Re: Tommy Makinson : Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:42 pm  

St pete wrote:

I like Tommy but you'd have to be crazy to take him over Charnley.

Funny that. In 2011 you thought I was crazy for spotting Makinson as a good winger and now look, here you are, saying Makinson is a good winger. Do you think I care what you think? No, I don't.

I'd take Makinson over Charnley yes. Makinson's defence is better than Charnley's, he is more acrobatic than Charnley (and therefore can score tries of a kind that I've never seen Charnley score), he has as much pace as Charnley, he reads the game better than Charnley and given half the chance - ie a proper scrum half who distributes the ball where the best opportunities lie rather than the only way he can - he will score more tries than Charnley too, especially now that Charnley doesn't have Sam Tomkins to take the ball his way on almost every play.

Re: Tommy Makinson : Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:24 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Funny that. In 2011 you thought I was crazy for spotting Makinson as a good winger and now look, here you are, saying Makinson is a good winger. Do you think I care what you think? No, I don't.

I'd take Makinson over Charnley yes. Makinson's defence is better than Charnley's, he is more acrobatic than Charnley (and therefore can score tries of a kind that I've never seen Charnley score), he has as much pace as Charnley, he reads the game better than Charnley and given half the chance - ie a proper scrum half who distributes the ball where the best opportunities lie rather than the only way he can - he will score more tries than Charnley too, especially now that Charnley doesn't have Sam Tomkins to take the ball his way on almost every play.

Charnley has a bigger willy.

Re: Tommy Makinson : Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:37 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Charnley has a bigger willy.

unless Tommy is really, really unfortunate, i doubt that based on twitter pics

Re: Tommy Makinson : Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:54 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Charnley has a bigger willy.

I think you've probably just sent SaintsFan over the edge. She has already been fawning over Makinson like a sexually frustrated housewife without you bringing his genitals into it!!

Re: Tommy Makinson : Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:34 am  

I think this is an example of players not all maturing at the same age.

So Charnley hits form early in his career. Naturally he is now a top winger. But not all players are going to get an international call up on their first outing.

There is also a lot to be said for players being good. That means not all players will be in the England squad but they still hold value.

How many games for GB did Sullivan get? How many did Tommy and Jonyt?

The international scene is a good indicator, but I do get tired of the need to compare everyone to the best after each and every game. It's like trying to look for a cloud in every silver lining.

I'd be more than happy with Tommy in this kind of form for the next few years. I think only Hall has nailed down the wing spot at international level. Charnley certainly has the figures on the board in terms of past form, hence why he's in my fantasy team. But it does not mean Tommy is easily replaceable.

You would have to fork out a decent wedge of cash to bring in a better winger than Makinson and Swift.

Re: Tommy Makinson : Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:45 am  

I personally think Charnley is over rated and wouldn't have scored nearly as many tries if he wasn't on the end of 'that' move that Wigan execute so brilliantly. Don't get me wrong he's still a very good winger but I think both Hall and Briscoe are better. If I was to group wingers in that comp I'd have it something like this:

Hall
-------------
Briscoe
Monaghan
-------------
Charnely
Broughton
Carney
Burgess
-------------
Makinson
McGilvary
Riley
Swift

I've obviously missed a lot out there but just took a few in each to make my point. Yes I know Burgess has only played a handful of games but I think he's got what it takes to be an international winger in 1 or 2 years. He'll soon be on the level of Hall if he continues to progress.

Re: Tommy Makinson : Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:36 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Funny that. In 2011 you thought I was crazy for spotting Makinson as a good winger and now look, here you are, saying Makinson is a good winger. Do you think I care what you think? No, I don't.

I'd take Makinson over Charnley yes. Makinson's defence is better than Charnley's, he is more acrobatic than Charnley (and therefore can score tries of a kind that I've never seen Charnley score), he has as much pace as Charnley, he reads the game better than Charnley and given half the chance - ie a proper scrum half who distributes the ball where the best opportunities lie rather than the only way he can - he will score more tries than Charnley too, especially now that Charnley doesn't have Sam Tomkins to take the ball his way on almost every play.

Wow that is scary! It's a full blown obsession.

You also said that Lance will make a good stand off.


Best of all you said Royce Simmons was a good coach

Re: Tommy Makinson : Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:59 am  

We have a fast, acrobatic, young British winger, whose sitting on top of the try scoring charts (the first time we've had a winger do so since Albert I believe?) and people on here are envious of the young kid at Wigan whose played a handful of games? Really?

Makinson deserves his place in our team. He got called up for the knights last year so he must be doing something right. His perceived weakness' haven't been seen this year and he's as reliable as you like.

Oh, and all hall is the best winger in the league, he got dropped for bjb this week, so he can't be doing great.

Re: Tommy Makinson : Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:27 am  

I'm shocked at the outpouring of adulation for Burgess on here. Yes he looks impressive with ball in hand but he also looks dodgy under the high ball and positionally naive in defence. I wouldn't swap Swift for him.

Re: Tommy Makinson : Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:42 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Funny that. In 2011 you thought I was crazy for spotting Makinson as a good winger and now look, here you are, saying Makinson is a good winger. Do you think I care what you think? No, I don't.

I'd take Makinson over Charnley yes. Makinson's defence is better than Charnley's, he is more acrobatic than Charnley (and therefore can score tries of a kind that I've never seen Charnley score), he has as much pace as Charnley, he reads the game better than Charnley and given half the chance - ie a proper scrum half who distributes the ball where the best opportunities lie rather than the only way he can - he will score more tries than Charnley too, especially now that Charnley doesn't have Sam Tomkins to take the ball his way on almost every play.

To be fair, you lavished similar praise on Jamie Foster around the same point

I can't stand Charnley. It doesn't help that he's a pie eater, but I can't stand to look at him, with his terrible hair and chavvy tattoos, but ball in hand I think he's fantastic - he's a very graceful runner and some of the long range finishes he's delivered have been exquisite (and IMO out the league of Ryan Hall who's considered the better winger).
However, the poster who points out players mature a different rates is correct. Charnely's a much chunkier build than makinson, which sets you in better stead when you first come through. St Helen's most memorable winger of recent times, Tony Sullivan, was a relatively modest talent for the early part of his career before he really kicked into gear - perhaps Makinson will follow this sort of trajectory.

I do think people are getting a bit carried away with Burgess. I'm not saying he wont be a goodun, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.