Sounds like a good idea.

Tomkins 6
Smith 7

Riddell 9
Leuluai Interchange 9

Sounds like a very creative trio on the pitch at all times. Plus Ainscough and Amos on the wings gives us attacking options on all sides

I don't mean take on the line a lot, just a few times to keep them guessing. I don't mind if he is tackled, just having a go would be fine.

Agree entirely - Tomkins needs a player like Smith to get the best out of his undoubted talents - he was doing far too much first receiver distribution playing alongside Leuluai, whereas his strengths clearly lie in broken field running and support play. Just hope that Smith's defence is up to the task against better teams - time will tell.

If Noble has any sense, then he would keep the same halfbacks and use Leuluai as interchange hooker when Sam comes off the bench. Unlucky for McIllorum, but I think his distribution is just a little too slow and ponderous from dummy half for us to carry him in the 17 unless there are injuries.

If he does keep Smith in the team, I dont think Noble will put Leuluai on the bench. I'd imagine one of Smith or Tomkins will start the game on the bench.

I watched the Footy show this week and they were talking about Campese and whether he should play 6 or 7, they came to the conclusion that he plays too spontaneous and spare of the moment to be a first reciever and benefits from playing at 6.

After seeing Tomkins today I cant help thinking the same logic applies.

His range of passing is far more of an asset than taking on the line - which he isn't particularly good at from previous evidence. We were spoiled in having Barrett at half back who was one of if not the best halfback in SL at taking the ball into the line. But even then his impact dulled as defences got familar. We have two other half backs (Leuluai and Tomkins) who are far better than Smith at taking on the line. Here's a thought why not use them in attacking structures to utilise the things that they are good at and avoid their weaknesses, rather than expecting Smith to be something he never will be.

I didnt go to the game today but sounds like Smith had a good game, I really rate this player and he has a huge amount of potential. His attacking play is superb. If he can play behind a good pack and improves his defence, then I would much rather see him and Tomkins in the halves with Tommy as the replacement hooker instead of McIlorum.

The flashiest half backs are usually those that play off the cuff - Tomkins has the skills to be one of the best if used correctly. What he doesn't need at this stage of his career is the responsibility of organising the attacks and distributing the plays. TL strength isn't in this area either as first receiver - he is better at dummy half, so it makes no real sense to play them together in the halves. Both need a Smith to buy them the freedom to utilise their talents. TL has the added bonus of being able to switch to hooker on the interchange and actually is a better fit there to allow all 3 to be on the pitch at once.

If our pack could actually establish some consistent dominance against decent opposition, we could be devastating in attack given time considering the quality in our outside backs and the presence of Hock / Lockers on the fringes. At the minute, the pack is dominated week to week and makes the halves look a lot worse than they are.

Fingers crossed that if Smith gets a run in the team, that his weaknesses in defence can be masked a little by the presence and experience of Gleeson and Lockers either side. If Saints can find a defensive scheme to accomodate a poor defender like Long for a decade, then a half decent coach should be able to protect Smith from being exposed.

I thought Smith was OK today. In a good team with people running for him he would be very good.He passes quickly and flat (bit of a novelty in the last few years) organises if the players will actually move into positiion and his distribution is better than anyone else. This is because nobody takes contol.

Similarly Gleeson seems lights years ahead of the others wants the ball, can beat a man, and has a quick play trhe ball however the others are not on thye same wavethength. I am quite/very impressed with him so far, he seems to want to play.

Smith MOM was the right decision for me.
His pass to Lockers which put him into the space for the try was brilliant, the pass of the match.
Very similar to last year's Barrett pass to Joel Tomkins which created quite a few tries.
His dummy when Roberts scored had me looking the other way too. That was outstanding.
I do think today's 17 will be Noble's first choice for the rest of the season injuries permitting.
Smith 6, TL 7, Piggy 9.
Piggy sub'd and TL to 9 Sam T from the bench to 6 or 7.
Smith and Sam T changed around from 6 to 7 in the game.
Smith must start next week and do 80 mins.

Bit harsh on Ainscough who has taken his opportunity very well.

Not saying he has areas he needs to work on but he is a natural try scorer.

At one point early on Smith split the winger and full back and turned them with a kick to the corner - the guy a couple of seats down from me said "ohhh, sign him up for the latics." He just isn't going to get a fair chance off some people.

This thread is bizarre.

Smith had his first decent game against a very poor team but the question remains can he play in a Wigan side often on the back foot against serious opposition? I guess we may find out next week.

The comments re Hock being poor are short sighted. About the only thing Celtic did right was gang up on Hock every time he had the ball, which ultimately created space for the rest of the team.

Sam Tomkins was man of the match for me easily. Not only was a he a threat attack wise for a small lad he knows how to tackle and did so on several occasions including one absolutely brilliant cover tackle.

I think Smith is has a clever RL brain but he can't simply rely on his passing all the time to create something. The notion he got MoM because he was the only one who didn't make any mistakes is distinctly odd.

