I thought he had a much better four nations then Morley tbh who did worry me a little about what he's got left to offer at that level.

Either way both are no more then a season or 2 away from international retirement and we need to look at the options to replace them.

That would be some pack!
The second row would be unstoppable, especially if they both have big years in the NRL
If only we had a backline with some strike power

It's unbelievable how few backs we're producing with size, pace and power.

IMO we have to go back to guys like Gleeson and Leon Pryce for the four nations and i'd like to see us have a look at somebody like Leroy Cudjoe who is progressing very nicely at Huddersfield.

I'd probably give Leon Pryce a crack at fullback in the French game.

I'd have him at left back...

Especially after his I can't be d attitude last time round.

I think we could change it too make us slightly better in the backs than we are now

Sam and Eastmond are exciting in the halves and will only get better

But there is nothing we can do about the backs, we're gona be behind the aussies for a good few years yet no matter what we do

Lets just hope the new coach can think of a wonderful game plan where are forwards dominate

You have always been vocal (if you can be vocal on a forum!

) in your praise of SOL. I sometimes wonder, though, why the supporter(s) of a rival team can see what some of our own have steadfastly been blind to. I can think of few, if any, examples of this regarding players from other clubs.

I can't prove the taking the captaincy away from him has made him play better but you can't prove it hasn't. The fact the captaincy has been removed as his sole job is [ione[/i of the things that has changed so it is an undeniable possibility that it [icould[/i be a reason why his game has improved. We will just have to agree to disagree if it is a reason or not.



Then why is it right to speculate if anything affects a players game? We have had speculation Fielden's personal problems have held him back, that the late arrival of Roberts family held him back and many other reasons why other players have played as they have. Some fans on here will [iinsist[/i these are valid reasons to back up their point of view but they still get mentioned without the bat of an eye and they can't prove them either. They are just opinions. I think suggesting a game related change such as a change of captain is a far less controversial reason to put forward than a players off field personal life. Some players thrive on the responsibility of captaincy some don't. I just happen to think Lockers falls in to the second category.

As to how he feels about such discussions we'd better shut this board down now if offending players over an issue like this is so controversial because far worse has been said about many players past and present. If Fielden read all the posts over the past three years about why his form has been as it has would he be chuffed? And it's not just been the suggestion his personal life was the root of his problems either with some simply saying he was past it ever since getting floored in the test match. I think this speculation is far far more insulting than suggesting a player is better off not being captain.

So I think you are making a bit of mountain out of a molehill here in suggesting my opinion is some great slight on Lockers or he will be mortally wounded by such comments. Players have got be thicker skinned than that and I am sure they all are.



I don't think they need it from me. I have always though he was a very good player, not a captain obviously and I always thought it was a PR stunt from Millward giving him the job in the first place and I said so at the time because coming back from a long term injury that was the last thing a young player needed IMO.



There's nothing to moan about at the moment is there? All the pent up whining had to find an outlet somewhere



Dave

I don't understand this. If you can't prove that Lockers playing better (is he? he was great last season too) is down to his being stripped of the captaincy then why suggest it? It certainly looks as if you have an anti-Lockers agenda.



What you are saying is that Lockers can't play as effectively when he is captain. That is an attack on a player who has taken a ridiculous amount of stick from Wigan fans over the years - so much so that there is even a post from [ia Saints fan[/i on this thread pointing that out! The difference between Lockers and a lot of other players is that he doesn't deserve any stick and yet has had vast amounts of not just criticism but abuse from his own fans. I'm not suggesting that what you are saying is abusive; what I am puzzled by is why even now the guy is taking criticism from Wigan fans. Surely we should simply be talking about what a fantastic player he is.



I doubt Lockers is crying into his energy drink over your posts Dave! Or even those of less intelligent and abusive Wigan fans. You said that you didn't think your comment about the captaincy was a slight on Lockers, all I was saying was that if I were him I wouldn't be happy about that comment.



Perhaps I am making a mountain out of a molehill but I'm fed up with people still finding fault with Lockers. He may not care about this at all; that isn't the point for me. What I can't understand is why Wigan fans have it in for the guy to such an extent that even Saints fans are bemused by it.

