Bailey did all the talking? What are you on about? Locky was captain for the KR game and had a great captains game, he was captain in name and on the field with his actions and performance.

Bailey was outstanding tonight, a point i was making by starting this thread. I am not sure why Bailey was called to Ganson, others may well know why, was Locky recieving treatment or off the field, something i think is the only reasonable answer.

Locky was the captain tonight when he was on the field, highlighting one occasion when Locky may not have been available at the time to claim all of a sudden he is the captain, is a poor line of thought.

Locky is the captain and was badly missed in this department when he went off.

As i said i think sadly your opinion is very blinded by a desire to justify your stance on Locky which this season more than ever has been proven wrong.

Locky is as much a captain as I am a Brain Surgeon.

So go on explain exactly WHY it was Bailey who was called over when JT was getting a "ticking off".

Explain why exactly WHY in the HKR game it was Bailey who was doing all the talking, while Locky was silent.


Locky is never a captain. He is never a 13.


I only hope that by making him a 12 and stripping him of the captaincy, we can get the best out of him, and he can concentrate on his own game and get the best out of himself.

Bails was immense! Every game he is a solid, honest, hard-working player who does a lot of the un-noticed 'donkey work' & gives the more flamboyant players a platform to cut loose.......but these last 2 games he has really stepped up another gear & fully deserved his Sky MOTM!

Hope he signs a new contract, he's well worth a quota spot & although he is an Aussie, he clearly loves Wigan & has always stated his love for the town, club & people of Wigan!

IL - sign him up!

I do not know why he was called over it can only be because he was vise captain. Locky was the named capatin tonight, so musty have been unavailable at the time. If Locky is available and named captain which he was Ganson cannot just pick who wants or thinks to be captain to come over. I am sure someone will be able to explain where Locky was at the time. What i do know is Locky was named captain, led the players out of the tunnel as captain and was the on filed captain. To use 1 occasion where i am sure someone will explain why Locky was not available as justification of your point is laughable, and smacks of desperation to save credibility which sadly is long gone with the standard of post i am responding to.



What exactly do you want from a 13 to claim he is not a 13 by the way?

Go on make it a hat trick, blame the salary cap.

Listen Jonh don't even try and question my standard of posting.

You are so illiterate it's amusing. If you want me to point out the errors, both grammatical and constructual then I am happy to do so. You will, of course appear an idiot to the other posters.


In short, shut up and don't try to question my posts.


Btw it's "Vice" not "Vise" you muppet.

I alays thought you were a good poster who had a blind spot about O'Loughlin. I was wrong. You're simply an idiot.

Good to see a retuen to form and a dummy spit when challenged on your view BK.

I may have my critics on here, but posts like the one i am quoting again highlight sadly how flawed and immature you are.

Back on topic, what do you expect from a 13?

Define Idiot.

I would wager my IQ is way higher that yours.

What?

Post in English or expect no response.

I'm sure you would. You would also lose.

Just out of curiosity who was the 'captain' in your head when we played against Celtics a few weeks back when Locky was injured?

Stop running BK.

What do you expect from a 13?

P.S. lets not mention the text speak that has been included in your posts on occasion!!

Is nobody else getting bored of BK's offensive postings and trolling?

You really are the worst kind of pseudointellectual. There's no such word as constructual you muppet!

Yep

Could have sworn this was a thraed about Phil Bailey



Anyway back to the topic in hand, he's had 2 very strong games and has 'helped' Lockers to lead the side.

I've not seen Lockers as vocal as last week probably ever and thats great to see.

The message seems to be getting through to these players that all anybody expects is effort, if wins don't come they don't come but aslong as the effort is there we're happy enough.

Back on topic, i fail to see exactly how Locky cannot be accepted as a 13, what more does he need to add to his game. I was once in the stick him in the secondrow camp but he has proven himself in my opinion to have every trait a 13 needs.

Would love an explanation as to why some posters think he is still not a 13.

He's proved beyond doubt this year that he's a 13

He runs

He kicks

He passes

He scores trys

He sets them up

He gets through tonnes of work

Spot on!

When people talk about Joel Tomkins moving to 13 what do we think he'll bring to the position that Lockers can't?

At the moment Tomkins is every bit a secondrow, people need to accept that Locky is a very acomplished 13 and move on.

There hasn't been an explanation. Probably because there isn't one. I've seen a few misguided opinions though...do they count?

That isn't the right question IMO. The right question is IMO will the team be better with Lockers at 11 or 12 and Joel at 13 as opposed to the other way around.

It's about the team not individuals.

I definitely think it is worth a try for three reasons:

Lockers plays great in the 2nd row for GB

Joel plays much better at 13 than in the 2nd row, he played very well tonight when Lockers went off and did so last season when Lockers was injured.

Moving Lockers to 2nd row will help make up for the loss of Hock.

Dave

Only if backed up with mature debate and accurate spelling, so on this thread........No.

He did play well tonight but again i felt he played the game of a secondrow filling in for a natural 13.

Took his try well but again it came from a secondrow channel run.

Not directed at you but it seems to me the same people that dispare at the death of the creative 13 seem to want Locky pushed forward and Tomkins given the job, when in truth Locky is a far more complete player in all aspects of his creativity and natural "oldschool" 13 game.

Tomkins had to play 13 because Lockers was out last year and did a very good job but i think it's because he'd built up a great relationship with Barrett and getting regular games helped the 2 of them work on that relationship. He'd have built the same playing from second row imo.

Without Barrett he's struggled because nobody seems able to find him with the supply of balls that Barrett could. He's a great runner of the ball that hits gaps and has pace to get through them but unlike Lockers he doesn't do alot of the things expected of an out and out 13 like the kicking and passing.

Joels a wide running second rower and Lockers is a loose forward.....end of story imo.