Dave

Not quite true look at Richards a lot wanted him out after his first season...but I know what your getting at.

Smith was definately MOM for me followed up by Coley.

People talk about Smith not making any breaks, but if you watch him closely you'll see the amount of defenders that he attracts to slot one of his team mates through a gap. Also he ran across the line very well, stretching and confusing the defence by giving a good inside ball or a dummy inside to hit the centre. His kicking was also very good, turning the fullback or playing it safely into touch when needs be. Ok, the opposition weren't the best but he gave some superb balls that the likes of O'Loughlin gobbled up all day.

A good, defence-break down performance by Smith allowed S. Tomkins a bit of freedom to attack the line with some elusive running. If we get the Smith/Tomkins/Leuluai/Riddell combo sorted, it could work really well.

Would you pick him again if the circumstances were the same? I ask this because I was also with the prawn sandwich brigade and to be honest from where I was sitting near the front of the room I thought TS looked extremely uncomfortable during the presentation. He looked extremely nervous and edgy and gave the impression that he was desperate to get away (not out of embarassment that he had undeservedly won the MoM, he just looked to be very ill at ease). I actually felt sorry for the guy. I'm not sure I'd pick him even if he were the outstanding player in a game. What do you think?

Certainly ill at ease, but I wouldn't let that stop me picking him if I thought he deserved it. I actually thought that Smith was OK despite being uncomfortable. I just put it down to Tim being Tim, and at least he wanted to be there. I was told by the staff that he was delighted at being picked, particularly after his shaky start at the club.

This is in contrast to Harrison "one word answer" Hansen, who you must also have seen in the lounge. He looked like media training or appearing in public was something he was comfortable with, but just didn't want to do. I met him in the tunnel at half time and he never said a word unless prompted by Joyce. Nice enough lad, but I don't think public relations will ever be his forte.

Alex was right, though - Smith put several people through gaps, and enabled his players to do some running. So whilst Tomkins, for instance, looked good in his running yesterday, he was assisted in this by some smart passes by Smith.

Celtic were barely A-team standard yesterday. Tim Smith was given plenty of time to pick the gaps and make his passes. He won't get that against many other sides...and he might also have to do some defending.
Previous games have shown up his weaknesses, and I am not convinced that a game against such poor opposition could prove he has overcome them.
MoM is always a subjective choice, but I'm at a loss to see how Tim was rated better yesterday than O'Loughlin or Sam, or several others.
Wanting a player to improve doesn't make it happen, no matter how much people talk him up, and I am afraid Tim has had plenty of games now to demonstrate his value, without ever doing enough.
If he or Sam Tomkins became available for transfer, which do you think would attract the greatest interest from other clubs?

I thought Smithy was alright yesterday, certainly his best game for the club. I'd love to see him put a run of form together now. MOM was probably Sam, Tommy or Gleeson.

As others have said, Celtic weren't at the races at all yesterday and it was an easy ride for the team.

I dont get it, people are slagging Smith of for having a good game against an inferior opposition - save your bile for the ones that DIDN'T have a good game against that same inferior opposition.

At least he showed he has potential

No they are not

. No one is slagging him off for how he played v Celtic but some people have a different opinion on who should have been MoM.

As threads on players tend to do it drifted into discussing the merits of the player generally.

IMO gives no pointers about Wigan's form as a team or individually the opposition were so poor which is not slagging anyone off.

Dave

I thought the opposition were so poor yesterday that it was difficult reading anything into Wigan's performance - except to say that, generally, it wasn't as convincing as it should have been.

We bombed two or three tries through our own ineptitude.

I was also unhappy to see Ainsbough missing from the line-up. I know he's been prone to making errors recently but he's still got an instinct for the line which, at times yesterday, seemed to be lacking. Several certain scores where fluffed when players went back inside or opted to take it themselves rather than using the men on their shoulder.

A win is a win, and sometimes you maybe need easy fixtures to get your heads back together, but I don't think yesterday can give us any real clues. I especially feel that with Tim Smith. Yes, he was one of the outstanding performers on the day, but you'd expect that with a player of his pedigree. There wasn't really anything 'extra' there.

I agree with the comments but I remember when Wigan thrashed Whitehaven last year and Sam Tomkins was given the MOM and everybody on this forum wanted Sam in straight away despite it being a very poor team we was playing against and Celtic were poor yesterday but not as bad as Whitehaven

Good to hear that he was pleased about being picked. Lets hope it helps him build confidence. If so and the lad can display more of his massive potential then your grand might have been a brilliant investment in the future of Wigan RL...

The main worry for me from our performance yesterday was the forwards. The backs I thought did well but we seemed to lack intensity and aggression in the pack (apart from Hock and occasional cameos from Feka). If Celtic had had a 2 or 3 powerful forwards I think the game would have been very different. As it was their pack looked weak and our backs were able to win the game comfortably.