Quote: Last Son of Wigan "Firstly the comparison to Lockers is unfair. John is a far better player now than Lockers was at 24. John if anything is the victim of his versatility, if he was given game time as a 13 and 13 only you'd see how quickly he'd develop, instead he's the first to be shifted to the centres for cover then often to 13 when Lockers is out.
When he covered at 13 v Leeds his passing and movement was surprising, very good hands, very good lateral movement and vision linking the halves. If he was given game time in the position you'd see his passing and vision more frequently, instead he's shoved into the centres or played as a hard running SR forward.
John's not WC? his skillset is far beyond that of many NRL back rowers of a similar age, an international regular all at the age of 24.
He is one of the few WC players we have a SL.'"
Got to call you out on this. As good as Bateman is, there's no way he was "far better" than O'Loughlin at the same age. He too played in multiple positions including the halves (Something JB simply doesn't have the game for). Where it not for injuries, Lockers' career would have been the equal of any. Even now, aged 35, and at the very end of his career he's still a better player than Bateman who is coming into his prime! JB is a wonderful player and I'm a big fan but nowhere near the quality of O'Loughlin.