Surely there are bigger issues to talk about and in that sense those finding fault with a great player are the ones making mountains out of molehills. The reasons why people do that with Lockers are beyond me. As a Wigan fan I would want to support and be seen to be supporting a great player, a local lad who gives his all for the club rather than be part of a constant stream of criticism of him. Its simple really!

Could you explain the above 2 posts Dave? Here are my thoughts on them.

Firstly you suggest that it can't be proven that taking the captaincy off him isn't a reason for him playing 'better'. Leaving aside that the implication that he is playing 'better' is so sujective as to not need proving 'for or against' in the first instance, the only availale evidence (i.e. that he plays equally well whether captain or not) is the only proof, such that it is, that we have availale to us. To simply dismiss this and say "I think the opposite and I am entitled to my opinion' is beneath someone of your intelligence. Instead of asking those who disagree with your purely sujective opinion to prove a negative why don't you provide some actual evidence to support your claim. Michael Maguire is once again extremely complimentary of O'Loughlin in this weeks Oserver and calls him 'outstanding'. He also goes on to say his attitude to everything he does is exemplary. Given that Maguire, not only named him as the first memer of the leadership group, but also offered him the chance to be sole captain should he wish it and, given his performance based view on players, one would have to conclude that MM doesn't think that the captaincy would/does have an adverse effect on SOL. Given that the same (as the old argument goes) can be said for every coach O'Loughlin has played under has felt the same, surely you must agree that the vast weight of evidence does not support your claim.

As for the second statement; based on what? I would appreciate something more than 'because I think so' too. You're asking others to take the burden of proof for something which you can offer nothing in return in terms of actual evidence.

Are you seriously suggesting in the world of sport it has never been said taking on the captaincy or having it removed affects players? Because that is how the above reads to me.

And as it is one of the things that has changed, that makes it quite logical to suggest it may be a factor. That is simple common sense never mind logic.

So what I don't understand is why you don't understand the above and how you can construe any anti-lockers agenda from it.



You seem to want to insist the suggestion his game has improved since he lost the captaincy is some great slight on Lockers and I just don't get it. And has to him not deserving stick I simply do not understand on how commenting on his improved game as I see it is giving him stick in the first place!



I haven't "got it in for him", Lockers form is just a talking point like anything else. It seems suggesting a possible reason for what I see as his improved form provokes strange reactions. If I had said Maguire's training regime was what was responsible for this would you be telling me I was implying Lockers was a poor trainer in previous seasons?

Dave

I believe I have addressed them in the first part my previous post.

Dave

I agree re Peacock, he gives alot of "up and at 'em" attitude, but he doesnt really get very far with it, plus he has to be one of the most negative people in the game, hardly an inspiration to have as a captain.

He will still be in though, because he is one of the darlings of the RL media / RFL.

A bit like the emperor's new clothes, this.

For years, people have been quoting Peacock as if he's the benchmark for prop forwards. So much so that I've begun to wonder if I'm actually missing something.

I agree that he can be a rough customer, but I've certainly got some sympathy with the above viewpoint.

Let's leave aside the point that there is no evidence that Lockers is playing better than last season (when he was playing very well indeed in a side that was performing to a lower standard than it is at present).

You are saying that you are complimenting Lockers - what you are doing is complimenting him but at the same time you are also making an adverse comment. You are claiming he is playing better, which is a compliment but then saying its because he is no longer captain, the implication being he can't cope well with the role. If you were simply saying that Lockers was playing better this season than last and its down to MM and SW working with him to improve on his already high standards that would be entirely complimentary. To say that he's playing better and its partly down to him no longer being captain is partly complimentary and partly an adverse comment on Lockers. There is also the implication that when he is captain this season he won't play as well as he would otherwise, which is not complimentary either! I'm sorry you can't see this.

