Since Smith's injury and Hock's ban we've been playing better and better, the team seems to have gained a sort of gritty quality that has gotten us through a few tight games that early in the season we would have lost.



I think since Smith has left it has opened the door for Sam who has taken his opportunity by the rough of the neck. His support play ruthless defense and organisation on the pitch has given us a very neat platform every game. I don't know what he's like with the team off the pitch but he definately takes a large portion of responsibility on the pitch.



I thought when Hock left we'd lack aggression as he could inject power plays and inspiring moves into the game. But it seems to me we haven't missed him. Which makes me wonder, was Hock a bad influence on the side? Was his off the pitch activities hurting the team?? Or is it simply down to the discovery of Hock's foul play brought the team closer??





What do people think, does the team look more the finished article and more clinical since Smith and Hock have left?? Is it due to the players who have left being a bad influence either in performance or in attitude or is it due to the players who have replaced them in Mossop and Tomkins?? Maybe it's just Noble working his back end of the season charm on the team.

The difference since Hock has been out of the squad has been that we are not so reliant on one player and are using more options attack wise and distributing our attacks down both sides of the pitch rather than being one sided. We are less predictable so defences can't be set against us so easily. Also Phil Bailey has mentioned in the local press that the whole squad have conciously stepped up their individual efforts in games rather than sitting back and relying on giving the ball to Hock.

Interesting points raised here, been thinking the same about "the Hock effect" myself. I do think that a few opposition sides have been confused by the new Wigan line up - not figured us out yet and it disrupts their pre-conceived ideas about us. I also think our kids are playing out of their skins - although who wouldn't in their boots with Wembley 1 game away?

Smith is not a great loss and that is probably due to the fact that though sometimes brilliant on attack he was often woeful elsewhere and Sam T is already a more rounded player.



Losing Hock is a different matter IMO as he is a class player.



The same sort of things were said when Barrett left, when Farrell left and no doubt when any other class player has left over the years.



There seems to be some sort of inverse logic going on here that means we are a better team the fewer class players we have in the side.

That can't be right. If it is we had better leave Lockers out of the side once fit!



With Hock there is a difference in terms of circumstances so there could have been an off-field destabilising influence with him around. We don't really know.



Looking at it in pure RL terms though we have got to be worse off without him in the side and if when he was in the side, the team relied on him too much then that was a problem Noble should have fixed. Just as it was when the same things were said about Barrett being relied on too much.



Dave

I don't believe we relied on Hock too much tbh. Granted he was a massive option in a attack. Th team to me looks to be a lot closer a lot more clinical.

Hock - more often than not he would demand the ball, which good players do. With him missing the other back rowers have to take more work on which allows them to show what they can do. Joel Tomkins has benefitted from this.



The other thing may be better ball retention in the opposition 25. Hock would inject himself (don't start) when we were setting up camp and quite offten lose the ball.It looks to me that Phelps is running the same lines as hock used to do but is a better ball handler, his passes usually hit the man rather than the first row of the stand like Hock often did.



I'm not suggesting that Hock is a bad player but his ball retention at times was poor



Tomkins - his defence has always been spot on and has a bit of niggle about him that Smith did not have. His kicking has always been good and that and his attacking game have improved the more games he's had



Does Noble deserve a bit of credit for the way he's handled him?



He gets plenty of critism on here for not giving youth a go, but is it reasonable to ask a youngster to make 30 odd appearences in his first proper season? If Noble believed that it would be better to have 15 - 20 good performances from Sam we'd be better getting them at the end of the season rather than the begining

Smith's departure has given Sam his opportunity and he's taking it.

We now have two half backs who will attack the opposition's defence line whereas Smith rarely did. Sam has far more to his game than Smith showed at Wigan and teams are having difficulty reading what Sam will do next. It's those options which are causing problems for defences.



Hock's ban plus Lockers & Bails being injured has given the younger players their opportunity and they again have stepped up.

Noble must be given credit here.

He is now using Mossop not as a 2nd row but a fifth prop. It was Lee's powerful runs down the middle that helped tire out the Leeds defence in that 2nd half. I felt that last Friday was the first time our pack had come from a poor start to totally over run the opposition.

Catalan tired in the last 15 mins, Bradford were out on their feet in the last ten and Leeds pack was exhausted with 15 to go.

This is a great sign for us if our pack is wearing down the opposition forwards and overpowering them. Mossop is key to this.



Overall the squad has coped remarkably well following the loss of Smith & Hock plus the injuries. They have stepped up and succeeded, well done to all of them.

Also well done to the coaching staff who've had to organise it all.

To make 30 appearances in a season would be going some for any player. That would be all the regular rounds plus a good cup run and never missing a game!



Sam T played one game in the cup last season against Whitehaven and that was it. That was all the preparation Noble gave him and he will most likely feature in all our remaining league and cup fixtures which is a minimum of 21 appearances for him not including a possible Wembley final and any play off games.



To go from one game to at least 21+ games is not what I would consider good handling of the players development. It really has been in at the deep end.



The way he has handled it so far just points to the fact he was given so little chance last season as a mistake on Nobles part IMO. Burrow and McQuire were given about 8 to 10 games before going on the following season when they were the same age as Sam to feature in every fixture.



As to Hock demanding the ball as good players do etc aren't we back to the oxymoron of us being better off without a class player in the side?



Dave

Agreed he should have got more games last season and the likes of Farrell and Thornley should be getting the odd game this year rather than patching up players like Carmont and Gleeson to play half fit.

The example of 30 appearences a season was an exageration to illustrate a point, yes I want us to play in all the play offs and have a good cup run. If that happens then any young player will need handling appropriately.



The way Kevin Brown was handled a few seasons ago IMO was appalling and that's why he's at Huddersfield now and not with us



Also I never suggested that we are better off without good players, just pointing out that Hock had problems with ball retention, it's a weakness in his game.



Ellery Hanley couldn't time a pass unless you put an alarm clock on the ball but he's the best player I've ever seen. It would be nice to have both him and Hock in our back row in their prime

The reality of the situation is without progressing any further in the cup and if we don't make the playoffs Sam Tomkins would most likely go from playing one game last season to 21 this. 21 games out of a possible 27. This does not qualify as being handled appropriately IMO which is what you were suggesting before.



Should we progress in the cup and reach the play offs he will most likely feature in all those games as well so would that qualify as being handled appropriately?







No it wasn't. Brown made 12, 15, 24 then 11 appearance in each season for us from 2003 until 2006. He had a much more gradual introduction into the first team than Sam Tomkins has had under Noble.



If you think the way Brown was introduced was appalling taking three seasons to get to playing 24 games what do you think of Sam Tomkins going form 1 to 21+ appearances?







Well I took your statement about him demanding the ball as an implied criticism that meant with the other players showing what they could do you were falling into trap of suggesting we were better off without him. If not then fair enough.



As to ball retention he was no worse in this regard than any of our other forwards IMO.



As FT said the squad has done very well to cope with his loss and the loss of MM and Lockers but despite the other players stepping up to the plate we are worse off without him.



Dave

the appalling aspect of Kevin Browns introduction to the 1st team wasn't the number of appearances he had leading up to being a 1st team regular. It was due to the fact that he was a young stand off pushed out to centre where every team lined up their big men to run at him. He was like a rabbit in the headlights for much of 2006. IMO he really needed dropping to the bench or the 2nd team for a spell to regain his confidence and then play the occasional game in his natural position and he may have been ok



That coupled with breaking his leg and being rushed back



FWIW I reckon Sam will need a rest before the end of the season. But with Smith gone and Gleeson coming back from injury he may need to wait a couple of weeks