Well I am NOT going to cut and paste


Suffice to say:


Lockers is an average player. He has occasional "above average" matches, but you have to balance this against his "rubbish matches" and rubbish plays.


e.g. vs Catalans last week. Stupid penalty---> First try to Le Cats.


Ultimately he is average. I have uprated him in my estmation to being a "OK squad player" from a player I would have nowhere near my team.


However, he is still average.

Capatain wise- there is not really an argument there is there?

I don't buy the "universally admired" rubbish. It's easy to be admired by a team who are not pulling their weightl


I don't care how hard he trains, how much he "impresses" off the pitch.

The reality is he fails to deliver as a captain on it. I have provided evidence to support my stance.

e.g. as a supporter of Lockers, how can you possibly explain the slow walk to the scrum at 24-14 down?

If I was the coach, I would sack the captain as a matter of course after this.



Tbh I really don't care how much u (or anyone else) rates me as a "poster". I will always call it as I see it.

The difference between the NRL and SL and our ability to compete at the national level is brains, Hock is the pesonification of a player who could physically be anything he wants but lacks the brains. Sadly i think as a sport we have some of the best physical specimins but not the brains to back this up.

To a degree you are right.


However, you are also wrong.


RL needs game breakers (especially thesedays). Hock is just that.


Lockers is also massively overrated as a defender.

He get's into the right position, but fails in technique and also gives away too many penalties.

Yeah I know what you said and didn't miss the point at all, you were right in what you said but it was taking stating the obvious to new levels. Which fan of a club who is winning everything and had no problems would even think of getting a new captain? Nobody but what does this prove. Its like saying if mathers never made a mistake, never got sent off and was top try scorer he would still be at Wigan. If I wrote that, however true it was I would expect people to start questioning my intelligence.

Hock is not a gamebreaker, he is a lad who occasionally brings something to the party but more often than not on big plays comes up with the wrong option.

Fletcher at Wigan was a simillar player but he was a leader not a natural player and came up with dumb plays at important times but he got stuck in in defence. Hock needs to either move forward to Prop and put some effort in and defend or move on.

He lacks the brains to be a strike secondrow and always will sadly.

So by your reckoning every player who ever makes a mistake is average or has had a 'rubbish match'. Well correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Hock make a bucketload of mistakes. Didn't, oh for the sake of argument, Ainscough, Gleeson (in fact, take your pick of all 17 on display) make mistakes on Monday. Be honest with yourself. Whilst your perfectly willng to excuse and accept the mistakes of your favourites.. even defending them on occassion... you crucify Lockers for any mistake he makes! If you want to quote examples Ainscough's mistake responsible for the try from the kick off following our 2nd try. Is he therefore 'Average', ''Had a rubbish game' or whatever else you level at O' Loughlin? Of course not. You take a balanced view of these players and rightly so. I do however notice whilst your happy to bang on about his error, you fail to mention the bullet pass that resulted in our first try or the quick thinking and excellent break that led to our 2nd. Balanced view? I'll leave you to decide.

Continue to 'call it as you see it' mate. I don't mind. After all it's not me who comes off looking biased, or belitles the validity of his oher posts. Just something to consider.

By the way just as you don't mind what I or other posters think, I presume O'Loughlin doesn't mind what you think. It certainly wouldn't bother me!

Oh by the way you missed the point on the 'universally admired' bit. I said 'past and present'. That includes lots of people admired by your good self, not just the current bunch...

I missed the 'stormer' game.

BrettKenny has absolutley no idea - Who else would you put as captain? Look at Leeds, Sinfield is their captain, but the majority would say that Peacock is the 'real' captain at Leeds - When Barrett was there, even though he wasn't given the title, we all knew he was the real 'captain' - But we've no Barrett now, so who do you suggest should take the role? Hock? Don't make me laugh.

You go on about how many mistakes he's made, but it's like someone else said in this thread, everyone else makes mistakes, HOCK especially - Infact, I think it's safe to say that Hock makes twice as many mistakes as O'Loughlin when he's on the pitch - There is nobody else who can take the role as captain... Simple as that

As would I. But the difference is, you're saying is that had Mathers been a completely different player he would still be at Wigan. I'm saying that if O'Loughlin was exactly the same player and Captain but in a better team his captaincy wouldn't be questioned. Surely you can see the dfference? It's not as though it's a subtle one.

Maybe that's true but the reason for it never being questioned would be that it would likely never be evaluated. (there is also an issue of cause and effect)


We are now in a position where we have to evaluate it- and when you do that then there can be only one conclusion- it's awful.


The classic example is the whole team "walking" to the scrum on Monday when 10 points down. How on earth can you justify the leadership of Lockers there?