For England I'm thinking something like:

1. S.Briscoe
2. Hall
3. Gleeson
4. Bridge
5. Pryce
6. S.Tomkins
7. Eastmond
8. Graham
9. Sinfield
10. Peacock
11. O'Loughlin
12. Ellis
13. S.Burgess

14. Morley
15. Myler
16. Crabtree
17. J.Tomkins

4 Wigan players in there though so probably a bit biased, I'm sure a neutral would probably swap J.Tomkins for Westwood or Harrison and Gleeson for Shenton/Atkins. I wanted to include Lunt but couldn't really find a player to take out for him.

You think Burgess is more creative than Lockers?

I thought it was a very straight down the middle sort of side for Grimmy that one(he's normally very creative with his team selections) but i've got to agree with that question.

There is simply no reason why you'd play Burgess at 13 and Lockers at 12 and not the other way round.

No Dave, I don't believe you have other than to say "that's what I think". Where is the evidence that taking the captaincy off him (which, in itself, I would contest anyway) makes him play better? It's not enough to say "taking the captaincy off people often results in them playing better" because the reverse is also true. I was looking for direct evidence from you regarding O'Loughlin to counter the fact that he has played well whether captain or not and, even if you think he is playing better this year (again disputable), has played equally well [uthis season[/u whether captain or not too.

Now, I'm not arguing that he does or doesn't find the captaincy a burden, or even that he feels less or more pressure when captain. What I a saying is the evidence so far suggests it has no bearing on his own game whatsoever. I still await your [uevidence[/u to the contrary.

I must admit I originally had it the other way round, then I had a rethink, here's what I was thinking:

- I'm not a fan of the creative loose at interational level, I think it definitely works in SL but when we do it at the next level we seem to get battered about a bit, mind you I might just not be a fan of Sinfield at loose.
- Burgess had a cracker at loose v Aus at Wigan, even though the team didn't.
- I'd generally want Burgess to get more ball, and freedom with it, because I think he's the more dangerous ball in hand attacker of the two, particularly as he'll have a year in the NRL under his belt.
- Ellis and O'Loughlin as a back row pairing will be bloody tough to get past.

How many more times does the point have to be made that asking for evidence the captaincy being taken off him may be responsible for any improvement is a false argument? Life isn't black and white and neither is sport. It COULD be a factor because its ONE of the things that has changed and so for anyone to say this is can not be a factor because I can't provide any evidence is just not a sensible stance to take.



Of course the reverse is also true and so what is your point? That you accept captaincy can affect a players form? If so then there you go, that is the basis or my argument.

Do you have any evidence giving a player the captaincy can result in them playing better BTW? Or is it just a commonly held opinion?





What evience is this?

I await your evidence to back up [iyour[/i stance. You are simply not in any position to rule out removing the captaincy hasn't resulted in an improvement unless you contend he hasn't improved but I can provide evidence he has (his stats).

Then again we could just do as is done on forums and speculate why, as we do with all players, about why their form is the way it is without all this nonsensical calling for evidence. It's a sports forum not a forensic science class.

Dave

You keep saying the same thing, Dave, but it's simply not a viable argument. Anything COULD be a reason for any percieved change in form! The fact remains that there is no evidencial link between the two. He has played equally well whether captain or not. Why are you finding this point hard to understand? He's changed his strip, his hairstyle, he's older and any number of other things but to say these things have changed therefore they COULD be a reason, whilst true, is a non-argument. Show me a link (how he has played better this term when relieved of the captaincy for example) between the two if you want to make this argument.





Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you one of the people to that say that Coley seemed to thrive on the captaincy? Did Farrell, Hanley or Clarke raise their games as captain? There is no evidence that this applies to O'Loughlin but, equally, there is no evidence that it has an adverse affect on his game either. He falls into the camp of 'makes no difference'. If you want to argue that as opposed to it making him worse, then I have no truck with that. That's what the evidence suggests.



The evidence of there being little or no difference in his performances whether he is captain or not. Or are you saying that during his games as captain this season he has been noticibly worse than the games where he wasn't captain?



Dave, I have provided evidence that it has no effect. His stats this season are similar whether captain or not!!! please supply the stats that show this not to be the case. I await with bated breath! If, on the other hand, you are comparing his stats with last season's then you aren't comparing 'like for like'. The only direct comparison we have are his perfomances this season when captain as compared to when not. I know you understand this. Indeed, I believe you would have to for your job.





