I agree credit for giving is a go.
I would have thought his "Missus" would have no trouble finding a job in Auckland.


His particular deal needs to be put into focus and perspective though.
He was not an up coming Winger or Second Rower that backed himself to have a go in the NRL, he was the premier player in Super League by some margin that had an NRL Club pay an unprecedented transfer fee (the NRL is not used to the transfer fee system other than a few like Burgess and Tomkins)
To play one reasonable season then call homesick followed by an injury plagued final season is not a great outcome.
Tomkins has often been spoken about as a young man with potential that would burst onto the International scene and tear it up as he matures, this has been the case for several years.
He is now 26 years old.
There is another Fullback that is World class that some think may be slipping a little and maybe past his best, he is 28 years old and has 34 Tests, 27 Tries mainly as a Centre

Sam Tomkins 18 Tests, 6 Tries. (4 Wales, 1 NZ 1 Samoa)

Its easy scoring tries against the bottom half of the SL Comp I would think, plenty of games are routs where the minnows have given up by half time.
It would be like Souths or the Roosters playing the Redcliffe Dolphins or the Windsor Wolves in Australia.

Never said he's not mate, I remember when Sam announced he was coming home and there was uncertainty where he would end up, there was a rumour about him going Leeds and Hardaker to Wigan. Wouldn't have complained at all if that had happened, but he's not on Sam's level at all.

Hardaker - Appearances (141) Tries (86) and that's including his time at Featherstone playing in a lower league.

Tomkins - Appearences (151) Tries (144) that's just including his time at Wigan. It's not even close. Why is this even up for debate?

Also Tomkins' defence is underrated a lot on here, you would think he's never made a tackle in his life the way some are talking.

If it's so easy why doesn't every player do it? And would you like to show anyone who's done much better on the international scene for England or GB against the Aussies over the past 20 years? And also, how many of Inglis's tries for the national team have come against England or NZ?

Any club would love to have him, even if it was to play elsewhere in the team, but don't act like people are crazy if they think Hardaker's a better full back.

Not in attack, but no one is claiming he is. But in defence Tomkins isn't on Hardaker's level at all either.



Again, their's two sides to playing FB, attack and defence. In attack, and I don't mean this in a way to belittle his tries scored/assisted but the Wigan system was set up to have him the main focal point. At Leeds Hardaker isn't in the same role. If Hardaker had signed for Wigan in 2014 as Tomkins replacement then he'd have scored/assisted more tries in the last 18 months than he has at Leeds imo (that's not saying he'd have got more than Tomkins btw). Leeds particularly in the 2013/14 seasons really underachieved in terms of getting their backs good ball and good chances. In the last two years quite a few wingers have scored a lot more tries than Ryan Hall yet when it comes to the Internationals how many could HONESTLY say they wouldn't pick Hall to start on the wing? Again as a Leeds fan I'm pretty certain Hall would've scored more playing wing these last two years at Wigan than he would've done at Leeds.

Again it's not to say Hardaker would match Tomkins numbers, because even as a Leeds fan I don think he would. But you do have to take into account how well/different their clubs have used them in attack before just rolling out 'tries scored' as a definate indicator between the two.

I will act like that, because there's no foundation to that claim whatsoever.

Hardaker is hugely superior in defence, Tomkins is better in attack.

Not much in it, Hardaker is a class act for sure.

Are you Eddie Hemmings? Bet you hate low scoring games don't you, boring aren't they?

I wouldn't really disagree with any of that mate, although I will say that the reason Wigan's system was tailored around Sam was because he is such a special talent that you simply do what it takes to get the best out of him. Both class players though no doubt.

Agree about Hall as well, he would have thrived in our system where we are very effective at getting the ball to the edges and getting our backs involved.

No and no

You can always rely on a Saints fan being unbiased towards a Wigan player. Particularly one that routinely made a mockery of their defence.

You think Sam is a better defender than ZH then I assume?

I am yet too see anyone put forward a coherent argument against the stats i posted a couple of pages back. I know we like to say Sam cant defend and Zak is much better and Sam makes more errors, but the stats just do not back this up whatsoever.

considering how much more involved everyone admits Sam is, the fact he makes LESS errors than Zak speaks volumes. his tackle miss rate is also lower than Zak's.

I am by no means saying Zak is not a good defender, or good under the high ball, but it is completely incorrect to suggest he is far superior to Sam based on those stats. Sam comes out ON TOP of the defensive stats.

Need i remind everyone that before Sam became the successful player he is almost everyone to a man was giving him top praise for his defensive work (tackling and work rate) whilst defending in the halves. I know it is different than at FB, but he certainly impressed in the line. I honestly think that this is one of the most over hyped myth's going around sport. I am not saying Tomkins is the best defensive FB around, but he is NEVER as poor as people try to make him look.

To be honest I can see with my own eyes who is stronger defensively and under the high ball, I don't need to refer to stats.

Couldn't think of a weaker answer to the points raised than that! Unfortunately humans suffer from confirmation bias. When we see something that supports our argument we over emphasise its importance, when we see a negative to our argument we forget it. therefore the worst way of you being able to form an opinion on a player that you are told is weak defensively is to 'see with your own eyes'.

Problem is, most don't understand this.

The stats speak for themselves, that is for sure. most will ignore them, as this thread shows, because it does not support their argument. instead choosing to focus on things that do.