Great win and performance last night , the team showed some real metal and spirit. Spoiled a little by some fans abusing Chris Hill which was just not right. He gave his all for our club and did not deserve that.

I can understand some barbs directed at Cooper due to his alleged part in the shenanigans last season, but certainly not Hill - an absolute legend.

No one on here will be responsible for this, I'm sure. He left after 10 great years when the time was right for change, and 99.99% of people recognise that.

You will always get the odd sports fan doing this sort of stuff. It's the nature of the beast, and happens in football all the time.

I didn't see it as that nasty, maybe I am being naïve. Chris Hill was doing everything to try to beat the Wire last night; our fans have the right to try to wind him up and put him off his game.

When he has retired we will all remember the service he gave to our club.

I don't see why anybody should be dissing Hill or Cooper. They carried the team on more than one occasion.

My only disappointment in Cooper is that he pushed back against the changes that Powell wanted. Cooper was a prop with a job to do, and he does it very well. However, you can’t have your leadership group not following the orders in the command chain.

We all wanted change and Powell was brought in to do things differently. This may or may not work, but it’s what we and the club wanted, and an employee should do what they are paid to do, legend or not.

Legend? Great player, but let's not be chucking that title about for players like Cooper. It's bad enough when Nathan wood is described like that.

Hill and Cooper will be 36 and 35 respectively before this season is out.

It was the right time to move them out.
Zero sentiment from me.

Jeez...what's he done for you to bring his name into this debate...fwiw he gave his all for wire just like cooper and hill did

Hill and Cooper were both great servants at Warrington.
Both put their bodies on the line game after game, season after season.
Regardless of any alleged issues for either of them in the last year they don't wipe out what they did over the previous decade.
Respect.

Cooper is an example of the Wire home grown fallacy.

If a home grown player comes into the first team and is crap and moves on, you can bet he will have a million supporters on here, who will claim that he was a rugby genius but was ruined by bad coaching, so bad that even when he moved on to other clubs he was still never any good because we ruined him so badly.

But then if a home grown player actually turns out good and becomes part of our regular first team for a decade or so, wins honours, he will inevitably have people here slagging him off. See Riley, Cooper.

Riley's record of 120 tries in 180 games is very good. He never receives the "legend" monicker which is banded around for players with less scoring impact.

As for Cooper, my impression is that he had a titty lip when Powell came in and perhaps thought himself more important. The "barge" into Price didn't sit well with me either. I don't know the inside details but it didn't look right to me. In any case it was a sad end to his Warrington career but I am delighted with the upgrade - Vaughan.

There is also the fallacy that we tout up and coming home grown players as the best thing since sliced bread. We need to be more balanced in our appraisals.

Chris Riley is an interesting one.
It was often cited that he was too small, but I think he's probably comparable to Thewlis in size.
He was undoubtedly fast and I don't remember him being a liability in defence. He did play with some very good centres though which helped, but even so he had a decent try scoring record.
I thought he did go under the radar a bit, and was a solid member of whichever team he played in. You need those sort.

Riley was underrated although he wasn't in the class of the other wingers we had at the time in Hicks and Joel Monaghan.

He was very young when he came into the first team - I think he was 17 when Cullen started picking him, and he didn't look overawed by Super League.

Then Kevin Penny broke through, and in his debut season Penny looked a more exciting prospect than Riley with an extra yard of pace. But Riley was a better winger overall, and when Penny lost form and had injuries, the fact Riley was playing well and Hicks had been brought in at this point meant it was hard for Penny to find a route back. I think Penny after his injuries lost the edge of pace that differentiated him from Riley and he was behind him on other aspects.

Riley undoubtedly benefited from playing in a good team, but there is a danger of caricaturing it too much as "anybody would have scored tries in that team". He played outside Ryan Atkins, who everybody criticised for not passing much to his winger!

