According to one of the world's biggest selling Rugby League magazines: rugbyleagueweek.com.au/50-worst- ... tory-10-1/

According to one of the world's biggest selling Rugby League magazines: rugbyleagueweek.com.au/50-worst- ... tory-10-1/

Im sure both Tomkins and the Warriors are disappointed in how it played out but he is no way the worst signing in an NRL history

Exactly this. Very poor

I see Lee Mossop and Joel Moon are in there as well.

With Tomkins, the key issue is the expectation and hype built up before he arrived. Doesn't mean he was a bad player out there.

Worst ever though? That's a bit far! Maybe worst of the season at a push?

I think it harsh to put him at No 1, the lad wins friends and influences people everywhere he goes

He wasn't imo but who really gives a poop ? This is just another example of Aussie arrogance as they try to put a firm message accross that our best back went over there and couldn't hack it.It wasn't a big success story but Tomkins did have his good periods, and with injury and NZ being woeful as a team at the back end when he returned this season, its hard to judge him too harshly on this second year.not great but certainly not the stinker buy it is being made out to be.

I've said a million times the NRL and the cap is about value for money. Tomkins was on top tier money and didn't consistantly perform anywhere near the level of his pay grade.

That's why he was a flop.

For the money paid he's been crap.

Coming back tail between legs so he can be a big fish again. Not as good as he thinks he is.

So if a Uncle Gary had the money you wouldn't have signed him then?

Nice avatar. Best not to upload an actual picture of yourself though.

What has that got to do with my question?
I can only assume that you think a) Leeds wouldn't want Tomkins or b) you found the question too hard therefore resorted not to answer.
By all means have the opinion that Tomkins didn't have any success in the NRL but to say he is crap is little immature

I said for the money paid he was crap. There's a difference. If Uncle gary had paid the same amount of money and got the same performances, same would apply.

Tomkins was the Warriors' marquee signing last year. On that basis he was slightly below average last year, and dreadful this. He's had injuries and played in a poor side, but for the money he was on he ought to have been dragging the Warriors round the field, as Thurston used to with a poor Cowboys team. Especially after Johnson got injured in fact. That's why he's being judged harshly - he was signed to be a superstar and he patently wasn't.

Whether he is the 'worst ever' is debatable, but in recent memory he has to be up there - the Warriors had so much expectation and were paying top top dollar 'the million dollar man' is what he was hyped as - he clearly hasn't delivered based on his price tag.
In his first season, he didn't stink the house out like he did his 2nd, but he was nothing more than average either - average in attack and poor in defence - not what you'd expect from a top dollar signing. A young kid could have come in and reasonably be expected to replicated Tomkins first season.

So whilst he may not necessarily be 'the worst ever', in terms of value for money, or return on investment, he's certainly gonna rank right near the top for worst.