Re: Karl pryce

[cpwigan]

I once saw Pryce play Wigan reserves on his own at Orrell. He was at Bradford and he scored a hatrick IIRC. The player that day is a million miles from the player today.

[exile in Tiger country]

He's now got 12 months to either prove the skeptics wrong or,
show just how good he can be.I think it's the right decision to keep someone like Price, who undoubtedly has all the attributes (apart from confidence), rather than keep players in the squad, who despite their enthusiasm and courage will never have the skills.

He didn't prove himself in the last 12 months and I doubt he will in the next.
For a big lad he seems afraid of getting hurt, and won't commit to a tackle, put his body on the line to get to a ball, or run at a defending player.
I had really high hopes for him when he returned from the dark side, remembering his rookie year at Bratf'rt, but he has failed repeatedly to demonstrate any heart, any passion for the team or the club that pays his wage.

[doc]

Personally I would have kept Phelps rather than Pryce. He showed a much greater enthusiasm for the game and could cover more positions.

[cpwigan]

The only issue I have with your post Cherry is that if you adopt the 'the youngsters may never be ready' they never will be al a Noble. If a player needs replacing for 1 game here and there then the argument may well be, better to give a younger player the development opportunity that a 24 approacing 25 cross roads last chance saloon player. You never know what youngsters can do unless you give them the opportunity.

No idea what will happen with Pryce. I daresay it is up to him to take what is probably an undeserved opportunity.

I have to say try scoring records are not a great indicator.

[DaveO]

I think the decision to retain Pryce is the correct one. Whilst his form hasn't exactly been top quality, he still offered enough to act as a decent stand in when we had injuries, and he ended up with the best try scoring record of any player at the club last year.

Well if ever there was a statistic that proved the old adage of "lies, damned lies and statistics" that one has got to be it. It was never a good enough excuse for Ainscough so the same must apply to Pryce.

You watched the games so you know he walked most of those tries in and you must know the rest of his play just wasn't good enough compared to every other player who donned the shirt last season.

As far as the squad is concerned, we have Richards out injured for the start of the year, Roberts who has struggled with injury last season and Carmont who has a tendency to pick up niggling injuries and is into his thirties now.
For the start of the season our backs (not including Pryce) are : Tomkins, Roberts, Gleeson, Carmont, Goulding, Marsh, Charnley. King and Russell are unlikely to be ready for first team rugby at Super League level.

If Roberts and Carmont were to succumb to injuries, or just one of those two and one of Marsh or Charnley sent out on loan, then the backs would be looking pretty thin. Having Pryce in the side offers more options and decent cover in the case of injuries. He isn't going to keep any of the young players out if they deserve their place, so on that front there is no problem.

No one can argue we don't need cover for injuries but we can argue Pryce isn't the player to offer it. I'd have Phepls or Ainscough any day of the week over Pryce.

Charnley, Marsh, King and Russell are all inexperienced, so there is no guarantee that they are going to be able to cope playing week in week out if necessary, especially King and Russell who have no experience at the top level and qualify for the under 18's. There is no guarantee Charnley or Marsh will play well enough and they could benefit more from going on loan and getting first team rugby. With Pryce still here, both could go out on loan and we'd still have cover, and there would be no obligation to play King or Russell if it turns out the step up to Super League is too much.

Again the problem here isn't whether the young players are ready (but at least one of them looked up to it when on loan at HKR) but whether Pryce is the right alternative.

When it comes to whether Pryce or Phelps should be kept on, the fact that Phelps is a quota player will count against him, and using a quota spot on a back up player doesn't make much sense. He will also be earning a decent amount of money, as he wouldn't have been earning peanuts in the NRL.

It doesn't make any difference about Phelps being quota if you are not going to fill the quota spot (which we aren't as the salary cap is supposed to be full). As to money Pryce will be in the top 25 earners at the club (he can't not be) so the money issue is a moot point.

When it comes to Pryce, there is still the matter of the potential he showed as a young player before his move to Union and his injuries.
He missed two years of his career because of injuries, which means two years of a young players development has gone. Even thought he is 24 he only really has the experience of a player of about 22.

Goulding is 22 and he's only just managed to break through and show some consistent performances, so it can take a while for players to start showing what they can do. Another year should give the coaching staff long enough to judge whether he will ever get anywhere near the player he promised to be when he broke through into the Bradford side.

So what? Time marches on and he is in the way of younger players.

Are you suggesting we have to wait until Pryce is 27? Why does he get such favourable treatment?

When you have a good coaching staff it makes sense to try to get the most out of players with the most potential, so I think giving Pryce a one year deal and seeing what Maguire and co can get out of him is worthwhile.

He's had three years already much of spent under Wane and one year under Madge. Everybody else improved last season except Pryce so why didn't he?