Another thing that always impressed me with Riley, was the way he came back after being on the outer himself later on. I remember he got farmed out on loan to Harlequins, and it looked like the writing was on the wall for his Wire career. But then he came back and played well and went on to have probably his two best seasons for us before leaving for Wakefield.

In terms of stalwart Wire wingers, I would put him ahead of Mark Forster. He might not have played 20 years but I think he was a better player.

Agree with a lot of whst youve said Sally - particularly how he handled himself when being told he was going on loan - no bottom lip, no dummies spat out.

Not sure about the comparison with Forster though.

As you say not at the Hicks or Monas level (but no other Wire winger in SL has been) but certainly in the next band.

Good thread this.

Looking back at Riley, he did benefit from playing in a good team and with good centres… but he was, at the time viewed as a weak link… which was probably a bit harsh. he was certainly better than a lot that came after him.

As for cooper, let’s not throw platitudes around too easily. He was a good steady prop, who left on a sour note and contributed to the mess of last season, to the point where the current coach couldn’t get him out of the door fast enough.

Hill was one of the top props in the league for a decade and a consummate professional who gave his all. The two are not comparible.

You only have to follow Riley on Twitter to see how much it means to him to have represented his town club and how grateful he is for his experiences. I'm not sure if he has much involvement with the club nowadays but it's the sort of attitude that would surely be a positive influence on the younger guys coming through.

Interesting points, MD. I agree with you about Chris Riley. I never viewed him as a weak link, and actually thought he was unlucky not to remain with us for longer. Was he moved on when we signed Matty Russell? I can't recall. As for Hill vs Cooper, I think it's a bit harsh to say they are not comparable. Cooper played over 250 games for us and was very effective, and let's not forget that he also played nearly 70 NRL games and was well regarded over there, which is no mean feat. However, having said that, I do agree with you that Hill was superb for us for a decade, and was the better of the two in my opinion.

I like both of them, however I stand by my post.
We ought not to be keeping anyone for sentiment.

I don’t recall anyone saying we should.

Going back to Chris Hill, it might be controversial to say it here but I think his career has a bit of "what if...?" about it, and its connected to him staying with us.

In those early years of his career he looked like he could be a Morley/ Sam Burgess type talent and I bet he could have got picked up by an NRL club. Perhaps if he'd gone to the NRL around 2014/15 and played in a top side, he would have really taken off. Could have had a decade as one of the best front rowers in Aus, would have the status as one of the greats of his era.

Instead he played in a Wire team that was never the same after 2013, even though we made a few finals. I think it was a frustrating experience for him. He was fierce competitor and more than any other player you could see the same frustrations that fans had about us failing to win a Grand Final building up year after year and with Hill it would bubble over on the pitch. It felt like for much of his final 4 years with us he was in a bad mood. He wasn't the most cool headed player so I wouldn't have had him as captain but you cannot knock his desire and commitment and there was an authenticity in his behaviour that you knew that he really wanted to win, he wasn't just going through the motions drawing a pay cheque. But also that frustration distracted him and took the edge off his game, he wasn't the same player in those last few years that he was when he joined.

He has had a decent career anyway and he will always be respected as a fine prop forward - for me there's just a nagging thought that Hill was a good enough player to be up with the greats of the game and part of the reason he didn't hit those heights was because he stayed with us.

The point about Hill’s frustration is well made SC.

Yes, imo it wasn't right for Hill or the club for him to be made captain.

I'm not close enough to the team to know, but as an outsider looking in, I wouldn't have picked Hughes either. I'd have gone with Ratch, but maybe it was something to do with him and Price, and when Powell came in he knew he had bigger issues to address without adding a change of captaincy into the mix.

I do think sometimes those in the camp can be too close to make objective decisions.

Hill was a fine forward for us, no doubt, consistently high performances though never a captain in a million years. The one thing I think he lacked in his game (when compared to Morley or Sam Burgess) was the the gladiatorial element that top forwards seem to possess. The ability to intimidate opponents with an on field aura backed up by massive, bone shaking tackles. Morley had this in spades.