AINSCOUGH BACK AT WIGAN

[DaveO]

You're still concentrating on one debatable "error" when most of the team made far more. The fact remains that if it was anyone but Ainscough, you wouldn't be making so much fuss about it, and you're ignoring the errors by others that led to the other 5 tries.

Indeed. Had it been Goulding and the Quins winger palmed the ball back for the centre to score due to Bailey's absence Bailey would have been slated by CPW because he certainly would not be making the same criticisms against Goulding as are being levelled against Ainscough.

Dave

[DaveO]

Do you think he would have caught Penny? I do not.

You keep rambling on about Ainscough catching Penny and posed the question of would Goulding have caught Penny. Well that has already been answered as he did a couple of years ago in a game at Warrington. It was well discussed on these sites at the time because it was Penny and people didnt realise Goulding was as quick as he is. Despite this only a fool would try and argue that Ainscough and Goulding are anywhere near as quick as Penny in a straight race.

You posted this diatribe before Mike lost the messages and I can't believe you bothers to resurrect it.

Why cite what happened two years ago as proof of a players capability now?

You do realise players attributes such as pace change don't you? Remember Harvey Howard? He started as a winger and finished as a prop! Granted an extreme example to get the point across but it's a valid point.

It is my opinion that in that Goulding does not have the speed off the mark that Ainscough has that allowed Ainscough to catch Penny. How fast either player was Gtwo years ago is no argument to 2010.

It also an opinion that doesn't warrant being called a fool either so I suggest you alter the tone of your posts in future.

Unless you see Ainscough play in a full strength Wigan side under MM (which Goulding has had the luxury of) don't you think it's a little pointless making the comparison?

Goulding has had Gleeson as his centre and had Ainscugh had that luxury tonight maybe instead of a two on one situation for the try in the first half it might have been Ainscough 1 on 1 v the winger? Who knows but the team was crap tonight and it has not been when Goulding has played most of the time.

Ainscough has also been away at Cas and has not benefited from Wigan's training (one of my objections to a loan as opposed to dual reg which allows it).

He has had to walk into the team after a weeks training and is being compared to a player who has the benefit of being here all season? He is on a hiding to nothing if that is the benchmark.

Dave

You have been making various statements about Ainscough for weeks now and your complete disregard for how well Goulding has played this year, to try and promote Ainscough, is pathetic.

What is pathetic is your tone in replying to messages. Grow up. Are you Goulding's Dad or something?

Why don't you try and answer the points in the above paragraph instead? I am basically saying I don't think Ainscough being on loan at Cas does him any favours compared to Goulding (or any other Wigan player if it makes you feel better) who benefits from training with Wigan every week. Hardly an unreasonable viewpoint to take.

The notion Ainscough being at Cas is detrimental for him has nothing to do with Goulding who if you didn't have selective vision you will see positive comments about from me after various matches this season.

If I had an agenda of trying to promote (as you put it) Ainscough over Goulding I could have posted with some of Gouldings tries he was just in the right place to fall over the line but you WON'T find any such comments from me like that because it's his JOB to do that when out on the wing. And that is despite similar comments posted about Ainscough's try scoring exploits in the past.

From watching the games and looking at the stats I would say that Goulding has been as instrumental in our success as people like Gleeson and Richards but he doesnt get half the credit. In attack he has a very high work rate and has regularly been one of our top metre makers, some weeks he has been top. In addition he has scored plenty of tries. In defence he has been very solid under kicks and high bombs (has he even dropped one this season? I cant remember him doing) and I cant remember him being at fault for a try. However you make all of this sound like just a coincidence and that Goulding is just a passenger in this team.

Rubbish. How in earth do you come up with that?

You seem obsessed about trying to compare the two players so here goes.

No the one who's obsessed is you. You are obsessed with telling me what I am obsessed with! I have NEVER gone out of my way to compare the players putting Goulding down to promote Ainscough. The only comparison I have made is the one regarding pace in the last game and if you want to disagree that is fine but don't put words into my mouth about what I think of Goulding in general.

