I think Roberts is a better fullback than Phelps. He's been a quality fullback for years in the NRL, the only reason he wasn't the number 1 fullback at his club was because Mininchello was one of the best fullbacks the aussies had.
Phelps does have a good passing game and he can kick well too which is what you'd expect of a junior halfback. However as a fullback, his defence is not as good as Roberts, he has made some errors dealing with kicks whilst at fullback, and he doesn't return the ball as well as Roberts, and doesn't have the capability of making those defence splitting breaks from the back that Roberts does.
As for who creates more, well Phelps has 4 assists in 5 games at fullback, Roberts has 9 assists in 8 games at fullback. Then scoring, Phelps is 3 in 5 and Roberts is 7 in 8.
Phelps does have excellent skills to create tries for other people, but he's not the gamebreaker that Roberts is. Roberts certainly has the better record this season even when taking into account that Phelps has played fewer games.
I think Phelps is a good fullback and very creative, but I think this season Roberts is better.

I realise that Roberts was excellent at FB but I guess they are two different styles. Phelps played a far more structured game whist Roberts was a major threat on kick returns or when he sniffed half a chance.

I honestly think Phelps at one suits our style better. If you look at the clips above you can see just how effective Phelps was at joining the line late and acting as almost a 2nd HB. His passing is excellent and also looking at the clips his kicking both at short and long ranges is good as well. I remember the Wire away game were Roberts scored a quality individual try but I also remember him passing the ball into the crowd rather than into Gouldings waiting hands ready for a walk in. Phelps wouldn’t have scored the try Amos did but I’d put my house on him making the pass to Goulding.

Different styles of player and I guess it boils down to what you prefer to see and imo we looked a lot more structured with Phelps at one.

Nice Avatar!

Twice in a day I agree.
Where's the whisky?

In which case how can you say he was a quality full back for years? You can't say that and then tell us he just didn't play there because there was someone better.



Your right, a good halfback should be able to kick and pass well, but the difference between a super league half back and a junior half back is that they play at levels with a million miles between them. A junior half back wouldn't be able to pass and kick well at Super League level, Phelps can, so I don't see your point.

Phelps also returns the ball much harder than Roberts does, if Roberts can't see a half gap he will often just go to the men and go down, watch the end of the Saints game for an example of this. The crowd lifted when the ball was kicked down Roberts throat but he couldn't find a gap so took the tackle. Phelps runs much harder at the line when there is less on.



I agree entirely, I'm not debating whether Roberts is a better fullback than Phelps, I'm saying that Phelps impressed me and somehow opinion of him has changed without him playing.



For me Roberts could still be a game breaker on the wing. He told the WEP (I think) this season that the biggest reason for his step up in form was Maguire would let him come inside, Noble wouldn't.

Because in his absence, Amos (and Goulding) showed us that we have a better option. As with any player, with competition for places, it's now up to him to show that he's better than Amos.

Personally, I think he's a good utility back, and a useful squad member, but will never be first choice in any position. If he wasn't taking up a quota spot, I'd be delighted if he stayed, but I don't think we should be using a quota spot for what is essentially a backup player.

I can say Roberts was a quality fullback for years because he was. Just because he wasn't first choice doesn't mean he wasn't good enough to play there. He was second choice behind Minichiello who was a former golden boot winner and considered the best fullback in the world before injury troubles struck him down in his prime.
Roberts has played 73 games at fullback in the NRL (95 on the wing) so he's got plenty of experience there and has always been a good fullback.

As for the junior halfback bit, I was saying that Phelps has great passing and creative skills because he was a halfback at junior level, I wasn't calling him a junior halfback, or suggesting those were basic skills.

Also the problem with Roberts on the wing is that he doesn't have the same sort of influence on the game. He can score some excellent tries whilst on the wing and has done this season, but he can't change a game whilst playing on the wing, or at least the chances of him doing so are greatly diminished. At fullback he can tear teams apart.

The bit about opinion changing about Phelps I kind of agree with, but it hasn't changed without him playing a game, I'd say it changed after a few poor performances after injury, which is probably still quite harsh, although I get the feeling the opinion of most is that he's a decent fullback, but that Roberts is better and taking him away from the fullback role would be wasting some of his talent and influence on the game.

This is the second post of this length that you have writen that seem to be based upon the premise that Phelps' first grade opportuinities in the NRL were affected by being behind Anthony Minichello.

I think I can spot a flaw in your logic.

I can spot a flaw in your ability to comprehend a sentence, or to use a little bit of common sense. Even if it wasn't completely clear that I was talking about Amos Roberts and not Cameron Phelps in relation to Minichiello, the fact that Minichiello played for Sydney Roosters, as did Amos Roberts, should surely give you some indication as to which of the players I was talking about at that point.

However, for the hard of thinking, I'll make it clear. I was talking about Amos Roberts not being first choice fullback at Sydney Roosters or becoming a regular fixture at fullback because at the time Minichiello was one of the best, if not the best, fullbacks in the world. This was in response to a poster doubting when I said he had always been a good fullback.

My mistake - apologies.

I think you could have cut your reasoning down to: Roberts = quality NRL/Super League player; Phelps = reserve grade NRL/Super League player.

