And I get really bored with people who name drop like you do.

"I speak with reserve players so therefore my opinion is more valid than yours".

We need strength in depth. You may have not noticed but the captain has been missing for about 4 weeks. Is Mossop a direct replacement for the captain? Is Farrell a direct replacement?

The answer to the above questions is no.

John mate that is one ace post that pal, looks to be 100pecent true
well said "thumbs up" lol

Don't think i dropped any names just made an observation, hardly the pinnacle of rugby or much to write home about reserve grade is it?! just stating a fact that Farrell is held in high regard by his peers as is Mossop, Flanigan never really gets a mention.

Tomkins is a direct replacement for Locky if we have no Flanigan, After that we still have Mossop, Bailey, Hansen, Farrell and others coming through. We have Coley capable of covering the backrow with O'Carroll coming in at Prop, we are hardly struggling for strength in the backrow. The concept of strength in depth is a good one, but not when it means players will spend 85% of there time in the reserves when they are potentially good Sl players with a bit more development.

The next 1 or 2 years in the reserves or 1 or 2 years in Australia playing at a better standard being coached to a better standard and in a better environment for developing his style of game.

For me its hardly rocket science.

Tomkins is a regular already, just in case you hadn't noticed.

Mossop will be a prop, as he doesn't seem to have the game sense to do anything else.

Hansen defends well, but brings nothing else.

You seem to be in favour of a situation whereby the team picks itself. I don't agree.

I think your being harsh on Mossop tbh.

I agreed with you after the Catalans and Bradford games that he looked in abit of a daze whilst on the pitch but that totally changed in the Leeds and Saints game. He looked to have settled down and defensively was miles better getting through tonnes or work and smashing people in the tackle.

I get the feeling he was just a little nervous in those first 2 games back.

I do agree though he's end up being a prop. Not because he doesn't have the game sense to play in the backrow but more because his attributes are suited to the poition with his sheer size and ability to mix it around the middle.

OK.

Maybe we should pack him off to the NRL with the rest of our youngsters then he can come back a superstar?

Dont you rate Mossop

I don't think we need to nor do i think we need to with Flanagan but that ones out of our hands by the looks of it.

If both were here in next year i'd have them in my 17 but it looks unlikely.

I agree with your comments about Flanny, its a shame to be losing him if reports are to be true. Don't worry about Jonh, he's just a pr@tt who likes to argue and call people silly names.

I'm not worried about him.

It's the more intelligent ones that I get anxious about.

Is it just me that see's the irony in this post?!

In my opinion, thre younger players, some with very little SL experience have all performed very well being thrown into the mix with the loses of Hock due him being Hock, and Bailey and Lockers to injury.

Joel has become a solid firet team regular, Mossop has adapted well with spells at other clubs and Flanny hasn't missed a beat since being included.

The effort against Leeds at home this season was superb, especially in defense, far better than the effort we put in with our capt back against Wire last weekend.

I'd be happy for us to let Bailey and work with young backrow forwards such as
Mossop
Flanny
Farrell (due to get a game in the non too distance future)

Tomkins
Lockers

Just you Jonh. Give up with it.

(Here we go, lets see Jonh try and pick me about for the next 10 pages)

Jack what does it matter if Tomkins is a regular? You asked who would cover 13. The answer is Tomkins. We could then still run with a second row containing any of the following.....

Mossop
Bailey
Hansen
Farrell
Coley

Regards Mossop, again you are entitled to your opinion fair enough, would be interesting to gauge the opinion of him at SL with the Hudds fans and coaching staff who all rate him very highly in this position.

I agree he will be a Prop long term but for the next year at least he needs to play in the secondrow.

Mossop, Flanny and Farrell have more potential than Hansen or an ageing Bailey.

Coley will always be needed at prop, and who's to say he's as good as a second row as Flanny and Farrell will be a year or so down the line? He has trouble running as it is.

To be honest i am not surprised the irony is lost on you, but i would not speak for others.



Everyone is entitled to there opinion, i think for the reasons i have stated clearly it is not such a bad thing for him to go to grow as a player both you and jack do, I see nothing in your line of reasoning to convince me otherwise which is fair enough.

Why both you and jack get so worked up when someone disagrees with them is beyond me, as is your line of thought on this but there we go.

The notion of running with a lightweight inexperienced backrow with a lightweight frontrow does not in my opinion in any way help us when it comes to winning the forward battle.

Coley and Mossop are props.

Bailey should be gone next season.

All of a sudden we look a bit thin on the ground.

So the notion is if Coley will always be needed at Prop O'Carroll should leave or maybe Davis?

But then they are both young Wigan products,.........

Mossop is a secondrow who will become a Prop. Coley can cover second row if needed.

In your opinion Bailey should be gone next year fair enough and prior to Hock's ban i agreed with you, but again you cannot expect to win the forwards battle with an inexperienced lightweight backrow, given we have such a lightweight frontrow.

As usual I find myself going round in circles whenever you 2 get your heads together, and to be honest i have not the time for it, so feel free to crack on, until I see something that takes the debate forward there is no point in continuing with posting on this topic.

Jonh, please don't rate yourself so highly, that is your problem, no one is getting worked up over anything you say, infact it's the exact opposite, hence why I reassured Jack that you are a pr@tt who likes to argue, thats all you are in all honesty.

Once again you've got it wrong, I have totally no issue with someone disagreeing with me, everyone is entitled to an opinion, it would be a boring forum without discussion! But it's your manner and the way you suddenly become condersending with your attitude to people on he who disagree with your points, I read some of your replies to Jack, same condersending belittling replies you always try to us when someone disgrees.

Relax Jonh and realise, this is only a discussion board.

No one at the Wigan club has said anything about Mossop moving to prop.

Nice of you to even give us the time you have given us so far.

However, in future, please feel free to ignore my posts altogether.

Thanks.

I think you are confusing condecsending with opinion backed up by why i hold this opinion, nothing more nothing less.

To accused of calling people names and then twice in the same thread to be called a pratt by the same posted making the accusation does make me wonder about you.

Who said they did?

In nearly ever post you mention how Mossop will be a prop in the future. I thought you backed up your opinion with facts?