Also saying I don't think Goulding would have done any better outside Bailey on Friday is NOT denigrating Goulding as I have said umpteen times and anyone who thinks it is is looking for things that are not there.

Goulding has been very strong in defence and attack this season. Ainscough has not and never has been. This has often been pointed out to you and you then make posts along the lines of its all Castlefords fault and that Goulding would be just as poor in a team like that.

He probably would in my opinion.

However when posters point out that Goulding was at loan at a similarly struggling Salford side and the fact that he did very well both in attack and defence, with their fans and coach saying how much he strengthened their defence down the side which had been a big weakness before, you just decide to ignore it because it doesnt suit your argument.

When I replied to this previously I pointed out that Salford conceded 754 points, just shy of 28 a match on average last season so unless you want to argue they were all on the opposite side of the pitch to Goulding you don't have a point do you?

Some of them will have been scored on his side and given you rate him so highly it must have been the other players in the teams faults. How else do you explain that points against total? Perhaps therefore Goulding was unable to stem the tide in a poor defensive team just as Ainscough can't at Cas. I am sure Cas kept Ainscough on loan because he added something to their side and I am sure Salford did likewise with Goulding but I am equally sure Goulding will have found himself outnumbered and unable to do anything about it on occasion just as Ainscough has at cas.

The inconvenient fact for you is Goulding faced the same sort of poor defence as Ainscough faces at Cas and as that points against total shows was unable to do much about it. Or are you going to suggest without him it would have gone to 1000 against

You talk about Goulding never having to 3v1 or 2v1 overlaps, which is plainly absurd as all wingers do. It is pointed out that he does but he just deals with them effectively, as against Saints, Bradford etc but again you just ignore this and make out that Ainscough only has this problem at Castleford and it would not happen if he played for Wigan.

It's never been pointed out because there is no winger on the planet who deals with 3 a three man overlap effectively. That is what is absurd.

Low and behold Ainscough does get a chance at Wigan and has to face these situations, which according to you Goulding somehow never has to, and it is now Baileys fault and the fault of the poor team that he is playing in.

You didn't go to the game did you? There was no overlap in any of the tries conceded that have been attributed to Bailey's mistakes. He was out of position for the first and was beaten for pace on the other two. He may as well not have been there for those two.

So no, Ainscough didn't have any 3 v 1 overlaps to deal with for those tries but neither was he at fault for them.

Anyone who knows anything about the game who was there (I doubt you were given the above comment) knows Bailey was at fault for definitely two and IMO three tries.

Had Goulding been outside Bailey those tries would still have been scored IMO. Had Gleenson been the centre I don't think they would have been no matter who was on the wing ! I am NOT the only one who thinks that and it is NOT in any way a slight on your son, sorry I mean Goulding.

It is the same with your arguments with regards Ainscough under high kicks. Ainscough faced a high kick on Friday which once again he does not deal with (he doesnt even leave the floor) and according to you shoch horror it is not his fault but his centre's.

Not just according to me. As Geoff pointed out it was a great kick even Richards would have struggled with but Ainscough was in position whereas Bailey was not.

You do realise that on occasion attacking kicks result in tries no matter who the defending winger is don't you?

You seem to have this stupid one-eyed notion all high kicks can be defended and more to the point every high kick Ainscough has ever received should have been dealt with.

Guess what? Plenty of tries will be scored from kicks against us even some against Richards (I am sure this has happened already this season).

So what's your point?

Going off the Castleford highlights I have seen Ainscough conceed tries in exactly the same fashion at least twice in recent weeks. Why do you think that Goulding has not conceeded a try in this manner in the 11 or so games that he has played? Is that just another coincidence?

Because Goulding is infallible (joke the way)? Because he hasn't had to deal with many difficult kicks? Could it even be playing outside a decent centre for most of them he gets the right sort of protection? Or even when we have a full team out we are good at making it difficult for the attacking side to adopt this tactic?

