Re: hock tested. : Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:41 am  

DaveO wrote:

But why must it be a long term deal no matter when he signs it (if he does)?



Dave

It doesn't but if the club can get him cheaper with a long term deal then they could with a short term one i'd take the chance.

Either deal should have water tight clauses in that makes the lad prove he's cleaned up his act though imo. That way we've got oursleves covered should he mess up again.

Re: hock tested. : Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:20 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Flanagan wouldn't get near the present Wigan side.
He would be behind Bailey, O'Loughlin, Hansen, Mossop and Joel Tomkins.
Then there is Liam Farrell

I can see Hock coming back as a prop forward.
Bailey will have gone and we will still have O'Loughlin, Hansen, Mossop ,Joel Tomkins and Liam Farrell.

No doubt at least one more talented back row forward will also emerge from the junior sides.

I really don't think he would be behind Bailey to be fair but its just a matter of opinion of course. Flanagan is a good player who got upto speed with Super League really well in a short space of time. Regardless of who's better than who it highlights how strong we are in those positions but they're going to be on a fair bit of money between them all in a couple of years but how many back rowers can you justify having under your salary cap?

Re: hock tested. : Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:02 am  

Hock has lots of talent that's without question. What has to be questioned though is his professionalism.

The club and management will need to make a decision based on their opinion as to whether Hock is wanted. Maguire has already warned the club away from certain players we are led to believe due to their unprofessionalism or disruptive influence, and we are already seeing certain other players in SL being pushed around clubs due to the same (Cooke?)

What needs to be really considered is will he add to the team? Not just on the field but off it. Only the club and management can make that call.

Re: hock tested. : Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:55 pm  

I'd have dropped Hock for a few games anyway before the ban, particularly in the previous season for compounding the problem (in games where we've been on the back foot) by dropping the ball at dummy half on the second tackle or giving away a penalty. We need players who stand up and be counted when we go behind. This is probably an exaggeration but he was only any good when Wigan were any good. Sure, he helped in getting us a lead regularly but when we were in games where everything seemed to be against us Gaz Hock would have one of his random brainfarts. A kick up the backside is what he needed and this is probably the hardest boot possible. If he can come back determined to earn his place then give him a chance to do it on a one year contract. The talk of it being totally on the cheap is unrealistic because we will not be the only team interested. I think with his offloading he could become a decent prop but match fitness could take some adjusting to after 2 years out.

Re: hock tested. : Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:20 pm  

Every player has improved under MM and Hock I imagine will be no different. I have real issues with getting players on the cheap.. give him a one year deal see how he goes.. If he isnt as good as what we have at the club after the year, then get rid. there is no room for passengers at wigan. 5 year deals are pie in the sky IMO..

[DaveO]

Re: hock tested. : Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:56 am  

WarriorSteve wrote:

Every player has improved under MM and Hock I imagine will be no different.

That's not strictly true IMO. Some players have made a significant and noticeable improvement but we have IMO several players who were already playing at a good level how now don't look as special as they did when they stood out over their under-performing team mates. So it's not a given IMO that Hock would make significant improvements under MM. He may well have already been playing to the best of his ability.

I have real issues with getting players on the cheap.. give him a one year deal see how he goes.. If he isnt as good as what we have at the club after the year, then get rid. there is no room for passengers at wigan. 5 year deals are pie in the sky IMO..

I am with you here because I think just about every player we tried to get on the cheap because they had some baggage has not worked out. Mather's, Pryce and T Smith have not or did not workout as good moves even though they cost little. I can understand why the club did it at the time given the salary cap constraints but that won't apply when Hock's ban is up so getting Hock simply because he's cheap isn't the right reason to do it IMO. He's got to be deemed still good enough to be a top class player.

Dave

Re: hock tested. : Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:17 am  

Let's be honest, a shrewd IL will get a good deal for Wigan be it long or short term. I would go with 2 years with all sorts for break clauses on his performance both on and off the pitch.

Having said that IL might get him on a deal for 5 years but with options for get outs by us and salary increases for Hock on games played and performance.

I agree getting Hock on 5 years cheap will not work but a well arranged contract for 5 years with break clauses for us and a sliding scale of salary on performance for Hock is possible, if a little unnecessary.

Re: hock tested. : Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:59 am  

Lets be honest most of this is rumour and conjecture. What we can state is that IFL has proven he is a shrewd opperator when it comes to manipulating the sallary cap and ensuring we get value for money. Whatever contract Hock is given I am certain it will include several clauses relating to discipline, performance etc etc. Lets not "throw the baby out with the bathwater" until further details if any are confirmed.

I personally have great faith in IFL and his ability to run the club and have no reason to think he will be throwing about 5 year contracts willy nilly to a lad coming back off a 2 year ban, its simply not that simple or realistic.

Why there is this clamour to hang our administration out to dry over every rumour is beyond me.

Re: hock tested. : Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:24 pm  

No player coming back from a 2 year ban has been the same, the game moves on and these players need to get back up to speed. Look at Ryan Hudson, I know it's a different position but he's been a shadow of his former self at Cas. He also spent a lot of time down the gym and kept himself fit whilst banned.

There's no guarantee that he will be anything like as effective as he was (on the occasions he wasn't having brain farts), so I find it hard to believe that Leneghan would offer a five year contract to him, more like 12 months with an extension option. Given the potential being shown by the youngsters in your team at the moment, unless you desperately need him I'm not sure you will resign him.

Re: hock tested. : Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:47 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

No player coming back from a 2 year ban has been the same, the game moves on and these players need to get back up to speed. Look at Ryan Hudson, I know it's a different position but he's been a shadow of his former self at Cas. He also spent a lot of time down the gym and kept himself fit whilst banned.

There's no guarantee that he will be anything like as effective as he was (on the occasions he wasn't having brain farts), so I find it hard to believe that Leneghan would offer a five year contract to him, more like 12 months with an extension option. Given the potential being shown by the youngsters in your team at the moment, unless you desperately need him I'm not sure you will resign him.

Wendall Sailor has done very well since his return.

It all depends on how he applies himself early doors. lets be honest (if) he comes back at Prop, like some have speculated, as long as he can run very hard and tackle strongly initially then he will be off to a good start. the other things will come soon enough. Its not like he is a halfback who needs his skill levels to be at a high level.