Will Shaun Ainscough Play This Friday?

[ancientnloyal]

Han't Lenegan publically said something (rlfans?) regarding 'nonesense' about ainscough's contract rumours?

Maybe the denial is nonesense.

[Wigan_forever1985]

I read an interesting suggestion somewhere this week. Cannot recall where for the life of me but the suggestion was to impose a limit on the number of games a player is allowed to play. It was in response to the complain of too many games etc. However, I thought, yes very good because it would also force coaches/clubs to play young player at various stages in the season. When I read coaches complaining about the Easter fixtures and then see that they never freshened the team instead tried to play the same 17 every match I personally believe their complaints are invalidated.

How would you account for injuries though im sure teams like Bradford would love to rotate their sqaud however they have hardly anyone left. How about a rule that in any say set of 3 games at least 1 player in the squad must be from your youth team or under 20. This would guarentee a youth player in the squad.

I see where your coming from CP but i just dont think limiting the amount of games a player can play is a feasible option, the problem is a player could get in a rich vien of form and then have to sit out a game.

At the end of the day from the RFL point of view its all about the product. We still need to have a very entertaining game. One of our major problems has been cohesion, stains and leeds have shown the league that keeping the same players together pays dividends and makes for fast flowing entertaining rugby.

[DaveO]

Han't Lenegan publically said something (rlfans?) regarding 'nonesense' about ainscough's contract rumours?

Yes. The only reason Ainscough is not playing is down to Noble.

Dave

[fred_flintstone]

Han't Lenegan publically said something (rlfans?) regarding 'nonesense' about ainscough's contract rumours?

Yes. The only reason Ainscough is not playing is down to Noble.

Dave

Someone is telling porkies then and needs to be careful.

[GeoffN]

I read an interesting suggestion somewhere this week. Cannot recall where for the life of me but the suggestion was to impose a limit on the number of games a player is allowed to play. It was in response to the complain of too many games etc. However, I thought, yes very good because it would also force coaches/clubs to play young player at various stages in the season. When I read coaches complaining about the Easter fixtures and then see that they never freshened the team instead tried to play the same 17 every match I personally believe their complaints are invalidated.

That might have been Phil Clarke's Sky column a couple of weeks back.

[Reevezie 2.0.0.8]

Han't Lenegan publically said something (rlfans?) regarding 'nonesense' about ainscough's contract rumours?

Maybe the denial is nonesense.

Here you go.....

http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php? ... start=120

[TomThumb]

Well well well! I never thought such an opinion would create such feedback.... Excuse me for agreeing with Noble as it seems such agreement is against the "click" of this forum.

DaveO: regarding your comment about saints new signing soliola! did he have glaring issues with his game?
I don't see noble completely dropping Tomkins even though he is still young. I think the duty of care comment is attributed to the fact that noble knows were shaun's abilities and weeknesses lie and he has a duty to improve them and make him a better and giving him time to work on these issues, is fair in my opinion. lets be honest Noble and the wigan coaching staff work with these players everyday and you think you know better because you post on forums and watch 80 mins of gametime each week??

Regarding your comment DaveO on making it an issue and polarising views, I have had to post my case so many times because it doesnt agee with the "click" that I am making shaun's weeknesses more of an issue than they really are. I would like to point out again that I can understand noble going with a more solid backline of Phelps, Richards and Roberts against sides which are generally very good at using the kicking game to score tries.

I agree against other sides shaun should be given a chance, I am not saying he shouldn't, but I can understand against wakefield, hull kr and st helens that noble would opt for a more solid back three.

Is it fair that Roberts hasn't been given a chance by many posters on here, even though he has moved him and his family half way round the world to play for us and was a proven player in the NRL?

Is it fair that phelps who was once the focal point of many posters here as a "waste of space" is now playing very well and looking like a shrewd piece of business, that he got as much stick on here as he did?

I think with the results we have had recently and with our ability to score tries and performing better defensively, that keeping with the same side in the cup and in a vital super league games is fair enough in my opinion.

Brian N

[turf]

Well well well! I never thought such an opinion would create such feedback.... Excuse me for agreeing with Noble as it seems such agreement is against the "click" of this forum.

DaveO: regarding your comment about saints new signing soliola! did he have glaring issues with his game?
I don't see noble completely dropping Tomkins even though he is still young. I think the duty of care comment is attributed to the fact that noble knows were shaun's abilities and weeknesses lie and he has a duty to improve them and make him a better and giving him time to work on these issues, is fair in my opinion. lets be honest Noble and the wigan coaching staff work with these players everyday and you think you know better because you post on forums and watch 80 mins of gametime each week??

Regarding your comment DaveO on making it an issue and polarising views, I have had to post my case so many times because it doesnt agee with the "click" that I am making shaun's weeknesses more of an issue than they really are. I would like to point out again that I can understand noble going with a more solid backline of Phelps, Richards and Roberts against sides which are generally very good at using the kicking game to score tries.

I agree against other sides shaun should be given a chance, I am not saying he shouldn't, but I can understand against wakefield, hull kr and st helens that noble would opt for a more solid back three.

Is it fair that Roberts hasn't been given a chance by many posters on here, even though he has moved him and his family half way round the world to play for us and was a proven player in the NRL?

Is it fair that phelps who was once the focal point of many posters here as a "waste of space" is now playing very well and looking like a shrewd piece of business, that he got as much stick on here as he did?

I think with the results we have had recently and with our ability to score tries and performing better defensively, that keeping with the same side in the cup and in a vital super league games is fair enough in my opinion.

Brian N

The bit in bold is exactly what I think Noble is doing.

[cpwigan]

Mmmm Tom it seems you have an axe to grind. Clique / click. On here people debate their POV and there is no party line never has been never will. Surely having differing views makes things more enjoyable, particularly if ones views are well though out.

I am not a fan of Phelps personally. However, I think you will find many are. Many of those who are are people I get along with and we just accept that we have different views. So you seem to be misreading whatever you are reading.

Dave O argues in the same mannr here and rlfans and could never be accused of belonging to a clique. A maverick possibly but a follower never. He's a beligirent bugger but he does think through exactly what he posts and that makes his views worth reading.

[TomThumb]

Mmmm Tom it seems you have an axe to grind. Clique / click. On here people debate their POV and there is no party line never has been never will. Surely having differing views makes things more enjoyable, particularly if ones views are well though out..

I think the written word is far easier to take out of context the the spoken word. But I have no axe to grind, people can think what they want, like life, people have different views. I am an athiest and have spent a lot of time understanding/reading and have come to the decision that there is no god, but I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but what I do hope is that they at least give a somewhat open understanding that someone may have a different opinion, I understand there are many on this forum who are disappointed that shaun isn't in the team. I can understand that his ability to score tries is absolutely world class and trust me I have enjoyed every single one of them. But i also have the mental capacity to understand were Brian noble is coming from when he decides that he wants to not play shaun in certain games. Like most issues nothing is black and white, but to ridicule someone(in this case noble) for applying his ideas to a young lad who he has seen grow within the youth setup is something I don't agree with..

I am not a fan of Phelps personally. However, I think you will find many are. Many of those who are are people I get along with and we just accept that we have different views. So you seem to be misreading whatever you are reading.

Dave O argues in the same mannr here and rlfans and could never be accused of belonging to a clique. A maverick possibly but a follower never. He's a beligirent bugger but he does think through exactly what he posts and that makes his views worth reading.

I have no issues with reading his views and agree with many.. but I also understand that sitting in a living room/at work, posting messages on forums is also vastly different than managing a rugby team the stature and size of Wigan RL.

Brian N