Believe it or not, certain Wigan fans presented similar arguments to the ones you're disputing here back in 1984, when it was announced that we were signing Brett Kenny.

Some fans I knew immediately said: "Hang on, what about Mark Cannon?" Because he'd scored two good tries against Oldham, Cannon was apparently "a stronger running six".

I don't wish to belittle or mock my fellow Wigan fans here, and I'm certainly not looking for a protracted argument, but I honestly can't believe that if it came down to one or the other, anyone who watches the game presently would opt for Cameron Phelps over Amos Roberts. I truly can't.

I agree, Roberts is the better player and the better long term option for the team.

We will never know how Phelps might have turned out, he didnt get his chance @ 6, and injuries and the form of Amos saw him loose the fullback slot.

I'll be sorry to see him leave, as he is a genuinely nice fella, never gave less than 100% and loves playinf for Wigan, but sadly, with the likely signings we are going to make, and the potential of Goudling/Pryce and the others we have coming through. Average imports like Phelps are a thing of the past at Wigan I feel.

Agreed, but there is a stronger argument that the 13 is better with Phelps in as opposed to Goulding/Pryce IMO. ATEOTD it's pretty moot now. His season's been ruined through injury and he probably leaves at the end it. Onwards we go.

Roberts = Best fullback at the club

Goulding = Top try scorer in the league.

We're obviously not short of attacking options, so I don't see how replacing the leagues top scorer with Phelps who is very poor defensively (imo) would be of any benefit to us.

Ainscough was top try scorer for a while too. As Cruncher said, he can't believe anyone thinks Phelps is better than Roberts. I would find it equally strange that anyone thought Goulding was a better player than Phelps but, as I said, it's all moot now.

I do think Phelps is a better player than Goulding, but Phelps doesn't play on the wing. Roberts is a better fullback, and Goulding is top try scorer on the wing.

I don't see why the roles have to be fixed?

Play Roberts as "right winger", but let him follow the play the ball from far out to latch onto offloads/dummy half plays for the breakthrough runs, and close to the line drift right to latch on to sweeping movements that way to finish off well from overlaps etc. Let him defend on the right and then drop back to a centre-right position for kick returns, with Richards in a centre-left position with his safety in return.

And then play Phelps as an attacking fullback, a third (fourth when you factor in O'Loughlin) pivot, particually left sided as he passes better that way (how easily did he set up Richards with cutout balls at the end of last year and start of this year), and even sticking around the ruck similarly to Roberts when play is on the left from deep.

I feel this would be a much more threatening team than with a static right winger who just ends movements and scoots (although Goulding does both of these very well).

EDIT: And I think Phelps can play wing as he did at Catalans(?) first season he came over with decent finishes, but I find him a bit wasted there and Goulding does a better job.

Mainly because I think you can stick anyone on our wing this year and they'd score a lot of tries, therefore as Roberts is the better fullback i'd play him there. Its the more important role, and I just feel he's a bit wasted if you put him on the wing.

I didn't suggest sticking him on the wing.

If anything I suggested playing with something resembling two attacking fullbacks at the expense of a permenant right winger.

I didn't mean stick Phelps on the wing either, I'm just meaning that we should be trying to make our fullback as strong as possible, even if it means weakening our right winger, if that makes sense?

This might sound odd - neither of them on the right wing.

Well not most of the time, just close up or drifting there behind play from further out. Play them both as fullbacks in attack.

But surely then that just removes having a right winger, narrowing the team and in essence making Gleeson the winger?

Sounds good in theory, but in reality I think you'd then lose all the tries Goulding has gotten by having the overlap on the right.

Probably would contract play to be honest, unless you tried to remedy the problem by keeping Roberts towards the right so he can track behind the play, and recieve the final pass similar to how we spread the ball now (more behind than flat) giving him a bit more room in attack.

It is the major drawback but I believe it would allow greater distribution across the park with more options keeping opponents guessing. But the walk in tries may become more sp, and we have become good at that this year...

I don't know maybe I'm being a bit selfish wanting to see the two better attackers than (almost) just a put-down winger

I find it equally strange that Phelps gets half the praise that he gets from some and I dont really see how you can say Phelps is a better player when Goulding is a far better winger and centre. Phelps hasnt really proved himself in any position during his time at the club and Roberts this season has shown himself to be a far better full back. Maguire obviously thinks that Roberts at full back with Goulding and Richards on the wing is our strongest back 3 as that is what he has gone with for most of the season, even when Phelps has been fit. If Phelps was that good then Maguire would have found a place for him.

Somehow a myth has been created that he is a good utility player despite nothing to back this up. He failed at hooker, was a complete disaster in the centre and average at best on the wing. His record at full back has been patchy to say the least and he is not a patch on Roberts, who is a completely different class of player, or even Tomkins on what he has shown so far. The mere fact that 2 coaches havent given him a chance at his supposed position of stand off, even when we have had injuries, doesnt exactly say much about his potential in that position. I really dont see how being tried in various positions, and failing in every one, makes him a good utility player.

I think you're being unfair to Cam there tbh. He DID have a place, at fullback, and got injured. He has since been unable to regain sufficient form post injury to gain that place back. That is NOT the same thing as not having had a place.