I believe he is a bit of a big time Charlie, loving himself and thinking he is above everyone, hence why Wire shipped him off to teach him some manners and humility. I rate him, but he hasn't really done too much to warrant wigans' interest in my opinion.

not sure why this topic has derailed from Gildart so much, but in the interests of keeping up with you lot.... can you imagine not only (potentially) losing Lockers but also Bateman at the seasons' end? I'm not saying Bateman is Lockers' replacement long term, but Wigan should absolutely do everything to retain Bateman in my opinion.

you are comparing Bateman and Lockers at the same age, fair enough. But Lockers wasn't much bigger than Bateman currently is when he was Batemans' (current) age. Lockers has evolved as a player in skill, strength and size under Wigan's tutelage and I cannot see any reason why Bateman won't do the same given the opportunity. he perhaps isn't worthy of a Marquee spot I agree, but if money is the issue, which I very much doubt it is considering I am hearing all sorts of reasons he will stay such as his young family etc, then wigan now have the means to retain his services - they should do so and nothing less.

i'd go as far to say that bringing in some big NRL Marquee will not replace Bateman, actually. he has the potential to be Harrison Hansen, Ryan Hoffman and Lockers all rolled up into one.

I think Williams would make a good 13 in the near future, he has the size, pace and can tackle above his weight. There you go loose problem solved

It may be that Gildart, or Hardaker now we have announced his signing or Bateman if he negotiates a replacement contract for next season (he is not in his final year of his current deal don't forget) will take up a marquee slot from next year. Until Sam has actually left though we can't nominate anyone else as taking up a marquee slot as we already have the permitted two marquee players.

Due to the rules on cap exemption it may not necessarily follow that the highest earner takes the slot. Of the three contenders Gildart would effectively cost £75k while the others would cost £150k as marquee. If Gildart was on £125k and one of the others on £150k-£199k then we save more cap wise by putting Gildart as marquee even though in that hypothetical situation he would be taking home less.

still only 21 i forget how young he was when he made his debut

He's a realistic marquee player. The marquee, at best, is used to retain current players from leaving for the NRL or Union, as larger salaries and more prestige is available in both Union and the NRL.

People, sadly, still think the marquee is a tool for us to bring in someone like who exactly? Greg Inglis? Cooper Cronk? Come on, see the playing field for what it really is.

Since the marquee became a thing, we've had Tomkins (at the time a high calibre player, but realistically only came to Wigan cos its from Wigan and a past player) and Williams. A player who we didn't wanna lose. Bateman falls into the same category as Williams, that is what the marquee is used for.

This is difficult because I rate Lockers so highly, but I also remember 2006, and I do believe Bateman, age for age is better. I don't think Lockers is a one in a generation player at all. I think it's a massive overstatement, he's 35 now, just look at the players who was also part of the same generation, let me help you out:

Sinfield
Peacock
Cam Smith
Thurston
Slater
Gallen
Lockyer
Inglis
SBW
Cronk

This is getting a bit silly now.

Exactly this.

Thanks Phuzzy.

You're right, Bateman is playing in a stronger team than what Lockers did; let's look at that point, wouldn't it be fair to say it's easier to be named captain in a weaker side? Let's look a little closer at that 2006 team; Rads making a cameo, Calderwood brought in from Leeds, Richards (his first season perhaps?) Vaealiki, Hock, etc. Lockers hardly had much competition really did he? Not compared to the calibre of today's team, which you rightly said is a 'winning team'; pretty fair assessment.

You spoke of how Lockers has always been made a captain etc, yes he was (as discussed above) only to have his captaincy stripped in 2010 and replaced with a 'leadership' team in 2010 as Madge stated the squad lacked; dare I say it... leadership.
So what other team coach are you referring to? Probably England, or are you? after all Lockers was only made captain after the retirement of Sinfield/Peacock around 2015/16 when Lockers was into his 30's, so I don't know how this strengthens his case to state he was a better player than Bateman at 24.
See; facts can be used to argue for and against the same player.

As you say Bateman is in a stronger team than Lockers was in 2006, so wouldn't you say Bateman had more competition to be name the players player for two seasons on the bounce? Surely it's harder to be considered the player who's had the best season in a stronger team.

I stand by my original statement. Hopefully you now see my case.

I'm afraid that doesn't really hold up as former SOO and Australian international, not to mention south Sydney captain, Brian Fletcher was in the side along with Danny Orr (former captain himself) and Australian international Brett Dallas. The obvious candidate was Fletcher yet a 23 year old O'Loughlin was handed the position. He also wasn't stripped of the captaincy in 2010 either. Madge introduced something that many clubs, including ourselves use to this day. Are you suggesting that O'Loughlin is somehow less of a captain today because we retain a leadership group? Leeds had the same when both Sinfield and Peacock were captains. Does that lessen their role? The fact that Lockers has been made captain at every level he has played at, from juniors to full international, says your argument has little merit.

You seem to have mistaken the fact that I said I wasn't going to argue your post as some sort of admission that you're right. I said I wasn't... not I couldn't. I said that as you'd provided a reason for your beliefs, which is what I'd asked for so I thought it only fair to accept your opinion as valid. That doesn't mean to say I think you're right or that I couldn't offer a rebuttal of all the points you made. I'd be more than happy to do it now if you like?

As to the further points you raised in this post: Are you saying that being players player of the year makes you the best player at the club? Explain Powell winning the same award. He has never been, nor ever will be the best player at the club. I tip Willie Isa to win it this year. The same will apply should he win it. That award has completely unique criteria applied to it and in no way reflects the overall quality of a player. Do you believe JB was the best player at the club the two years he won it? I certainly don't. You say it's an award for the player who's had the best season. It's not. It's more often won by the player who's had HIS best season. There's a difference.

As for the last statement : Yes I do see your case and I'm glad you explained some of the reasons you believe it. It's good to get other fan's views, especially when they don't tally with your own. It's even better to have interesting and civilized debate. Thanks for that. Do I believe you're right though? No I don't. I'll ask you a simple question. Name the things you think JB is better at than Lockers aged 24? I'll give my side to kick us off.

Passing ability : Lockers by a comfortable margin.
Kicking : Lockers by a comfortable margin
Defense : Both good. I'll say a draw.
Speed : Lockers by a fair margin.
Hit ups : Draw again.
Leadership : Lockers (although I'll concede JB probably hasn't had the same opportunities to show his credentials)
Engine : Draw again.
Versatility : Lockers. Played all the positions JB plays plus both half back positions.

In fact, I'm struggling to think of a single area where JB is better... Let alone 'Far better' as you posted.

Over to you.