Re: Karl pryce
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:02 pm
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.
A site for fans of Wigan Warriors RLFC. News, views, statistics, profiles and more all contributed by supporters of Wigan RL.
https://www.wiganwarriorsfans.com/
He didn't prove himself in the last 12 months and I doubt he will in the next.jobo wrote: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.
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.cherry.pie wrote: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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 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.
So what? Time marches on and he is in the way of younger players.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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.cherry.pie wrote: 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.
cherry.pie wrote:.
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 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.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.