Will Shaun Ainscough Play This Friday?

[GeoffN]

Fred is right. You cannot divulge sources particularly where livelihoods are at risk. The Noble rumours. Who knows but the style of play has improved dramatically in weeks. Strange that we are now running from more depth and using second man plays etc after nearly 3 years of flat schoolboy chain passing.

I'm more impressed with the change of defensive tactics, finally getting rid of that "step and hold" style that's hampered us so much (and that annoyed Barrett so much) for the last 2 years.

[DaveO]

Ohhh no Ive been exposed!!! Well Done Dave O... your too good!!!

Obviously this is an emotive subject..

It is my opinion that after watching Shaun in the reserves a few times this season and all the super league games, yes he is suspect under the high ball or cross field balls, It doesnt take a genius to work out that.. but surely in an era were the high ball/cross field ball is a well used tactic, I think giving him time to work on that part of his game is what he needs not throwing to the lions to see if he either sinks or swims...

Thorwing to the lions, Sink or swim, hmmmm, you really are Brian Noble

He seemed to be be swimming a lot better than some of his team mates when he was playing.

With Smith we had a glaring defensive problem but this seems to have lessened because we are not sticking out alone in the centres to defend (which is something some of us were suggesting was a bad idea from his first game this season). Instead with Gleeson in the side and a slight change in defensive tactics we have a player much more like the one who was playing in Australia.

If we can do that for Smith why not adopt tactics to protect Ainscough such as when defending the line Pat goes to the wing and Ainscough swaps with him?

Jason Robinson was a not very tall at all for a winger but we coped with him in the side.

The point I was making about Brown and Robinson is that yes they are superleague players but especially Brown, he took a lot of stick from the Wigan Fans after going through a drop in form after his first year in superleague(2nd year syndrome) and I think this certainly effected his wigan career and I also think his following years!!

What concerns me is that this debate is polarising views to the extent some people may well pick fault in Ainscough game (not suggesting you are by the way) simply to defend Noble and/or if/when he does get a game all people do is look for him to make a mistake. I can imagine one dropped ball and the groans will go up around the stadium. If they do them IMO Noble with his negative public statements about Ainscough will be partly to blame.

Back to the "duty of care" thing, Saints have just signed a 22 year old NZ centre who is already a test standard player and 1st team regular in the NRL. If Noble "protects" players to the extent he is supposedly doing with Ainscough will Ainscough have developed into a test standard player at 22?

I think he has the potential to be a great winger but if he doesn't get SL game time he won't be at that level by the time he is 22 whereas if he did get the games then I think he may well be.

Dave

[cpwigan]

Exactly Dave and as someone who has watched every home reserve game (when posters throw that at you on rlfans.com) trust me you cannot learn very much from reserve grade once you reach the age of 18 plus.

It would accept many fans who enjoy seeing our club win trophies at reserve / academy level but personally, for their own benefit the Academy should be full of 16/17 year olds and the majority of the reserves should be 18 years old.

To give you an example of how ludicrous the notion that Ainscough will learn what he needs to playing reserves actually is v Saints, one of the few decent reserve teams, Ainscough was able to let a high kick hit the ground at which point he trapped it with his foot and fell on it with very little pressure. Would that happen in SL but at reserve you can do that. Moreover 9 out of 10 kicks are poor.

[GeoffN]

Exactly Dave and as someone who has watched every home reserve game (when posters throw that at you on rlfans.com) trust me you cannot learn very much from reserve grade once you reach the age of 18 plus.

It would accept many fans who enjoy seeing our club win trophies at reserve / academy level but personally, for their own benefit the Academy should be full of 16/17 year olds and the majority of the reserves should be 18 years old.

To give you an example of how ludicrous the notion that Ainscough will learn what he needs to playing reserves actually is v Saints, one of the few decent reserve teams, Ainscough was able to let a high kick hit the ground at which point he trapped it with his foot and fell on it with very little pressure. Would that happen in SL but at reserve you can do that. Moreover 9 out of 10 kicks are poor.

