I thought he had a much better four nations then Morley tbh who did worry me a little about what he's got left to offer at that level.

Either way both are no more then a season or 2 away from international retirement and we need to look at the options to replace them.

That would be some pack!
The second row would be unstoppable, especially if they both have big years in the NRL
If only we had a backline with some strike power

It's unbelievable how few backs we're producing with size, pace and power.

IMO we have to go back to guys like Gleeson and Leon Pryce for the four nations and i'd like to see us have a look at somebody like Leroy Cudjoe who is progressing very nicely at Huddersfield.

I'd probably give Leon Pryce a crack at fullback in the French game.

I'd have him at left back...

Especially after his I can't be d attitude last time round.

I think we could change it too make us slightly better in the backs than we are now

Sam and Eastmond are exciting in the halves and will only get better

But there is nothing we can do about the backs, we're gona be behind the aussies for a good few years yet no matter what we do

Lets just hope the new coach can think of a wonderful game plan where are forwards dominate

You have always been vocal (if you can be vocal on a forum! ) in your praise of SOL. I sometimes wonder, though, why the supporter(s) of a rival team can see what some of our own have steadfastly been blind to. I can think of few, if any, examples of this regarding players from other clubs.

I can't prove the taking the captaincy away from him has made him play better but you can't prove it hasn't. The fact the captaincy has been removed as his sole job is [ione[/i of the things that has changed so it is an undeniable possibility that it [icould[/i be a reason why his game has improved. We will just have to agree to disagree if it is a reason or not.



Then why is it right to speculate if anything affects a players game? We have had speculation Fielden's personal problems have held him back, that the late arrival of Roberts family held him back and many other reasons why other players have played as they have. Some fans on here will [iinsist[/i these are valid reasons to back up their point of view but they still get mentioned without the bat of an eye and they can't prove them either. They are just opinions. I think suggesting a game related change such as a change of captain is a far less controversial reason to put forward than a players off field personal life. Some players thrive on the responsibility of captaincy some don't. I just happen to think Lockers falls in to the second category.

As to how he feels about such discussions we'd better shut this board down now if offending players over an issue like this is so controversial because far worse has been said about many players past and present. If Fielden read all the posts over the past three years about why his form has been as it has would he be chuffed? And it's not just been the suggestion his personal life was the root of his problems either with some simply saying he was past it ever since getting floored in the test match. I think this speculation is far far more insulting than suggesting a player is better off not being captain.

So I think you are making a bit of mountain out of a molehill here in suggesting my opinion is some great slight on Lockers or he will be mortally wounded by such comments. Players have got be thicker skinned than that and I am sure they all are.



I don't think they need it from me. I have always though he was a very good player, not a captain obviously and I always thought it was a PR stunt from Millward giving him the job in the first place and I said so at the time because coming back from a long term injury that was the last thing a young player needed IMO.



There's nothing to moan about at the moment is there? All the pent up whining had to find an outlet somewhere

Dave

I don't understand this. If you can't prove that Lockers playing better (is he? he was great last season too) is down to his being stripped of the captaincy then why suggest it? It certainly looks as if you have an anti-Lockers agenda.



What you are saying is that Lockers can't play as effectively when he is captain. That is an attack on a player who has taken a ridiculous amount of stick from Wigan fans over the years - so much so that there is even a post from [ia Saints fan[/i on this thread pointing that out! The difference between Lockers and a lot of other players is that he doesn't deserve any stick and yet has had vast amounts of not just criticism but abuse from his own fans. I'm not suggesting that what you are saying is abusive; what I am puzzled by is why even now the guy is taking criticism from Wigan fans. Surely we should simply be talking about what a fantastic player he is.



I doubt Lockers is crying into his energy drink over your posts Dave! Or even those of less intelligent and abusive Wigan fans. You said that you didn't think your comment about the captaincy was a slight on Lockers, all I was saying was that if I were him I wouldn't be happy about that comment.



Perhaps I am making a mountain out of a molehill but I'm fed up with people still finding fault with Lockers. He may not care about this at all; that isn't the point for me. What I can't understand is why Wigan fans have it in for the guy to such an extent that even Saints fans are bemused by it.

