DaveO wrote:The club is partly to blame for this in my opinion. Even now we have signed Bateman on a three year deal with the possibility of a fourth it still mentions the NRL and the possibility of him leaving to go there. It's as if the club is positively encouraging it which with a three year deal it doesn't need to do. Three years is more than reasonable so just state that is what it is. If he goes to the NRL or another SL club at the end of it having seen his deal out, so what? He will have met his end of the bargain.

Some will say if we don't let them leave to go to the NRL they will never do what Sam is doing and come back. Well despite being very pleased Sam is coming back I am realistic enough to accept we will not see any player come back who is a success and likes the life there but more importantly why be so obsessed about them coming back anyway?

I think there is a danger we re-sign these players just because we can and prove the point of the policy, never mind if there are better options available at the time. I don't think the club even looks.

Cruncher wrote:
Why don't you just say what you really mean, mate - that you go weak-kneed with fear every time he gets the ball.

Well, tough. I'd get used to that feeling again if I were you.

FlexWheeler wrote:Someone like, say...Zak Hardaker is probably a better all round fullback.

chunkyhugo wrote:How about: Sam Tomkins - worst signing in Superleague history

FlexWheeler wrote:Maybe fans of wakefield for example. But after those first few devastating seasons at fullback when Maguire came in the better teams have learned to deal with and control him, if not completly contain it.

Someone like, say...Zak Hardaker is probably a better all round fullback.

SuffolkCherryPie wrote:23 tries 20 assists challenge cup medal and grand final ring suggest no one particularly controlled or contained him. He was our main attacking weapon in a season we won the double. I'm absolutely delighted he's back, you can have Zak I'll stick with Sam thanks.

Superted wrote:Genuine question that I don't know the answer to, is it possible to find out how many of those tries and assists were against Leeds, Saints or Wire - would be good to see what the ratio is like (and not just trying to be negative, I genuinely would be interested to know, as there seems to be a view that he only really performs regularly against the weaker teams).

Comparing Hardaker and Tomkins on tries/try assists only doesn't really work, as their teams use them differently. As has been pointed out, Tomkins was the focal point of your attack, your main scoring weapon - Leeds don't use Hardaker that way, sure he's still good in attack, but his defence is his number 1 priority, followed by starting our sets well with yardage (along with Hall and Briscoe) - clearly he also gets involved in attacking sets, but Leeds have other weapons in attack so that the ball isn't always heading to Hardaker to finish things off - Hall, Watkins, Briscod and even Moon to a degree are seen as the 'finishers' more often than not.

That's why a comparison isn't really that useful, but if you are trying to compare, you need to compare all facets, offensively and defensively to get a more rounded picture and then make a judgement. In truth, Sam is better for Wigan, Zak is better for Leeds based on their respective playing styles..... Neither would be as effective at the opposite club - though I would argue that Hardaker would probably do the better of the two if they swapped clubs just because he 'ticks more boxes' as a fullback IMO, and Sam wouldn't necessarily be able to do what Zak does for Leeds in terms of the hard graft.