You simply won't accept there is anything different in having to play in the side we put out v Quins compared the sides that have been so mean defensively which is IMO completely unrealistic.

Then again maybe you do because a big point you made when you posted this previously has been dropped. You said Ainscough had been given a chance and failed to shine or words to that effect. I pointed out to you that many normally very good players failed to shine on Friday. I guess acknowledging these other players were also bad is rather inconvenient for your stance so not surprisingly that hasn't been re-posted.

Dave

[cpwigan]

You're still concentrating on one debatable "error" when most of the team made far more. The fact remains that if it was anyone but Ainscough, you wouldn't be making so much fuss about it, and you're ignoring the errors by others that led to the other 5 tries.

Indeed. Had it been Goulding and the Quins winger palmed the ball back for the centre to score due to Bailey's absence Bailey would have been slated by CPW because he certainly would not be making the same criticisms against Goulding as are being levelled against Ainscough.

Dave

I was going to let this thread die but given Dave O's reaction to Dobby I will post in it. Personally, I jusge players on what I see. Now we all have seen Goulding deal with kicks from Warrington onwards and play well. Hence he deserves praise just as Feka and Liam Farrell deserve praise v Quins.

Ainscough's form in his last two competitive games for Wigan has been hopeless v Wire and non descript v Quins. His form for Cas has been inconsistent.

I think you owe Dobby an apology Dave

[Dobby]

Do you even realise the hypocrisy of your response? It is quite unbelievable. I will rise above your more immature comments and stick to the debate. It is impossible to respond to everything that you say so I am just going to respond to your main points or ones that dont involve just repeating what I have already said. With some of your posts, such as Ainscough being immune from blame on the kick, I just cant understand where you are coming from (I doubt that any coach would) and would just be repeating myself. Therefore there is little point.

Why cite what happened two years ago as proof of a players capability now?

You do realise players attributes such as pace change don't you? Remember Harvey Howard? He started as a winger and finished as a prop! Granted an extreme example to get the point across but it's a valid point.

It is my opinion that in that Goulding does not have the speed off the mark that Ainscough has that allowed Ainscough to catch Penny. How fast either player was Gtwo years ago is no argument to 2010.

I am sorry this is just laughable. You posed a question and I answered it by saying Goulding had caught him in the past. That is something that actually happened and not just an opinion and is therefore far more valid in answering your question than anything you may think may happen. You dont like the answer because it doesnt make Ainscough sound like Martin Offiah so start rambling on about Harvey Howard to try and back up your point. As far as I am aware Goulding has not bulked up to over 18 stone and moved to prop forward and your point is far from valid. Goulding certainly didnt look like he had deteriorated to the extent that you suggest against Hull, Wakefield or Salford in particular where he looked rather quick. Whether it is yesterday or 2 years ago it is still a damn sight more valid than just your opinion and what you may think he is capable of. Why even bother posing a question if the answer is already made up in your mind? How you responded to this, in my opinion, sums up your entire outlook with Ainscough. You look for any possible excuse so that you can defend him, no matter how ridiculous, and nothing anyone else says is going to change your viewpoint.

When I replied to this previously I pointed out that Salford conceded 754 points, just shy of 28 a match on average last season so unless you want to argue they were all on the opposite side of the pitch to Goulding you don't have a point do you?

Some of them will have been scored on his side and given you rate him so highly it must have been the other players in the teams faults. How else do you explain that points against total? Perhaps therefore Goulding was unable to stem the tide in a poor defensive team just as Ainscough can't at Cas. I am sure Cas kept Ainscough on loan because he added something to their side and I am sure Salford did likewise with Goulding but I am equally sure Goulding will have found himself outnumbered and unable to do anything about it on occasion just as Ainscough has at cas.

The inconvenient fact for you is Goulding faced the same sort of poor defence as Ainscough faces at Cas and as that points against total shows was unable to do much about it. Or are you going to suggest without him it would have gone to 1000 against .