Surely there are bigger issues to talk about and in that sense those finding fault with a great player are the ones making mountains out of molehills. The reasons why people do that with Lockers are beyond me. As a Wigan fan I would want to support and be seen to be supporting a great player, a local lad who gives his all for the club rather than be part of a constant stream of criticism of him. Its simple really!

Could you explain the above 2 posts Dave? Here are my thoughts on them.

Firstly you suggest that it can't be proven that taking the captaincy off him isn't a reason for him playing 'better'. Leaving aside that the implication that he is playing 'better' is so sujective as to not need proving 'for or against' in the first instance, the only availale evidence (i.e. that he plays equally well whether captain or not) is the only proof, such that it is, that we have availale to us. To simply dismiss this and say "I think the opposite and I am entitled to my opinion' is beneath someone of your intelligence. Instead of asking those who disagree with your purely sujective opinion to prove a negative why don't you provide some actual evidence to support your claim. Michael Maguire is once again extremely complimentary of O'Loughlin in this weeks Oserver and calls him 'outstanding'. He also goes on to say his attitude to everything he does is exemplary. Given that Maguire, not only named him as the first memer of the leadership group, but also offered him the chance to be sole captain should he wish it and, given his performance based view on players, one would have to conclude that MM doesn't think that the captaincy would/does have an adverse effect on SOL. Given that the same (as the old argument goes) can be said for every coach O'Loughlin has played under has felt the same, surely you must agree that the vast weight of evidence does not support your claim.

As for the second statement; based on what? I would appreciate something more than 'because I think so' too. You're asking others to take the burden of proof for something which you can offer nothing in return in terms of actual evidence.

Are you seriously suggesting in the world of sport it has never been said taking on the captaincy or having it removed affects players? Because that is how the above reads to me.

And as it is one of the things that has changed, that makes it quite logical to suggest it may be a factor. That is simple common sense never mind logic.

So what I don't understand is why you don't understand the above and how you can construe any anti-lockers agenda from it.



You seem to want to insist the suggestion his game has improved since he lost the captaincy is some great slight on Lockers and I just don't get it. And has to him not deserving stick I simply do not understand on how commenting on his improved game as I see it is giving him stick in the first place!



I haven't "got it in for him", Lockers form is just a talking point like anything else. It seems suggesting a possible reason for what I see as his improved form provokes strange reactions. If I had said Maguire's training regime was what was responsible for this would you be telling me I was implying Lockers was a poor trainer in previous seasons?

Dave

I believe I have addressed them in the first part my previous post.

Dave

I agree re Peacock, he gives alot of "up and at 'em" attitude, but he doesnt really get very far with it, plus he has to be one of the most negative people in the game, hardly an inspiration to have as a captain.

He will still be in though, because he is one of the darlings of the RL media / RFL.

A bit like the emperor's new clothes, this.

For years, people have been quoting Peacock as if he's the benchmark for prop forwards. So much so that I've begun to wonder if I'm actually missing something.

I agree that he can be a rough customer, but I've certainly got some sympathy with the above viewpoint.

Let's leave aside the point that there is no evidence that Lockers is playing better than last season (when he was playing very well indeed in a side that was performing to a lower standard than it is at present).

You are saying that you are complimenting Lockers - what you are doing is complimenting him but at the same time you are also making an adverse comment. You are claiming he is playing better, which is a compliment but then saying its because he is no longer captain, the implication being he can't cope well with the role. If you were simply saying that Lockers was playing better this season than last and its down to MM and SW working with him to improve on his already high standards that would be entirely complimentary. To say that he's playing better and its partly down to him no longer being captain is partly complimentary and partly an adverse comment on Lockers. There is also the implication that when he is captain this season he won't play as well as he would otherwise, which is not complimentary either! I'm sorry you can't see this.

For England I'm thinking something like:

1. S.Briscoe
2. Hall
3. Gleeson
4. Bridge
5. Pryce
6. S.Tomkins
7. Eastmond
8. Graham
9. Sinfield
10. Peacock
11. O'Loughlin
12. Ellis
13. S.Burgess

14. Morley
15. Myler
16. Crabtree
17. J.Tomkins

4 Wigan players in there though so probably a bit biased, I'm sure a neutral would probably swap J.Tomkins for Westwood or Harrison and Gleeson for Shenton/Atkins. I wanted to include Lunt but couldn't really find a player to take out for him.