Very true, cp, and it also makes it very difficult to assess just how good our youngsters are, when playing against poor opposition. In that Saints game (and every other game), for example, Josh Veivers was faultless at fullback, but was never put under any pressure. How are we going to see what he's like under pressure unless he plays first team rugby, whether for us or on loan to another club? Same applies to a lot of them. It's nice to see Flanagan bossing midfield, and Farrell, Davies, Tuson etc trampling the opposition, but we're not finding out if they can do it at a higher level.

Mind you, Nobby just might be thinking there's no point in his planning for our future...

[cpwigan]

Josh Vievers scored a try v Wakefield Reserves away recently. The player he beat to make a 70 yard run possible was as big and as slow as me or Mike B. John Kear even called him a fat lazy so and so.

The Observer mentioned Flannagan, Farrell going out on loan. I hope they do. After say 10, 20 at a push reserve games, a player IMO stagnates development wise. So each year spent thereafter is a wasted year.

[DaveO]

Exactly Dave and as someone who has watched every home reserve game (when posters throw that at you on rlfans.com) trust me you cannot learn very much from reserve grade once you reach the age of 18 plus.

It would accept many fans who enjoy seeing our club win trophies at reserve / academy level but personally, for their own benefit the Academy should be full of 16/17 year olds and the majority of the reserves should be 18 years old.

To give you an example of how ludicrous the notion that Ainscough will learn what he needs to playing reserves actually is v Saints, one of the few decent reserve teams, Ainscough was able to let a high kick hit the ground at which point he trapped it with his foot and fell on it with very little pressure. Would that happen in SL but at reserve you can do that. Moreover 9 out of 10 kicks are poor.

Well I have just been reading up on Saints new signing and he made his 1st grade NRL debut aged 18 in 2005 and played in 19 games. The season after aged 19 he made his test début for NZ in the 2006 tri-nations.

Whoever allowed him to play 19 first grade games aged 18 and play test RL aged 19 needs reporting to the authorities for not exercising proper duty of care!

Dave

[Sutty]

It's a good thing that this Duty of care nonsense wasn't around when Faz came on the scene. Nobby would never have dreamed of giving him his debut aged 16, then allowing him to go on to his first GB cap at 18 and becoming Captain of the National side at just 21!!

Faz would have been a much better player if he'd been nurtured and had a "duty of care" applied to him, instead of being thrown to the Lions and enjoying one of the most glittering RL careers that anyone associated with Wigan has ever had. What a lucky escape that was, phew.

[cpwigan]

Gary Schofield made his GB Debut at 18. Lee Crooks was playing at a similar age. Both had long successful careers.

Let's be honest bad luck I.E injuries is the biggest killer of players careers. You can shield / expose players as little / much as you want but luck or rather bad luck ends careers.

[Sutty]

Exactly, all this duty of care is nothing short of nollbocks. Sorry, I'm just really frustrated by it all. If we are close to the cap and Ainscough's contract is the problem, then fine. That can't be helped, but they should just admit it. After a few weeks of some stick for getting themselves in this mess it would all be accepted and forgotten about, but to just drop him with no obvious chance of a reprieve, well that's just plain bonkers.
I can understand why players may be changed for certain games. ie, I agree with Ainscough being dropped for the Saints match, given his weaknesses. But to not get a recall for two consecutive games after that and with no recall in sight, it's not doing the lads confidence any favours. We're lucky in that we've got a good squad with good cover/competition for most positions, so it would be fine if Nobby "rotated" the players, a la certain football teams have the luxury of doing. But it seems to take Nobby months before he'll drop one of his underperforming favourites, but should a "junior" member of the squad have a few poor games or make a few mistakes, then they're dropped and we're lucky to see them for the rest of the season (Goulding Ainscough etc. etc.)
I know all this has been said before by many people and I'm just going over old ground.

[cpwigan]

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.