I didnt see your post as they were deleted, hence no reply to points you may have raised.

I see though that you seem to know more than the Salford fans that saw Goulding week in, week out (fans that regularly praised him on RLFans for his defence) and Shaun McRae, well done. Maybe you should tell them they are wrong and that they should change their opinions.

However as you were talking about points and averages I decided to look a little closer and the facts seem to contradict the argument that you are trying to make. Goulding played 9 games for Salford in which they conceeded 186 points giving an average of 20.66 a game. In the 18 games without him they conceeded 568 points at an average of 31.55 (over a 50% increase in the games without him). That is quite a difference in anyones book and it seems that Goulding was able to make a difference at a similar, if not worse team, than Castleford. What was you saying about inconvenient facts? How do you explain this?

Because Goulding is infallible (joke the way)? Because he hasn't had to deal with many difficult kicks? Could it even be playing outside a decent centre for most of them he gets the right sort of protection? Or even when we have a full team out we are good at making it difficult for the attacking side to adopt this tactic?

Anything but Ainscough's fault then. I should have guessed. It couldnt be that Goulding is just better.

Then again maybe you do because a big point you made when you posted this previously has been dropped. You said Ainscough had been given a chance and failed to shine or words to that effect. I pointed out to you that many normally very good players failed to shine on Friday. I guess acknowledging these other players were also bad is rather inconvenient for your stance so not surprisingly that hasn't been re-posted.Dave

As I said previously I didnt see your post to me so cant comment on what you said. Ainscough did fail to take his chance and the mistakes he made reinforced many peoples view of his faults rather than change that view. His lack of work rate and poor metres gained, which is something that people have commented on after his Castleford displays, was something I didnt expect as I thought that he would be eager to impress. This is a thread about Ainscough and so that is why I am not discussing other players and the big difference is that these players had credit in the bank so to speak and didnt need to impress Maguire in the same way, Ainscough did.

[weststand-rich]

Can we draw a line under this one? We all like a good chat and a debate, but the detail and dissection has gone beyond minutae now.

It's become one of those arguments parodied in the Life of Brian between "The Judean Peoples Front" and "The Peoples Front of Judea".

Pack it in you splitters!!!!!!

[Dobby]

I was going to let this thread die but given Dave O's reaction to Dobby I will post in it. Personally, I jusge players on what I see. Now we all have seen Goulding deal with kicks from Warrington onwards and play well. Hence he deserves praise just as Feka and Liam Farrell deserve praise v Quins.

Ainscough's form in his last two competitive games for Wigan has been hopeless v Wire and non descript v Quins. His form for Cas has been inconsistent.

I think you owe Dobby an apology Dave

Cheers CP. I was going to let it die too but what the hell

[DaveO]

Do you even realise the hypocrisy of your response? It is quite unbelievable. I will rise above your more immature comments and stick to the debate.

You started this by calling me a fool and now say you will rise above immature comments it and yet talk about hypocrisy? Given it was you who you dragged the tone down in the first place who is the hypocrite?

It is impossible to respond to everything that you say so I am just going to respond to your main points or ones that dont involve just repeating what I have already said. With some of your posts, such as Ainscough being immune from blame on the kick, I just cant understand where you are coming from (I doubt that any coach would) and would just be repeating myself. Therefore there is little point.

Had the winger caught the ball Ainscough would have been able to tackle him. As Ainscough was where he was the winger had to palm the ball if he didn't want to get tackled. He palmed it too his centre and the centre scored as he was unmarked by Bailey. It's pretty simple and just shows jumping for the ball is not necessarily the best thing to do if you think you are not going to win it in the air. Let him catch it and make the tackle. You can't do that if the kick is landing in the in-goal as they often do because the winger can just fall down in the tackle and score but that wasn't the situation here.

Had Bailey been where he should have been - no try. If you disagree have a pop at Geoff. Or is he a fool as well? I would like an answer to that question by the way because you seem to think I am the only one who thinks like this.

