Well let's get one thing straight from the off as it seems to be getting clouded. I don't need to justify O'Loughlin's captaincy since, as I have repeatedly said, I have no axe to grid either way. Show me a better candidiate and I'll have no problem in them taking the captaincy. That said I will comment on the 'walking to the scrum' incident as I've been reluctant to do so thus far as I didn't find it worthy of discussion in this context and am actually surprised that someone who purports to have the level of 'rugby knowledge' that you do has even brought it up, let alone repeatedly so!

It's quite simple. The team was exhausted and needed a breather. That's always the reason the pack walks to the scrum and was the same during our glory years. Now whether the fault for them being exhausted at that point in the game lies with our conditioning staff, the fact that this was the second game in 5 days or the fact that we'd spent the entire game giving the oposition the ball I wouldn't like to say. What I do know is laying it at the captain's door is frankly quite pathetic! Not that I wasn't as infuriated at the incident as you were but to blame O'Loughlin for the fact that our forwards needed a breather is bordering on the worst thing you've ever written and in the context of the quality of your posts on this subject, that's saying something!

Here's a question for you. Do you think that O'Loughlin shouting at a tired front row would have actually made them run to that scrum? Or given that you're so keen to take the captaincy off him maybe you could point to the outstanding candidate that was actually stepping up and cajoling the pack to that scrum because, forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't see anyone busting a gut there....

When your team is 10 points behind in a game, I would expect my Captain to motivate/encourage. I saw (and have never seen) Lockers do that.


The team were NOT exhausted. Maybe they were tired, but exhaustion is a completely different thing.


At the end of the day there is little point in keeping posting on this. I don't rate Lockers, you clearly do. It's a matter of opinon.

...tired and needed a breather. Either way that's the reason they walked to the scrum. That's always the reason the packs walk to a scrum. Nothing to do with a 'failure of duty' from the captain as well you know. But you're right, there's little point keep posting on the subject as, yourself and DaveO aside, the Lockers knockers tend to be a couple short planks shy of an IQ so I'm sure you'll find plenty support for your views and be able to 'debate' at length wth people who actually agree with you at that level. God forbid that you actually debate with someone with a contrary viewpoint on this subject. After all it wouldn't do to keep having your bias exposed would it?

N.B In DaveO's defence, at least he has, of late, been able to differentiate between the captaincy issue and playing issues and whilst I'm sure O'Loughlin will never be one of his favourite players has recognised the quality of his performances in recent posts. So, on balance, I'll remove Dave from the above list, leaving you and a load of short planks! Now what's that saying regarding judging a man by the company he keeps? Enjoy!

[quote="XBrettKennyX"]Keeping Lockers on as captain.

W good player, great tackler but the question is - "captain"? Too quiet!!

Leuluai !

i agree with brett's comments regarding lockers, he his average and he is not a good captain. the problem is to be honest that since trent left i can't think of anyone in this team who could do any better. regarding his ability he is worth a place in the second row because mainly of his defence, the big problem we have is that we have 3 players lockers,bailey,and hansen who are all in the team for that reason, it is no good having a second row full of defenders who between them have very little creativity, that is why you have to have a player in there like hock who like him or loathe him is the only creative forward we have.

Completley disagree with this.

Under a good coach Hock would be a much improved player. He is having to do far too much work in the current Wigan team surrounded by a very poor pack of forwards.

If Hock and Locky were shown the door tomorrow i know which player would be joining one of the top clubs and it wouldnt be Locky.

I think Locky is a very good defender but to say that he is a greater talent than Hock is a strech.

He has not improved under 1 coach at Wigan.

Talent is not about the eye catching stuff its about the entire package.

As for Hock doing too much work, i do not see it. He is a lazy defender and hangs on the flanks perhaps he is told to do so as it is clearly where he is most effective but i would not say for 1 second he is doing too much work the opposite truth be told.

He clearly has the physical gifts but lacks the brains to ever be a top player, and more often than not of late his plays hurt the team than hinder it.

When he puts it together he is a great talent and capable of being one of the best about but he simply does not put it together enough.

Hock shows glimpses of huge quality but all too often does something daft which does the team no favours.

I don't think the reason for these moments of stupidity is because he does too much for the team but because he tries too hard as we are too reliant on him for go forward.

He is a second rower, yet often we see more creativity from him than the pivots at times. If the halves weere more creative, and Hock were just allowed to run the lines he can then he would be brilliant for us.

I don't see his defence as a problem either. He covers the left hand side of the pitch quite well with Carmont and although he isn't as hard working in dfence as O'Loughlin, Bailey or Hansen without Hock we would suffer greatly long term.

I agree he doesn't perform enough but I think another factor contributing to this is the uncompetitiveness of the pack. Were we dominating a game up the middle, there'd be less need for Hock to try these off loads so often. You can tell he only tires them to generate some second phase rugby.

To say you'd get rid of Hock is stupid in my opinion; he is one of our pivotal players. When the team in general, specifically the pack improve, Hock will improve no end.

Perhaps I was OTT saying I would get shut given the current situation, it was intended more as a if i had a clean slate rather than placing it into the context of the current team and its failings.

I think Hock could be more than adequatley replaced with a strike second row from the NRL without having to throw too much cash at one, he is an eye catching player but many of his plays hurt us.