"Nonsensical calling for evidence"....excuse me while I post a smilie!



Finally I get it! You only want to provide evidence when it suits your argument! I'll remember that when you next try to prove your point of view on here! So, just to get this straight, you want your viewpoint to remain unchallenged when you can't provide any evidence to back it up?

No not [ianything[/i. [iAnything that has changed[/i. Apart from stupid things like hair style of course ( I can't believe you actually wrote that

).

Did you do any science at school? It's pretty basic stuff, cause and effect. If you get a different result but two things have changed all you can ever say for certain is either one or both things have led to the different result.

We have a new coach and Lockers isn't sole captain, so his better form could be solely because of the new coach, solely because of the captaincy or a combination of both. In pure logical terms it could of course be down to neither but that would not be reasonable stance to take given we both know the affect the coach has had on the team and both accept being captain or not can affect form.



What evidence? Since he has not been sole captain his game has improved. I can't prove that is a reason for the improved form but it is far form unreasonable to suggest it is a possible reason. That you simply can not deny. You can't prove it isn't unless either you insist on saying his game has not improved at all this season and if you think that then I think you are blind.



He is no longer sole captain this season and his game has improved. There is no evidence to the contrary.



No I am saying now he is part of a leadership team and not the sole captain his form has improved. How many more times must that be said?



Lockers has been part of a leadership team this season from day one. Last season he was sole captain. Therefore the comparison can only be based on this season compared to last or earlier seasons when he was sole captain.

Also you have not proved one iota of evidence. Your "evidence" is based on your opinion. You seem to be talking yourself into a corner were you are arguing that his game has not improved from last season at all [uwhich you have to do or you then have to offer explanations of this improved form[/u one of which could be, he is not the sole captain anymore!



No you don't get it. There is no "evidence" to back up your position or mine as regards a players form. There never is any evidence on such subjective matters as to why a player suffers a loss or gain in form, only speculation. You can smile all you like but that is the truth of the matter.

Dave

Dave, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, the comparison to last season is not relevant as there are too many variables (and that's leaving aside the fact that your assertion that he is playing better is purely subjective in the first instance. I could just as easily argue that he was, in real terms, better last season as he performed well in a hugely underperforming team. However that is an altogether different argument so we'll put that to one side.) The only valid comparison you can make, if you are claiming he performs better without the captaincy, as you were in your original post, is between his performances this season with and without the captaincy. You try to make the point that if there are 2 variables then either can be a cause. For someone claiming to know about cause and effect you are so far off the mark as to be embarrassing! If you are able to narrow the variables to exclude one then that [ucannot[/u be the cause. We are able to compare performances this season with and without the captaincy, and, assuming you agree there is no difference (which I will as you haven't attempted to argue to the contrary) we can theoretically rule that out as a possible cause! I actually wouldn't go that far personally as I believe everything can have an effect, no matter how small. I find it interesting that you feel the removal of the captaincy, in the case of O'Loughlin, can have a major effect on his form but moving half way across the world, being without your family, coming across with an injury and effectively having no pre-season etc, as in the case of Roberts, should have no effect. You do like to argue to convenience, don't you Dave! In fact, it might be illuminating, in the light of what you're attempting to argue here, to pull up the Roberts thread, don't you think?

By the way, I am not arguing that the 'leadership group' is not a positive move that can perhaps be seen in the teams performances or, indeed, the performances of individuals both among and outside that group. However to claim, as you did in your original post, that losing the captaincy is one of the two [umost important[/u reasons for him performing 'better' this season when things like better fitness, better team performances, higher workload from the rest of the team (particularly the pack), improved tactics/gameplan, or, most importantly the fact that he's playing in a winning team don't, in your private scheme of things, warrant a mention is ridiculous; as is your assertion that losing the captaincy is one of only 2 things that has changed!

As an aside, Dave, I mentioned the kit, hairstyle and age to illustrate that any number of things have changed that weren't neccessarily major reasons for, or even directly related to, his playing form and that just because they COULD be a reason, without a direct link it was overstating the case to claim it WAS a reason. I was, of course, being facetious. I apologise. I didn't realise you'd had a humour bypass!

