I thought it was a very straight down the middle sort of side for Grimmy that one(he's normally very creative with his team selections) but i've got to agree with that question.

There is simply no reason why you'd play Burgess at 13 and Lockers at 12 and not the other way round.

No Dave, I don't believe you have other than to say "that's what I think". Where is the evidence that taking the captaincy off him (which, in itself, I would contest anyway) makes him play better? It's not enough to say "taking the captaincy off people often results in them playing better" because the reverse is also true. I was looking for direct evidence from you regarding O'Loughlin to counter the fact that he has played well whether captain or not and, even if you think he is playing better this year (again disputable), has played equally well this season whether captain or not too.

Now, I'm not arguing that he does or doesn't find the captaincy a burden, or even that he feels less or more pressure when captain. What I a saying is the evidence so far suggests it has no bearing on his own game whatsoever. I still await your evidence to the contrary.

I must admit I originally had it the other way round, then I had a rethink, here's what I was thinking:

- I'm not a fan of the creative loose at interational level, I think it definitely works in SL but when we do it at the next level we seem to get battered about a bit, mind you I might just not be a fan of Sinfield at loose.
- Burgess had a cracker at loose v Aus at Wigan, even though the team didn't.
- I'd generally want Burgess to get more ball, and freedom with it, because I think he's the more dangerous ball in hand attacker of the two, particularly as he'll have a year in the NRL under his belt.
- Ellis and O'Loughlin as a back row pairing will be bloody tough to get past.

How many more times does the point have to be made that asking for evidence the captaincy being taken off him may be responsible for any improvement is a false argument? Life isn't black and white and neither is sport. It COULD be a factor because its ONE of the things that has changed and so for anyone to say this is can not be a factor because I can't provide any evidence is just not a sensible stance to take.



Of course the reverse is also true and so what is your point? That you accept captaincy can affect a players form? If so then there you go, that is the basis or my argument.

Do you have any evidence giving a player the captaincy can result in them playing better BTW? Or is it just a commonly held opinion?

Finally I get it! You only want to provide evidence when it suits your argument! I'll remember that when you next try to prove your point of view on here! So, just to get this straight, you want your viewpoint to remain unchallenged when you can't provide any evidence to back it up?

No not [ianything[/i. [iAnything that has changed[/i. Apart from stupid things like hair style of course ( I can't believe you actually wrote that
No you don't get it. There is no "evidence" to back up your position or mine as regards a players form. There never is any evidence on such subjective matters as to why a player suffers a loss or gain in form, only speculation. You can smile all you like but that is the truth of the matter.

Dave

Dave, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, the comparison to last season is not relevant as there are too many variables (and that's leaving aside the fact that your assertion that he is playing better is purely subjective in the first instance. I could just as easily argue that he was, in real terms, better last season as he performed well in a hugely underperforming team. However that is an altogether different argument so we'll put that to one side.) The only valid comparison you can make, if you are claiming he performs better without the captaincy, as you were in your original post, is between his performances this season with and without the captaincy. You try to make the point that if there are 2 variables then either can be a cause. For someone claiming to know about cause and effect you are so far off the mark as to be embarrassing! If you are able to narrow the variables to exclude one then that cannot be the cause. We are able to compare performances this season with and without the captaincy, and, assuming you agree there is no difference (which I will as you haven't attempted to argue to the contrary) we can theoretically rule that out as a possible cause! I actually wouldn't go that far personally as I believe everything can have an effect, no matter how small. I find it interesting that you feel the removal of the captaincy, in the case of O'Loughlin, can have a major effect on his form but moving half way across the world, being without your family, coming across with an injury and effectively having no pre-season etc, as in the case of Roberts, should have no effect. You do like to argue to convenience, don't you Dave! In fact, it might be illuminating, in the light of what you're attempting to argue here, to pull up the Roberts thread, don't you think?

By the way, I am not arguing that the 'leadership group' is not a positive move that can perhaps be seen in the teams performances or, indeed, the performances of individuals both among and outside that group. However to claim, as you did in your original post, that losing the captaincy is one of the two most important reasons for him performing 'better' this season when things like better fitness, better team performances, higher workload from the rest of the team (particularly the pack), improved tactics/gameplan, or, most importantly the fact that he's playing in a winning team don't, in your private scheme of things, warrant a mention is ridiculous; as is your assertion that losing the captaincy is one of only 2 things that has changed!

As an aside, Dave, I mentioned the kit, hairstyle and age to illustrate that any number of things have changed that weren't neccessarily major reasons for, or even directly related to, his playing form and that just because they COULD be a reason, without a direct link it was overstating the case to claim it WAS a reason. I was, of course, being facetious. I apologise. I didn't realise you'd had a humour bypass!

First of all it is only your opinion that the comparison is not relevant and that is in my opinion a ridiculous stance to take because players performances are compared season on season all the time. Of course there are variables one season to the next and I am am saying ONE of them, the change in the captaincy situation is a possible reason for his improved form.