Why cite what happened two years ago as proof of a players capability now?

You do realise players attributes such as pace change don't you? Remember Harvey Howard? He started as a winger and finished as a prop! Granted an extreme example to get the point across but it's a valid point.

It is my opinion that in that Goulding does not have the speed off the mark that Ainscough has that allowed Ainscough to catch Penny. How fast either player was Gtwo years ago is no argument to 2010.

I am sorry this is just laughable. You posed a question and I answered it by saying Goulding had caught him in the past. That is something that actually happened and not just an opinion and is therefore far more valid in answering your question than anything you may think may happen.

The point was very simple which was that what happened two years ago isn't relevant to 2010. They were both two years younger with different training regimes and so on. If you don't think players of their ages change dramatically at this stage of their career you would be mistaken to citing what happened two years ago is not much of an argument.

You dont like the answer because it doesnt make Ainscough sound like Martin Offiah so start rambling on about Harvey Howard to try and back up your point. As far as I am aware Goulding has not bulked up to over 18 stone and moved to prop forward and your point is far from valid.

You know exactly what point I was making and as I said I was using the extreme example to make the point not suggesting Goulding had become a tub of lard. You don't know how fast Goulding is now compare to two years ago. It's as simple as that so citing what he did two years ago is what is far from valid.

Goulding certainly didnt look like he had deteriorated to the extent that you suggest against Hull, Wakefield or Salford in particular where he looked rather quick.

And? What has that got to do with the opinion that I think Ainscough is quicker off the mark?

Whether it is yesterday or 2 years ago it is still a damn sight more valid than just your opinion and what you may think he is capable of.

You said he could have caught Penny because he did it two years ago. That is not relevant IMO.

Why even bother posing a question if the answer is already made up in your mind? How you responded to this, in my opinion, sums up your entire outlook with Ainscough. You look for any possible excuse so that you can defend him, no matter how ridiculous, and nothing anyone else says is going to change your viewpoint.

This all started because I made what I believed was a very reasonable post bemoaning the fact he only got his chance in the poorest Wigan side to take the field this year and yet people like you jumped on his back when others were worse than him. For some reason known only to you my post was denigrating Goulding. Talk about 2 + 2 = 5.

It is a not a case of defending Ainscough at every opportunity and can only appear so to the paranoid. I am not the only one who thinks it was his bad luck to play in that side. Read the threads in RL fans many of which express a similar view and that is not traditionally an "Ainscough friendly" place. You make it out as if I am the only one who didn't see his performance v Quins and his role in the first try as I do.

Why you felt the need to go off on one replying to the post as you did is beyond me.

When I replied to this previously I pointed out that Salford conceded 754 points, just shy of 28 a match on average last season so unless you want to argue they were all on the opposite side of the pitch to Goulding you don't have a point do you?

Some of them will have been scored on his side and given you rate him so highly it must have been the other players in the teams faults. How else do you explain that points against total? Perhaps therefore Goulding was unable to stem the tide in a poor defensive team just as Ainscough can't at Cas. I am sure Cas kept Ainscough on loan because he added something to their side and I am sure Salford did likewise with Goulding but I am equally sure Goulding will have found himself outnumbered and unable to do anything about it on occasion just as Ainscough has at cas.

The inconvenient fact for you is Goulding faced the same sort of poor defence as Ainscough faces at Cas and as that points against total shows was unable to do much about it. Or are you going to suggest without him it would have gone to 1000 against .

I didnt see your post as they were deleted, hence no reply to points you may have raised.

I see though that you seem to know more than the Salford fans that saw Goulding week in, week out (fans that regularly praised him on RLFans for his defence) and Shaun McRae, well done. Maybe you should tell them they are wrong and that they should change their opinions.

I am sure Goulding improved their side as Ainscough improved Cas. I am equally sure Salford's defence was generally rubbish and continued to concede points Goulding could not do anything about. Just as Ainscough has not been able to do anything about many scored against Cas. I am not the only one of that opinion either.

