You can always rely on a Saints fan being unbiased towards a Wigan player. Particularly one that routinely made a mockery of their defence.

You think Sam is a better defender than ZH then I assume?

I am yet too see anyone put forward a coherent argument against the stats i posted a couple of pages back. I know we like to say Sam cant defend and Zak is much better and Sam makes more errors, but the stats just do not back this up whatsoever.

considering how much more involved everyone admits Sam is, the fact he makes LESS errors than Zak speaks volumes. his tackle miss rate is also lower than Zak's.

I am by no means saying Zak is not a good defender, or good under the high ball, but it is completely incorrect to suggest he is far superior to Sam based on those stats. Sam comes out ON TOP of the defensive stats.

Need i remind everyone that before Sam became the successful player he is almost everyone to a man was giving him top praise for his defensive work (tackling and work rate) whilst defending in the halves. I know it is different than at FB, but he certainly impressed in the line. I honestly think that this is one of the most over hyped myth's going around sport. I am not saying Tomkins is the best defensive FB around, but he is NEVER as poor as people try to make him look.

To be honest I can see with my own eyes who is stronger defensively and under the high ball, I don't need to refer to stats.

Couldn't think of a weaker answer to the points raised than that! Unfortunately humans suffer from confirmation bias. When we see something that supports our argument we over emphasise its importance, when we see a negative to our argument we forget it. therefore the worst way of you being able to form an opinion on a player that you are told is weak defensively is to 'see with your own eyes'.

Problem is, most don't understand this.

The stats speak for themselves, that is for sure. most will ignore them, as this thread shows, because it does not support their argument. instead choosing to focus on things that do.

Pish posh, no-one is more exciting under the high ball then Greg Eden.

What that excitement is depends on which side you support.

He was signed as a star and is going back from whence he came with a lesser reputation than when he arrived. You denying this is just endemic of how one eyed you are.


These boards and especially the Wigan forum were awash with threads blaming Moran. The FACT (coz you like them) was that you signed a 2 time top try scoring machine and didn't know how to get the best out of him.

every cloud and all that




Nope, it is you who refuses to accept that he arrived with a bigger rep than he is leaving with. He's going back to where he can be a star again instead of just an average player in a mid table outfit. He arrived with a try a game ratio (close enough) and is leaving with that statistic (you like them) halved.

If only it were that easy......

Ryan Hall.
Inglis has 27 Test Tries
12 against the Kiwis
9 against GB / England
6 against other nations.

But let's not forget Sam's 4 Tries v France in one game......it puts him up there with other 4 try legends like er....er...Tony Clubb

Do those stats tell you where the tackles were missed? Because if all of Tomkins were one on ones that led to tries and all of Zak's were inconsequential misses in the opposition half you certainly wouldn't be making these claims would you? Zak already has a showreel of incredible try saving tackles that anyone with a full career behind them would be proud of and I wouldn't be surprised if Sam's very best effort couldn't make it in to Zak's top ten. He's that good. Saying he's that good isn't saying Sam'srubbish, but if anyone on here genuinely wants to suggest that Sam is better than our equal to Zak defensively or under the high ball then quite simply you are wrong. Tomkins is a wonderful player, but in those two specific areas he comes off second best, what's the shame in saying that? Stats are meaningless without contextand once these are put into meaningful context ie. where the missedtackles were and how costly.

I'd back Zak to score against Sam more than vice versa because of Zak's defence, then it changes things a bit.

I'd still love to see Sam in a Leeds shirt as an attacking force, but let's not pretend he's something he's not.

And yet you make stupid comments like the one below, claiming that try scoring records of players who've played in very different positions for large parts of their careers is somehow meaningful.



Eddie Hemmings would be proud.

You assume wrong sunbeam, I think Sam's deficiencies in defence are overstated though.

Strange that you would take issue with a post saying ZH's defence is better then.

Are you sure the bias sits with everybody else? Ever considered you might just be being a bit precious about our Sam when you take issue with statements that you actually agree with yourself?

Fair enough I've been proven wrong, Tomkins is !

I didnt take issue with the point itself, but more the way you said Hardaker is HUGELY superior in defence and Tomkins Slightly better in attack. And that was my point about not expecting a Saints fan to be impartial.

JimLav's reply to you about confirmation bias is spot on, you probably don't even know you're doing it in your own mind, you'll just find ways to rationalise your particular biases. I'm probably guilty of it myself towards Saints players.

Samuel Tomkins was at about the mid-range among NRL full backs. Not brilliant but not bad either.

Next year when he retreats back to his natural level in Super League, against struggling clubs like Leigh, I expect him to shine more brightly.

Still injured apparently and not even travelling to the gold coast.....3 games this year.......he's not an nrl standard player and now we're paying his wages to recuperate and be a star v Leigh next year!

Tomkins' poorest area in the NRL is kick returns IMO. He's not great under the high ball, and he's small so one-on-one can get run over. He is though pretty good at organising the defence. Basically the more I see of him the less convinced I am that full back is is his best position. If he were to stay at the Warriors I'd move him to 6 sharpish.

Hardaker is excellent at kick returns and one-on-one-defence. His passing in general play are sub par though - as a general attacking player Tomkins is much superior IMO.

Given Matty Bowen's disaster under the high ball at the weekend, I'm surprised that Wigan fans are so quick to dismiss the importance of safety under the high ball when comparing the two players. I know who I want under the bomb for England at the end of the season.

Tomkins is a very important signing for Wigan though. With Charnley's drop in form and the outstanding Joe Burgess leaving, Wigan need to boost that attacking threat out wide which is their main weapon.

Could an early release be on the cards here?

Wickle Sammy is a perma-crock now.

How Saints doing on the injury front again?
Luke Walsh make Sam T look like the Terminator in terms of durability!

ssssshhhhhh, cant mention Saints and injuries in the same post!!!

Injuries don't really affect us anymore, as you saw on Friday. If we got all our players back we'd probably get promoted into the NRL play offs as the SL ones would be too easy.