Keeping Pryce offers back up options. The alternatives would be to keep Phelps, but he struggled with injury last year, faces a lot of competition for his preferred position, is a quota player and for all we know could have been earning more than Pryce. Phelps might also have wanted to be tied down to a longer contract to offer some personal stability, but the club might not want to tie him down to a longer deal when quota spots are being reduced.
Signing another player as cover in the backs wouldn't make much sense, as signing players provides an expectation to play those players, and few will join a club just to be a back up. So if the club needed a player to offer more options in the backs, Pryce is the logical option, as he's already at the club, isn't likely to cost much, knows the club and the players inside out, has a decent try scoring record and still has the unfulfilled potential that, if he does find some form, could see him challenge the first team players.

There is nothing logical about re-signing Pryce even if all the speculation you put forward to make it sound so was true. You can't base an argument on speculation that Phelps would be on more money than Pryce. Given Phelps is unemployed as far as I know he is and was in no more of a bargaining position than Pryce.

Once again it is worth pointing out his try scoring record means nothing as does the fact he is already at the club and as I said he must be one of the top 25 paid players.

In short I can't see any justification in your post that stands up to any scrutiny.

[Matthew]

I didn't mean keeping Pryce was a reason not to play younger players, I meant that it made it a choice rather than a necessity in terms of an injury crisis. Some young players can cope straight away, some can last for a few games before the step up starts to trouble them and others will struggle initially.

What Pryce does is provide more options. If a young player struggles in a game, some will respond better to having to learn from their mistakes, whilst others will do better if they are taken out of the firing line and brought in gradually. Having more options in the backline is surely a benefit to the team.

Also, I think more importantly it means players like Charnley, Marsh or maybe King and Russell can go out on loan for a season, or at least reasonably long term, and will be able to get consistent playing time rather than having to be called back on short notice. If we loaned out a player for the initial month and couldn't recall them then Pryce would come in handy.

We could loan out Marsh and Charnley and have Russell or King on dual registration and not have to worry too much if someone picks up a knock, meaning loan players can concentrate on settling at the club they are at. It's hypothetical of course but I think it's relevant.

This approach would be acceptable if Pryce was a much safer bet than Marsh or Charnley. Whenever opposing teams have attacked Pryce's wing I have always been filled with a sense of dread. The only reason he hasn't been repeatedly exposed has been down to his centre being good enough defensively to make Pryce's life easy. Likewise, in attack he has only had to fall over the line to score.

Bearing in mind Pryce's try tally for last year; what was his most impressive piece of play? I can't think of one - where as I can for just about every other player who played in the back line.

Personally I would prefer us to use opportunities to test Marsh and Charnley to see if they are the real deal and whether they can fit into the team's style of play; rather than persevere for another year with a player who is distinctly uninspiring.

If Pryce was 6 inches shorter and 3 stone lighter; he would be long gone - it's the myth that he is a power house waiting to explode (there is an obvious joke about sh!thouses and implode which I'll leave for others) that has prolonged his Wigan career far longer than is deserved. Likewise were it not that IL had invested so much money in him then I am pretty sure that he would currently be playing in the lower leagues.

[DaveO]

.

You say you'd have Phelps or Ainscough, but when it comes to Phelps no one knows how much he's earning. He might want to keep one of Phelps and Pryce for cover, Phelps could be on a bigger wage than Pryce and keeping Phelps might then prevent Lenegan from offering the wage he would like to bring Hock back. No one really knows for sure where players wages are concerned (except for the obvious few).
As for Ainscough; well of course you would.

I was a little surprised that Ainscough left, but I can only assume his departure was down to a poor attitude or not impressing Madge.

I think if Richards had got injured before Ainscough spoke with Bradford he would still be here and Pryce would be gone. I can only think Richard's injury has given Pryce a lifeline. If as Richards seems to think he will be back sooner rather than later I can't see Pryce getting near the team and if the opportunity arises to play someone else then if he gets a game before the likes of Charnley that would be a Nobby style selection IMO.

We have two good experienced centres who can cope with a young player outside them whereas with Pryce they really ought not to be having to look after him but if you watch the games you will see they do. I don't think you can put them having to do that down to him not being up to speed after being out for a long period either. He ought to have the knowledge at his age to know where to stand in defence and often he doesn't.

Dave

[Kittwazzer]

Its official. He's got 26 shirt for 2011

[cpwigan]

An argument that Dave raised here and RLfans and is ignored is the mechanics of the cap. If Pryce is in the cap he costs money outside the cap IIRC we can only spend 55K and Pryce would cost a big slice of that. AFAIK Pryce was paid at least 60K for one season. I presume / hope he is on far less now.

I am not an Ainscough fan but you could argue a last chance for him rather than Pryce may have been better.

The bottom line is that Pryce must produce. He must get fitter / faster and discover a heart. At the moment we all look and say if only ....

[exile in Tiger country]

Pryce has no bottle, No heart, no obvious desire to go out and win a game for the honour of wearing the Wigan shirt.

Every other player in the team last year showed all of the above in every game.