First of all it is only your opinion that the comparison is not relevant and that is in my opinion a ridiculous stance to take because players performances are compared season on season all the time. Of course there are variables one season to the next and I am am saying ONE of them, the change in the captaincy situation is a possible reason for his improved form.

I am sure the rest of your post will now assume your opinion the comparison is invalid is an incontrovertible fact and argue from there...



No that is your opinion once again that is the only valid comparison. The fact he is not captain every game and is part of a team will mean IMO the pressure is off even when he [iis[/i captain. He is part of a team not the one sole captain and that is true when he is captain for the day. It's a big change in the way things work.

What you also forget is all things being equal he will play more games not as captain given there are five of them so statistically you can't point to the odd game where he is captain and plays well as definitive proof it doesn't affect him one way or the other. He'd have to play another full season as captain for your point to have any statistical validity.



Which you can't do despite your best attempt to do so immediately above.



As explained above - no we can't. Not only are you not so hot on science your grasp of statistics leaves a lot to be desired as well





The reason I argued against the Roberts situation was because his family arrived well before the end of the season and his form didn't change. He also seems to think he's better this season for a number of playing related reasons which suggests the family factor was not are huge as you seem to think it was. The reason I argue the captaincy issue for Lockers could be a major factor is because it's an accepted truth in sport in general captaincy can affect players in a major way.

This is where our knowledge of sport lets us look at the variables and use our experience to suggest what may or may not be a major factor and what probably won't be.



The change in captaincy happened to Lockers. It could therefore be a factor. And as captaincy can affect players in a big way it could be a big factor. It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest this was the case here. For some reason you seem to think it is.



With hindsight it was actually very useful because what you illustrated is that we must always remember while many things change not everything that changes is relevant. We must use our common sense and experience of the field we are discussing to dismiss things as being highly unlikely to be reasons for what we see.

To conclude I would like a an answer to a very simple question.

Is it possible for a players form to be affected by the being captain or not? Yes or No?

Dave

Problem is Dave you make statements like this
"The reason I argued against the Roberts situation was because his family arrived well before the end of the season and his form didn't change"
As though it is fact, it isn't, it's your opinion.

IMO his form did improve significantly from around April/May onwards and even before then wasn't as bad as some people make out, IMO of course



Now as far as I can see in this thread, you state that having the captaincy taken off Lockers is one of the main reasons for his improved performances? Yes or No?

What a lot of people think, me included, is that you are making statements that his game has improved (Which it may or may not & imo he's as good now as he ever was, it's just that the others around have improved allowing him to do more in different areas) without accepting that others think it's always been this good, but I think you are doing it with a "I told you so" attitude and linking it to the Captaincy issue to try & prove it.

End of the day

You think he's improved along with others, some others don't, they think he's being allowed to play in a slightly different way which to the eye may look better.

You think it's because the captaincy's been taken off him, others think that has nothing to do with it because nothings changed in his performances he's always been that good.

Your making statements like "To conclude I would like a an answer to a very simple question.
Is it possible for a players form to be affected by the being captain or not? Yes or No?"

When everyone knows that it's possible, but also knowing very well that doesn't mean that it is true in O'Loughlins case because have both you & Phuzzy et al are almost in agreement with but are to stubborn to admit, is that Neither of you can Prove it either way.

As I said earlier in the thread, 3 years ago he was the best 13 in the league and one of the top 5 or 6 forwards in the country and international class, currently he is the best 13 in the league and IMO one of the best forwards in the League & World.

Not much has changed for me except maybe the team around him (Due to coaching improvements, better players coming in over that 3 year period etc, and yes the extra help by the leadership team) mean he is being allowed to play & show more parts to his game.
It doesn't mean he didn't have them in the 1st place, he just had to do more work because we weren't as good of a team?

God forbid if he'd have been at Saints he'd have probably had 3 or 4 SL titles & 3 or 4 more CC's by now and the whole league would have been telling us how good he is, just because he hasn't won anything doesn't change him as a player.