Sam Tomkins

[Kimlo]

I actually don't rate Benji all that much, he used to be good but he was shit awful last year and a lot of the year before that, SJ is daylights ahead of him.

 

[Ari Gold]

Regardless, this is the type of salary bracket that only greats of the game should get, like a Thurston, Smith, Inglis or DCE should get, not inconsistent players who can put it on one game and be virtually invisible the next two... SJ and Tomkins fall into that category.

Firstly, you are wrong about the salary bracket. It used to be reserved for the biggest of names. But the cap has basically doubled in 10 years. Kennedy is on 500k, Sandow 550k, Blair 500k. Players not in the top tier still get very big dollars these days, so to say that money should only be given to the Thurstons or Inglis' is frankly not reality. What do you propose the Warriors do? Not spend up to their cap because they can't sign Thurston for 750k?

Also, SJ has thus far in his career been very inconsistent. But please tell me how Tomkins has so far fallen into that category? He was poor in this first six weeks and in the last 3 weeks has been outstanding. You are putting labels on Tomkins that you can't back up with proof.

 

[Porthoz]

Firstly, you are wrong about the salary bracket. It used to be reserved for the biggest of names. But the cap has basically doubled in 10 years. Kennedy is on 500k, Sandow 550k, Blair 500k. Players not in the top tier still get very big dollars these days, so to say that money should only be given to the Thurstons or Inglis' is frankly not reality. What do you propose the Warriors do? Not spend up to their cap because they can't sign Thurston for 750k?

Also, SJ has thus far in his career been very inconsistent. But please tell me how Tomkins has so far fallen into that category? He was poor in this first six weeks and in the last 3 weeks has been outstanding. You are putting labels on Tomkins that you can't back up with proof.

Oh, so we're judging Tomkins only on his NRL games, are we?
We probably should just forget how inconsistent he was in the ESL... because you know, well... just cuz.

It's interesting to see how defensive some people get of the chav, but when it comes to players from their own club who certainly deserve the same or more credit, they are nowhere to be seen... I wonder why?

 

[Ari Gold]

Oh, so we're judging Tomkins only on his NRL games, are we?
We probably should just forget how inconsistent he was in the ESL... because you know, well... just cuz.

It's interesting to see how defensive some people get of the chav, but when it comes to players from their own club who certainly deserve the same or more credit, they are nowhere to be seen... I wonder why?

Namely who? Our best player so far this season has been Hunt. I made some similar points pre season about why Hunt has been dudded so far and deserved a run and you argued about that too.

 

[Porthoz]

Namely who? Our best player so far this season has been Hunt. I made some similar points pre season about why Hunt has been dudded so far and deserved a run and you argued about that too.

I see we've left Tomkins behind and moved on to Hunt... ok.

Similar points about why he has been dudded? Similar points to whom?

How dare I argue in a forum whose main purpose is... well, discussion. :aetsch:

 

[Ari Gold]

I see we've left Tomkins behind and moved on to Hunt... ok.

Similar points about why he has been dudded? Similar points to whom?

How dare I argue in a forum whose main purpose is... well, discussion. :aetsch:

I thought the point of the forum was too preach how awesome Matt Gillett, Shaun Johnson and Anna Kendrick are. I fail at foruming.

 

[Big Pete]

It's pretty clear that progress won't be made in this thread for a couple more months at the very least. At the moment, it's just a useless back and forth where both sides have made their positions very apparent for close to a year.

Perhaps it'd be an idea to highlight each others criteria.

Ari - What would it take for Tomkins to be considered a failure this season?

Similarly, Porthoz, what would it take for Tomkins to be a success?

Perhaps then we can see who is being realistic.

For what it's worth, I believe Tomkins has played well these past couple of weeks and believe it should put him in good stead leading into the representative season where the Warriors generally prosper.

 

[Mr Fourex]

For what it's worth, I believe Tomkins has played well these past couple of weeks and believe it should put him in good stead leading into the representative season where the Warriors generally prosper.

Yes.......I think he's fitting into the Warriors and the NRL rather well.

 

[Super Freak]

Where are these flick passes Tomkins did during the game?

I was always under the impression that a flick pass is when you flick it, not tap it sideways...