However as you were talking about points and averages I decided to look a little closer and the facts seem to contradict the argument that you are trying to make. Goulding played 9 games for Salford in which they conceeded 186 points giving an average of 20.66 a game. In the 18 games without him they conceeded 568 points at an average of 31.55 (over a 50% increase in the games without him). That is quite a difference in anyones book and it seems that Goulding was able to make a difference at a similar, if not worse team, than Castleford. What was you saying about inconvenient facts? How do you explain this?

It is truly laughable to suggest a winger made the difference. Who else was in the side at the same time? Did anyone come back from injury? What other factors where there? And who did they play in those games? Goulding wasn't the only variable so if you are suggesting he single handedly reduced their average points against by almost 11 a match you don't have a great take on statistics.

He played in a poor side and would have faced many situation he could do nothing about jsut as Ainscough did at Cas. The difference is no one slagged Goulding off when he was in that situation but when AInscough is, then it's time to form a queue to do so.

Because Goulding is infallible (joke the way)? Because he hasn't had to deal with many difficult kicks? Could it even be playing outside a decent centre for most of them he gets the right sort of protection? Or even when we have a full team out we are good at making it difficult for the attacking side to adopt this tactic?

Anything but Ainscough's fault then. I should have guessed. It couldnt be that Goulding is just better.

You sill refuse to accept it's better playing outside Gleeson than Bailey or the fact we had our poorest side out makes a difference I see. It's a nonsensical standpoint to take.

Then again maybe you do because a big point you made when you posted this previously has been dropped. You said Ainscough had been given a chance and failed to shine or words to that effect. I pointed out to you that many normally very good players failed to shine on Friday. I guess acknowledging these other players were also bad is rather inconvenient for your stance so not surprisingly that hasn't been re-posted.Dave

As I said previously I didnt see your post to me so cant comment on what you said.

It was what you said in your previous effort that was conspicuous by its absence from the latter one.

Ainscough did fail to take his chance and the mistakes he made reinforced many peoples view of his faults rather than change that view. His lack of work rate and poor metres gained, which is something that people have commented on after his Castleford displays, was something I didnt expect as I thought that he would be eager to impress. This is a thread about Ainscough and so that is why I am not discussing other players and the big difference is that these players had credit in the bank so to speak and didnt need to impress Maguire in the same way, Ainscough did.

Well of course you are not discussing other players because if you did you would have to acknowledge they were all poor bar Farrell and Ainscoug was on a hiding to nothing.

You have to ignore the team performance so you can single out Ainscough for unjustified criticism. If you brought Bailey into the discussion you would have to acknowledge he was awful, left Ainscough exposed in defence and gave him no service in attack.

As to the thread being about Ainscough and not discussing other players you have never shut up about Goulding.

By the way, did you actually go to the game?

Dave

[No straw damn us]

Well it would appear that Maguire was non too impressed with Ainscough as he has been replaced this week with Karl Pryce.
Thoughts?

[cpwigan]

I cannot be bothered reading all of Dave O's essay but I did pick up on one point when presented with statistics that showed Salford conceded less popints with Goulding in the team than without an OBJECTIVE measure Dave said

It is truly laughable to suggest a winger made the difference.

Yes there could have been other factors but Salford at the time Goulding went had a real weakness on the fringes. It was well documented that Salford were vulnerable out wide and conceding points there. Goulding improved that team and made a SIGNIFICANT difference to the defence of Salford who as Dave rightly says were a weak team, possibly weaker than Cas where Ainscough has not made any difference whatsoever.

[gpartin]

Goulding made a massive difference at Salford. Its been said time and time again on here but decent defensive wingers commit themselves to a man when faced with an overlap. If they go for the centre they at least pressure them into making a poor pass. Poor defenders pick neither player and not only do either the centre or winger score they also get under the sticks.