lead to the overlaps and easy tries for the centre/wingers to complete. Charnley, so many of his tries are so simple and easy (that's not a knock on the guy btw Wigan fans, I think he's a great winger, he just gets a lot more set up for him on a plate compared to other teams.)

Agree with that Printer. One interesting stat from the NRL was that more tries were scored on the play after George Burgess had a run than any other player. That's because if not properly defended he'd score himself, so the mere fact of him getting the ball near the line draws in defenders. Dummy runs are even more important, and I'm not sure if the stats on them are copllected?

The stats are very relevant the fact they don't suit your argument is another matter. If they did produce those stats you would still stubbornly argue against them if they didn't give you the outcome you wanted. Given the clubs are the ones requesting the stats it would suggest that those you are suggesting are so spurious so not worthy of the time in collecting them.

On the half back thing - Gotcha has given examples why he thinks he has the skill set to make a half back in the Leeds side - so unless you don't think Leeds will be an elite side then my point is valid. The second reason why I don't think it will work is history suggests it is not really viable - I cannot think of a quality full back that has gone to make it as a half back in the modern game. As I repeatedly said I have seen nothing to suggest he would make a half back in a top SL side.

Finally I personally think the gushing praise on Hardaker on here is overstated - he is good but he is no Billy Slater. He could not get the England side for a start which has to tell you something. I think there are 3/4 FBs on a par with him - all have different skills and qualities - the stats support that too - and none are dominant across the whole skill set. That has been my view all the way through.

So unless this board has changed and we must all tow the line then surely posters are entitled to contribute to the argument - the fact it may offend your sensibilities shouldn't really be a consideration.

An interesting stat, true. But the bare fact of the matter is that somebody, whether GB or someone else, [ihad[/i to be the top performer in that category. It's an easy matter then for a poster, journo or whoever to then weave a convincing story as to why that might be. I've no idea whether the theory's right or wrong, have merely flagged this up as an example of stats not necessarily illustrating the point being made while appearing to do so.

There have been players capable of playing both positions though - Holmes and Harris, to name but two. But I think you're right re Hardaker. Furthermore, while he might not possess every ounce of ability for every aspect of the FB's role, he is sufficiently good at it not to want to move him from there.

No, out of English FBs, the principal candidate for a trial in the halves must surely be Tomkins - although, even then, I'm far from sure he'd be an unqualified success there.

Tomkins started out in the halves, even played against the Aussies there in the 2009 4N final but from what I recall he was dropped back to FB largely to get him out of the defensive line as his defence was suspect.....something that's still a problem now at FB.

As well as Harris, Robbie Paul made his name originally at FB for Bradford and Leon Pryce like Hardaker played several years in the backs playing FB, Wing and centre.

Lockyer would be the obvious outstanding convert to HB from FB.

True. What I should have put was that it might now be time to try him there again. Presumably his game will be a lot stronger all round than it was back then.

Tomkins is primarily a runner. Yes he can pass a bit, and kick a bit, but he's not really a halfback. Him being at fullback makes the most of his abilities and decreases the impact of his deficiencies

I think Michael Maguire would agree with you. He was moved to make the most of his running abilities not really to hide from defensive frailties, which have been over stated in my view. His defence is pretty good. He is certainly very brave, but because of his size can get mown down by a much bigger guy.

I think that it's a nailed on certainty that he will return to the halves in a few years (hopefully with Wigan). His passing is the equal of anyone's, he has the quickest hands in the England team and his kicking has improved no end too.

I agree with that. It also depends what you want from your halves and fullback and who you have in those positions. For instance if I had Chase as 1 halfback I wouldn't necessarily want Tomkins as the other, I'd want more of an organiser and a kicker alongside him. But if you've got, as we have now, Smith or Widdop as half back then I'd be happy with more of a runner alongside him.