Clear message to Pryce though which many seem to be oblivious to.[/quote]
What do you mean? What is the message?

True, but Cas have looked so bad recently that it would do more harm than good, IMO. You can't really learn to defend a 3-1 overlap.cpwigan wrote:Mmm, interesting theory Dave O. Play in the best team in the league and rarely get your defence tested or play in a poorer team and get your defence tested. Strikes me Ainscough was in the right place to try to improve his defence be it tackling or fielding short kicks which by definition a team has to be losing out re field position for you to be tested.
I trust Madge enough to give both Ainy and Marsh a chance at some point. It will be interesting to see who gets first shot on Friday.
Some informed views on Rlfans though (Bondi Warrior and Tiny Tim). I am impressed. The likes of myself and Rogues Gallery have very similar views and have seen Ainsy since he was 16 so it looks like some Wigan fans are astute.
I presume he will play in place of Goulding although on form Marsh should get selected and offers cover for several backline position which is important given Carmont's recent fraility.
I think that message got through a while ago, both to KP and to us.
Clear message to Pryce though which many seem to be oblivious to.
There is a difference between "getting your defence tested" and facing an impossible job on a weekly basis. He will IMO gain nothing defending three man overlaps time after time.cpwigan wrote:Mmm, interesting theory Dave O. Play in the best team in the league and rarely get your defence tested or play in a poorer team and get your defence tested.
I am sure the opposition are very accommodating and deliberately test Ainscough in the areas he needs to improve on so he can do just that and that is the only kind if pressure they put on the Cas defence, rather than exploiting any other weaknesses in a side with one of the worst defences in the league.Strikes me Ainscough was in the right place to try to improve his defence be it tackling or fielding short kicks which by definition a team has to be losing out re field position for you to be tested.
Or perhaps you (and they) may be wrong?Some informed views on Rlfans though (Bondi Warrior and Tiny Tim). I am impressed. The likes of myself and Rogues Gallery have very similar views and have seen Ainsy since he was 16 so it looks like some Wigan fans are astute.
But playing in the reserves for Wigan was not going to improve his defence either. Doing his best in an 'impossible' situation will help him more than doing nothing at all. While he was not required by Wigan it makes sense to send him somewhere else.DaveO wrote:There is a difference between "getting your defence tested" and facing an impossible job on a weekly basis. He will IMO gain nothing defending three man overlaps time after time.cpwigan wrote:Mmm, interesting theory Dave O. Play in the best team in the league and rarely get your defence tested or play in a poorer team and get your defence tested.
I get the impression that a lot of Madge's concerns relate to off-field issues at Cas, connected to the reason why Chase & Westerman were dropped "for disciplinary reasons". As many of us know, Ainy would be easily influenced by that sort of environment.cpwigan wrote:Dave you seem to have a really bad opinion on Castleford. Yes, they are devastated by injuries but rarely have they been destroyed by teams.
I worried I might jinx some players if I say this but I think Wigan players have looked better under the high ball. Roberts was a bit shaky at times last season but has regain confidence and dealt with kicks well. I've been more impressed with Darrell Goulding, not a winger by trade and not the tallest of players but has looked calm under the high kicks and has taken some kicks very well.GeoffN wrote:As far as defending high kicks goes, from what I've seen, he's only made one mistake in that department in all his time at Cas. The highlights won't show those that didn't lead to tries, admittedly, but neither will they show all the ones he dealt with competently.
But surely the difference is that Roberts was a really classy player in the NRL and it was poor coaching and conditioning that led to his poor form last year, not to mention moving himself and his family half way around the world.A49 wrote:Last season both Roberts and Ainscough were weak defensively.
We persevered with Roberts and look at the results!
At least give Ainscough some sort of chance because, if he responds in the same way, the opposition will have a tactical nightmare defending the gaps that these two alone are capable of opening.
I don't think anyone's saying Ainy is better than Roberts (this season) - the question is if we have better wingers available at the moment, with both Roberts & Goulding out. For tomorrow, it's pretty much a choice between Marsh & Ainscough, which is a pretty close call, IMO, though I'm sure Madge will give Ainy the first chance. He'll need to take it, though; he's got plenty of competition for that spot.Sutty wrote:But surely the difference is that Roberts was a really classy player in the NRL and it was poor coaching and conditioning that led to his poor form last year, not to mention moving himself and his family half way around the world.A49 wrote:Last season both Roberts and Ainscough were weak defensively.
We persevered with Roberts and look at the results!
At least give Ainscough some sort of chance because, if he responds in the same way, the opposition will have a tactical nightmare defending the gaps that these two alone are capable of opening.
Ainscough on the other hand doesn't seem to be playing any different to what he was last year, and he's had the same off season with Madge etc and he's still been training, largely, with the first team. I'm not saying that he can't improve, I just think that Roberts is, and always will be, the better player.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Ainscough improve and start scoring tries for fun, as he was last year. But he needs to improve first and start taking in what he's being taught, if what CPWigan is saying is true.