I am sure the rest of your post will now assume your opinion the comparison is invalid is an incontrovertible fact and argue from there...



No that is your opinion once again that is the only valid comparison. The fact he is not captain every game and is part of a team will mean IMO the pressure is off even when he [iis[/i captain. He is part of a team not the one sole captain and that is true when he is captain for the day. It's a big change in the way things work.

What you also forget is all things being equal he will play more games not as captain given there are five of them so statistically you can't point to the odd game where he is captain and plays well as definitive proof it doesn't affect him one way or the other. He'd have to play another full season as captain for your point to have any statistical validity.



Which you can't do despite your best attempt to do so immediately above.



As explained above - no we can't. Not only are you not so hot on science your grasp of statistics leaves a lot to be desired as well
With hindsight it was actually very useful because what you illustrated is that we must always remember while many things change not everything that changes is relevant. We must use our common sense and experience of the field we are discussing to dismiss things as being highly unlikely to be reasons for what we see.

To conclude I would like a an answer to a very simple question.

Is it possible for a players form to be affected by the being captain or not? Yes or No?

Dave

Problem is Dave you make statements like this
"The reason I argued against the Roberts situation was because his family arrived well before the end of the season and his form didn't change"
As though it is fact, it isn't, it's your opinion.

IMO his form did improve significantly from around April/May onwards and even before then wasn't as bad as some people make out, IMO of course

Now as far as I can see in this thread, you state that having the captaincy taken off Lockers is one of the main reasons for his improved performances? Yes or No?

What a lot of people think, me included, is that you are making statements that his game has improved (Which it may or may not & imo he's as good now as he ever was, it's just that the others around have improved allowing him to do more in different areas) without accepting that others think it's always been this good, but I think you are doing it with a "I told you so" attitude and linking it to the Captaincy issue to try & prove it.

End of the day

You think he's improved along with others, some others don't, they think he's being allowed to play in a slightly different way which to the eye may look better.

You think it's because the captaincy's been taken off him, others think that has nothing to do with it because nothings changed in his performances he's always been that good.

Your making statements like "To conclude I would like a an answer to a very simple question.
Is it possible for a players form to be affected by the being captain or not? Yes or No?"

When everyone knows that it's possible, but also knowing very well that doesn't mean that it is true in O'Loughlins case because have both you & Phuzzy et al are almost in agreement with but are to stubborn to admit, is that Neither of you can Prove it either way.

As I said earlier in the thread, 3 years ago he was the best 13 in the league and one of the top 5 or 6 forwards in the country and international class, currently he is the best 13 in the league and IMO one of the best forwards in the League & World.

Not much has changed for me except maybe the team around him (Due to coaching improvements, better players coming in over that 3 year period etc, and yes the extra help by the leadership team) mean he is being allowed to play & show more parts to his game.
It doesn't mean he didn't have them in the 1st place, he just had to do more work because we weren't as good of a team?

God forbid if he'd have been at Saints he'd have probably had 3 or 4 SL titles & 3 or 4 more CC's by now and the whole league would have been telling us how good he is, just because he hasn't won anything doesn't change him as a player.

I'm off out now Dave so I'll answer in full at another time. However, to answer you question above, yes of course it is. Equally it is possible that it has no effect whatsoever! Let me ask you several in return.

Which is the most important (in your opinion of course! ) between these sets of variables with regards to playing form:

1) New Coach
2) Captaincy

1) Fitness
2) Captaincy

1) Nutrition
2) Captaincy

1) Form/quality of team mates
2) Captaincy

1) Tactics/gameplan
2) Captaincy

I could go on of course, but I'll leave it there for now. Just answer 1 or 2 for each pair.

Billy Blan

Regarding good or even great loose forwards, I discussed this issue with my Dad this night and who has been a Wigan fan actively since around 1928. He reckons possibly the best ever Wigan loose forward he has seen was Billy Blan.

But he reckoned there was another who played in the 1930's for a Cumbrian team, whose name he remembered, but I forget, who was even better than Blan generally.

For myself, we have lost the skills for loose forwards, as we have for hookers.

The last of the good loose forwards, and I mean 'ball playing' loose forwards was Harry Pinner of St.Helens.

I understand this may be rubbish to many, but to the few, it will be 'pearls of wisdom', I hope.


O'Loughlin while a good player, has to 'step up a bit' to be regarded with blokes like the above, as a ball playing loose forward.

]


I think it needs to be taken in context though MF. Ball playing LFs were very much the norm in those days and hookers/fullacks not the creative force they are today. The positions are no longer comparable to that era and the term needs to be relative to other LFs in the :3ogdqt2o]current:3ogdqt2o] era. "


I think it needs to be taken in context though MF. Ball playing LFs were very much the norm in those days and hookers/fullacks not the creative force they are today. The positions are no longer comparable to that era and the term needs to be relative to other LFs in the current era.

dont talk rubbish. o'loughlin probably has more skill in his little finger than these players ever did!

Carry on.