This thread is bizarre.

Smith had his first decent game against a very poor team but the question remains can he play in a Wigan side often on the back foot against serious opposition? I guess we may find out next week.

The comments re Hock being poor are short sighted. About the only thing Celtic did right was gang up on Hock every time he had the ball, which ultimately created space for the rest of the team.

Sam Tomkins was man of the match for me easily. Not only was a he a threat attack wise for a small lad he knows how to tackle and did so on several occasions including one absolutely brilliant cover tackle.

I think Smith is has a clever RL brain but he can't simply rely on his passing all the time to create something. The notion he got MoM because he was the only one who didn't make any mistakes is distinctly odd.

Dave

Smith was definately MOM for me followed up by Coley.

People talk about Smith not making any breaks, but if you watch him closely you'll see the amount of defenders that he attracts to slot one of his team mates through a gap. Also he ran across the line very well, stretching and confusing the defence by giving a good inside ball or a dummy inside to hit the centre. His kicking was also very good, turning the fullback or playing it safely into touch when needs be. Ok, the opposition weren't the best but he gave some superb balls that the likes of O'Loughlin gobbled up all day.

A good, defence-break down performance by Smith allowed S. Tomkins a bit of freedom to attack the line with some elusive running. If we get the Smith/Tomkins/Leuluai/Riddell combo sorted, it could work really well.

Certainly ill at ease, but I wouldn't let that stop me picking him if I thought he deserved it. I actually thought that Smith was OK despite being uncomfortable. I just put it down to Tim being Tim, and at least he wanted to be there. I was told by the staff that he was delighted at being picked, particularly after his shaky start at the club.

This is in contrast to Harrison "one word answer" Hansen, who you must also have seen in the lounge. He looked like media training or appearing in public was something he was comfortable with, but just didn't want to do. I met him in the tunnel at half time and he never said a word unless prompted by Joyce. Nice enough lad, but I don't think public relations will ever be his forte.

Alex was right, though - Smith put several people through gaps, and enabled his players to do some running. So whilst Tomkins, for instance, looked good in his running yesterday, he was assisted in this by some smart passes by Smith.

Celtic were barely A-team standard yesterday. Tim Smith was given plenty of time to pick the gaps and make his passes. He won't get that against many other sides...and he might also have to do some defending.
Previous games have shown up his weaknesses, and I am not convinced that a game against such poor opposition could prove he has overcome them.
MoM is always a subjective choice, but I'm at a loss to see how Tim was rated better yesterday than O'Loughlin or Sam, or several others.
Wanting a player to improve doesn't make it happen, no matter how much people talk him up, and I am afraid Tim has had plenty of games now to demonstrate his value, without ever doing enough.
If he or Sam Tomkins became available for transfer, which do you think would attract the greatest interest from other clubs?

I thought Smithy was alright yesterday, certainly his best game for the club. I'd love to see him put a run of form together now. MOM was probably Sam, Tommy or Gleeson.

As others have said, Celtic weren't at the races at all yesterday and it was an easy ride for the team.

I dont get it, people are slagging Smith of for having a good game against an inferior opposition - save your bile for the ones that DIDN'T have a good game against that same inferior opposition.

At least he showed he has potential

No they are not . No one is slagging him off for how he played v Celtic but some people have a different opinion on who should have been MoM.

As threads on players tend to do it drifted into discussing the merits of the player generally.

IMO gives no pointers about Wigan's form as a team or individually the opposition were so poor which is not slagging anyone off.

Dave

I thought the opposition were so poor yesterday that it was difficult reading anything into Wigan's performance - except to say that, generally, it wasn't as convincing as it should have been.

We bombed two or three tries through our own ineptitude.

I was also unhappy to see Ainsbough missing from the line-up. I know he's been prone to making errors recently but he's still got an instinct for the line which, at times yesterday, seemed to be lacking. Several certain scores where fluffed when players went back inside or opted to take it themselves rather than using the men on their shoulder.

A win is a win, and sometimes you maybe need easy fixtures to get your heads back together, but I don't think yesterday can give us any real clues. I especially feel that with Tim Smith. Yes, he was one of the outstanding performers on the day, but you'd expect that with a player of his pedigree. There wasn't really anything 'extra' there.

I agree with the comments but I remember when Wigan thrashed Whitehaven last year and Sam Tomkins was given the MOM and everybody on this forum wanted Sam in straight away despite it being a very poor team we was playing against and Celtic were poor yesterday but not as bad as Whitehaven

Good to hear that he was pleased about being picked. Lets hope it helps him build confidence. If so and the lad can display more of his massive potential then your grand might have been a brilliant investment in the future of Wigan RL...

The main worry for me from our performance yesterday was the forwards. The backs I thought did well but we seemed to lack intensity and aggression in the pack (apart from Hock and occasional cameos from Feka). If Celtic had had a 2 or 3 powerful forwards I think the game would have been very different. As it was their pack looked weak and our backs were able to win the game comfortably.

I'd agree with that. The only thing I'd add is that I thought Coley had a good opening spell.

I hate to say it but I wasn't impressed by Prescott at all yesterday. He seemed to plod up with the ball and sometimes even adopted Coley's sideways running style. A couple of other posters seemed impressed by his performance, but he seems a long way from his pre-injury form at the end of last season.

You do start to wonder if even our 'appreciated' forwards are weaker than we think.

Most Wigan fans would probably agree that we do okay in the back row stakes. We've got Bailey, Hock, Lockers, Hansen, Tomkins and soon hopefully Mossop all jockeying for selection. But just how effective are these lads in reality?

Even when we play what we assume to be our strongest pack, we're often bested by the opposition. It can't just be down to Fielden's ongoing frailty (though that, I'll grant you, is a huge contributor, given that his wage could probably purchase two top-line prop forwards).

Hansen was Hitman of the Year last year, and gets through a shed-load of work. Lockers tackles his guts out. Tomkins has massive promise, which he'd gradually fulfilling. Hock is the loose cannon, but can also be a wrecking ball when the mood is on him. There's only Bailey who I feel is surplus to requirements.

Yet they keep being dominated by opposing packs.

Maybe we should bite the bullet and consider that even the players we like might not be good enough for where we want Wigan to be.