Please don't use that hackneyd old argument. We didn't miss Barrett when he was out last year, but we've missed him this. And how can you say we didn't miss him. How do you know how we would have gone with him in the side!

Hard to replace? Yes! I can't think of a better British back row forward in the game.

Not sure what this has got to do with Barrett?

I think Tompkins more than filled in for Locky last season, so much so that many people where calling for Joel to start ahead of Locky at the start of 2009.

Im not calling Locky a bad player but ive yet to be convinced that he is anything special.

Very true.

Its the same with the Brian Noble debate.

we won 11 out of our 1st 17 games with him last season.

We won 6 of our last 16 games without him last season

ANY coach in SL would have him in their team.

If he had played in the teams from 85 - 95 we would be thinking of him in the same breath as Phil Clarke and Andy Goodway.

Yes, Farrell & Hanley were better, But tey were also Better than ANYTHING that Britain has produced (Along with Sculthorpe although in his first 2 x seasons I saw Lockers outplay Scully a couple of times but that's what playing in a Very Good Team can make a player look like!) for 35/40 years!

Lockers is a Very Good player, a "Great" No, Not Yet as a Trophy will be required to do that but he is as Much if not more than any other Wigan player doing his best to put that right!

Probabaly the 1st name on the Team Sheet Every Week!

It's exactly the same argument as you're using for O'Loughlin. We didn't miss Barrett when he was out...in fact we had one of our best wins at Leeds when he was injured. Are you saying the argument only applies to O'Loughlin? If you want to use that argument it has to apply to all players. The simple fact is, of course, you can't use that argument at all as this is a team game and if one individual in a 17 man team can't be covered for by the inclusion of another player, that team is in massive trouble!

On the second point, are you suggesting that Joel Tompkins is currently better than O'loughlin?

I'm assuming not, in which case the point about him being able to replace him is self evidently wrong....