: Thu May 28, 2009 2:41 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

Well in that case go for Orford, Long + Gleeson + King st = big problems

the voice of reason

and from a stain as well

: Thu May 28, 2009 2:42 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

Well in that case go for Orford, Long + Gleeson + King st = big problems

I can't remember the last time I saw Long or Gleeson on King Street.

: Thu May 28, 2009 2:44 pm  

[Gareth] wrote:

the voice of reason

and from a stain as well

I have my moments

If Sam T can learn from Orford, with them playing 6 and 7 together, it can only help his development. Saints problem is that with Pryce at 6, we can't (or wont) play Long and Eastmond together.

: Thu May 28, 2009 2:44 pm  

Boris wrote:

Orford. He will command a higher salary. No Super Duper League experience. Further Long could be on a 1 year contract with the option of a one year extension. Orford would have to be on a 2 or 3 year contract to get him to leave the NRL. Thus, if he fails to make the change to Super League, we are lumbered.

Long will be offered a 1 year deal at Saints, he is looking for a 2 year deal. He is as good as 2 years older than Orford and has plenty of history with the players that you expect him to lead on the field. Long may be on a lower contract were he to come but there will still be others after him so he will not be dirt cheap as you seem to think.

Long is deteriorating quickly over 2 years we would be in a very bad way having to rely on a 34 year old whose injury record to date has not been great and is getting worse by the season.

Finally if we want to compete with Saints, why would we sign a player not deemed good enough for Saints? Especially one in such a crucial position?

: Thu May 28, 2009 2:47 pm  

jonh wrote:

Like they did with Millward?!
.

You are quite correct to point out the disgraceful discipline of many of Wigan's players in relation to their bosses. They should just play rugby. But in the 'real world' this has been proven not to always ring true.

: Thu May 28, 2009 2:48 pm  

Finally you have stopped moaning and continued the debate top notch.

Not sure of the first point you make in bold. Are you claiming Long has never said he wants to finish his career at Saints?

Tim Smith won a rookie of the year award and was not signed directly from the NRL he was signed from obscurity without playing a game or training in a pro environment, as he has found his feet in the pro ranks he has shown some good form. Orford has not had the same background as Smith he would be moving from pro to pro environment without all the added bagage so i think its a poor comparisson.

Both are over 30 but Orford is still younger he has just short of 2 years on Long which in real terms at there age is a significant difference, maybe not 5 years ago but certainly at this stage of there career. Given Orford had the best season of his life last year it shows the ability is still there, i do not think you can say the same about Long. If we offered Orford a 2 year deal he would only just be older than Long is now when it finishes.

Until this post you clearly have ducked the debate.

Both players are a short term 2 year fix clearly Myler is a long term option but you cannot blood them together without having a senior partner to step in when required hence why we are having this debate on the merrits of Long/Orford.

The other word of warning that would put me right off Long is this, remember the effect Millward a man dripping in honours won at Saints faired at Wigan, he failed. He failed because of the history between the 2 clubs and the part he played in it. He never ever had the dressing room, something we could not risk our 7 and leader around the pitch not to have. Attempting to have a character like Long who has for so long been an integral part of Saints and a pain in the players side in my opinion as happened with Millward, i do not think he could ever win the dressing room.

Once again you claim i have hardly ever seen him which is plain wrong.[/quote]

You've just focused on Tim Smith over in the SL when I listed several Aus halfbacks. I listed more than 1 HB to prove the point.

You speak of Not blooding them together I think you're referring to Tomkins and Myler, thats why I feel and agree a senior player is needed in the mix, I counted this by many times over outlining what I would do with Sam if we signed Long/Orford and Myler.

The two year age difference between Orford and Long is irrelevant, there are many players out there who are old but yet fitter than younger players, i.e a 35yr old Menzies is still top notch.

Don't forget Millward was the coach, not a player. The coach has the final say not the number 7. Plus Long is a Wigan lad not an Aussie like Millward. It would be closer to compare Long to Gleeson, both well liked saints players who are from Wigan. Gleeson has been accepted by all at Wigan.
Also don't forget Long is quiet friendly with many Wigan lads, which would make his integration into the team smoother than Orford.
So I'm not entirely sure how your speculation that Long would causes issues as a former saints player is valid.

Oh and thank you for holding back on the insults.

: Thu May 28, 2009 2:49 pm  

long will not be signed by wigan

reason? fan power

there are many fans who can appreciate the signing of sean long from a logical point of view (me included)

however, he has to be the most hated man in wigan and the vast majority of fans could not stomach him signing for wigan.

while he may very well be the best option, it would be a very dangerous move by IL

: Thu May 28, 2009 2:50 pm  

Boris wrote:

You are quite correct to point out the disgraceful discipline of many of Wigan's players in relation to their bosses. They should just play rugby. But in the 'real world' this has been proven not to always ring true.

Never has never will, this reason alone should ensure we do not (and i am certain will not) sign Long regardless. Its not just the way we acted under Millward it has happened at just about every club with all type of player at one time or another.

: Thu May 28, 2009 2:50 pm  

As IL actually stated we are signing a half-back? or have the newspapers took it that way?

Do we need one? If Riddell started to perform.

What's up with Tomkins, Tommy, Macca and Riddell?

Spend the money else were on an important position called Full-back!

Sick of stating how important the fullback is. What do all the top 5 currently have? Good fullbacks.

St Helens - Wellens
Hull KR - Briscoe
Leeds - Webb/Smith
Hudd - B. Hodgson
Quins - Melling

The rest all have average/cr@p FB's in my eyes. Bar Catalan, Greenshields is an awesome player, just a shame Catalan give penalties away for fun.

Keep our current 6,7 and 9's, sign a W/C FB, you don't need good wingers, if you have a great Centre the winger will score no matter what.

Senior to Calderwood
Lyon to Gardner
Gidley to Gardner

Them Wingers aren't W/C to me, the centre makes them look like it! Top wingers are Donald and Ainscough, make tries from nothing alot of the time.

I think we could have a field day on the left. Hock, Carmont, Tomkins and a W/C fullback all attacking the line, with Richards backing them up.
Slowly move it over to the right wing, but we need an attacking second rower there. J.Tomkins/Hansen/bailey just haven't enough in attack for me. Once we do I think the likes of Gleeson and Roberts will start playing their parts. O'Loughlin in the second row on the right, bring so much more attack and go forward, but it's just not going to happen under the current coach.

Bailey
Coley
Phelps
T.Smith
K. Pryce - all to go

Replaced with:

W/C Fullback
Enforcer Prop
Loose Forward - with Locker's moving to second row under new management.

: Thu May 28, 2009 2:51 pm  

jonh wrote:

Long will be offered a 1 year deal at Saints, he is looking for a 2 year deal. He is as good as 2 years older than Orford and has plenty of history with the players that you expect him to lead on the field. Long may be on a lower contract were he to come but there will still be others after him so he will not be dirt cheap as you seem to think.
?

He will be cheaper than Orford. That was my point.

jonh wrote:

Long is deteriorating quickly over 2 years we would be in a very bad way having to rely on a 34 year old whose injury record to date has not been great and is getting worse by the season.?

I would only sign him on a 1 plus 1 basis. If that can not be done, then Wigan should look elsewhere.

jonh wrote:

Finally if we want to compete with Saints, why would we sign a player not deemed good enough for Saints? Especially one in such a crucial position?

I am not sure he is deemed not good enough, rather not worth the risk of two extra years. Secondly, each team has more pressing demands for certain areas. Wigan need a 7 if Tim Smith is going to leave. Hence, Long should be seriously loked at.