 

[Ari Gold]

I don't recall any flicks from Sam, but SJ had at least one. SJ's skills were simply sublime on Saturday.

As for Sam being a failure, I don't think it's something you can measure statistically so it's hard to outline a set of stats he needs to produce. To be a failure, he would need to be bad in defence and only ever excel in attack during broken play and make bad decisions as a playmaker. There's a possibility he fails in defence but does better in attack, which I wouldn't qualify as being a success, but at the same time not a failure either.

Overall though, I think his success or failure is dependent on just two areas

1) not being a liability in defence; and
2) making excellent decisions as a playmaker and showing great ball playing skills, much like he did on the weekend.

For the record, I don't ever except him to be an asset in defence, just neutral. I also don't think his strong, whippet like runs really count as a success either, as IMO it's a given he'll do these well when given the staggered line, just as it's a given he won't consistently save tries the way someone like Slater can.

For mine it is mostly about playmaking. People often talk about his running but for mine it is his playmaking that makes him a potentially outstanding player. If he stops making great decisions when coming in as 2nd man I think he fails, even if he scores 15 tries from his running abilities.

The other measurable is SJ. Tomkins playmaking should take the load off SJ, allowing him to play more freely. If people don't look at Tomkins and SJ at the end of the year as an extremely effective combination of playmakers, particularly down the right edge, again, I think he fails.

But to be clear, I really don't think he needs to be an asset in defence to be a success. As long as he's not a big liability, I feel he should essentially be evaluated as a five-eight (hence why I don't think his running really counts as a success, nor should a lack of tries be seen as a failure).

 

[Porthoz]

I agree with most of what you say, except that he needs to be measured as a fullback, where his defense definitely needs to be up to scratch. You can't go and judge him as a 5/8 when he is playing in a position where things like defensive awareness and positioning, besides the high ball and one on one tackling abilities, are paramount.

The same goes for consistency. I don't expect 100 good games, but 75-80% of his games should definitely be above average.

Note that I am talking about a player that people regard (and pay) as a superstar. This is and always has been my argument.
In other words, this guy should be compared to Inglis, Hayne, Slater, Barba (at his best) or even a Dugan.
If he can stand the comparison, he will be a success, anything else will be a failure imo.

Yes, I do think he will be a better fit at the Warriors than any other NRL team, but he is not the type of player that can carry them when do go back to shit, as we all know they will...

 

[Anonymous person]

Oh okay we should only look at players good games when evaluating their worth... and totally forget their defense too, who cares about that?
We should really just look at their flashy plays, like you and Spwn do, because anything else is just boring and unimportant... :takdir:

Seems to be the case when talking about gillett/hannant/thaiday/hodges and co, why cant it be for Tomkins too?

 

[Ari Gold]

Word is Tomkins was caught urinating in public last week. Kinda surprised as I imagine he pissed himself often enough trying to tackle Dave Taylor on the weekend.

Had a shocking game to boot. If SJ is out this week he'll need to really lift.

 

[Porthoz]

Bump!

Now that the Warriors season was completed, what do people think about the Tomkins transfer?

- Where would you rank him in his position in the NRL?
- Knowing what you know now, do you think he is/was worth the price tag?

IMO, he definitely did not justify the price tag. He did exactly the same as in England... he carved teams up that were being dominated by the Warriors, but besides being pretty much inept defensively, when the team wasn't carburating, he was never the guy to rally his players behind him with a moment of brilliance or a clutch play to turn a game.

I'd rank him below Inglis, Slater, Milford, Tedesco, Morgan, Moylan, Hayne, Stewart, Dugan, Gordon and even Hodgo.

 

[Foordy]

He was good for the Warriors ... especially after Elliot's sacking.

but IMO he wasn't worth either his salary or massive transfer fee that the Warriors paid to get him.

 

[Porthoz]

He was good for the Warriors ... especially after Elliot's sacking.

but IMO he wasn't worth either his salary or massive transfer fee that the Warriors paid to get him.

Where would you rank him in the NRL at Fullback?

 

[Foordy]

behind these guys

Inglis, Slater, Milford, Tedesco, Morgan, Moylan, Hayne

 

[Porthoz]

behind these guys

Inglis, Slater, Milford, Tedesco, Morgan, Moylan, Hayne

Wait, what... no Barba? :aetsch: