I think part of the problem is a player having his head turned by a glamorous (NRL against SL) suitor. When a player is being approached it's bound to get them thinking. IF Hock goes it's more likely IL's cashing in on a player who doesn't want to stay and that makes sense (distasteful as it is for fans).

And yes, contracts mean jack when it's a buyers market.

Makes you wonder if IL had an inkling he would leave, and got the lengthy contract as a way of raising funds... shrewd if so...

I am not sure what scape goats has got to do with the issue of whether or not replacing the quality we have lost form the side is as easy and as matter of fact as you seem to think. I do not wish to be insulting or offensive but if you really think its as simple as you imply I think you are a bit deluded. I can't rememberer the last time we let so many experienced players go at once and replaced them with so many inexperienced or lesser players (and that applies whether Hock has gone or not). Yes in 10 years time it will all be history but its about what happens in the meantime as well - success or mediocrity.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Has he got the lottery numbers for next week to hand while he is at it?

Sad to see him go if he leaves, we'll miss his impact, but we have plenty depth in the squad in terms a second rowers. At the end of the day, he's 29, he's hit his peak and for every good thing he does in attack, he generally does something equally stupid and he's one of our poorest defenders in terms of both effort and technique. They may not be as flashy, but I'd be content that a Hansen, Farrell and Lockers back three with Tuson, Hughes and Lloyd waiting in the wings will fill the gap adequately. Hughes and Lloyd in particular have massive potential improvements to come. As good as Hock is, the big trophies won in 2010 and 2011 were without him, so he is far from irreplaceable.

I'm far more concerned about the unproven halves, the depth in the centres and how reliant we'll be on Sam / how he'll be replaced in the long term.

The year we lost Lam, O'Connor, Smith along with others springs to mind, and the repercussions were devastating to our team for several seasons that followed.

In which case as Hansen has reportedly been approached by Dean Bell why doesn't IL offer Hansen to the NZ Warriors now and get a fee rather than wait until his contract has expired next year and Wigan get nothing?

What about Mossop? He's on along term deal and rumours about him gong to the NRL have been knocking about. IL ought be able to raise a tidy sum for him as well.

Anyone else of interest to the NRL who we had better get shut of while we can make some money?



Try telling Bradford that.

rlhttps://web.orange.co.uk/article/sports/parramatta_confirm_hock_talksrl

we dont have a joel tomkins or a ryan hoffman now though. and they were quality too.

Agreed - but there's no way in current circumstances that the likes of Hoffman will grace SL again, whereas I'd argue that Hughes and Lloyd are at least as good as J Tomkins at a comparable stage of their development.

As much as your first point is correct it matters little in the comparison stakes because we did have Hoffman and now we don't! We did have Joel Tomkins and now we don't and we do have Gaz Hock but won't for long and no replacement of anywhere near the same quality will be available now. A few months back Willie Manu and Gareth Ellis where available but now they're not and we'll have to go with what we've got.

As for your second point it's again correct but matter even less because Joel was 23-24 with 4 or 5 seasons rugby at the back of him when he replaced Hock in 2010. Those 2 you mention are good youngsters but they're no Hock, no Hoffman and no Joel Tomkins of 2010 yet and won't be for a good few seasons.

We need quality players in the team now not in 5 years.

It was, about two weeks ago.

'"

The message this sends to Lloyd etc and the other more established youngsters is that they are at Wigan to develop and then sign for an NRL club once there development is deemed suitable for the NRL.

Would be interesting to see if any of the posters up in arms are the same posters who objected to him being offered a new contract after his ban for drugs was served.

Has anyone thought this could be Gaz way or his Agents at getting Gaz an improved deal. He was brought back on a modest contract that was to increase slightly each year over the 5 years. He had a good year and clearly should be one of our topp 5 earners.

At 29 this has all the classic signs of getting an improved contract