But how are we standing still by loaning our players out? If anything they are progressing much faster getting regular rugby at another club rather than being stuck in the reserves and given 3-4 games a year.

I see the point of blooding kids but with the salary cap nowadays and limited squad depth, it is certains injuries will occur meaning kids get their chance eventually. That's one of the main reasons 1st team players aren't dropped randomly for kids.

I have seen nothing to suggest he will be. If I am right what then? [size=59If I am wrong read, my sig.[/size

As to his form picking up he has continued to have poor games throughout the season (and no that doesn't mean all his games have been poor for the grammatically challenged but he did not suddenly hit consistent good form).

Dave

I know you don't but into a settling in period for overseas players(and thats fair enough) but i just think he'll be better prepared now he's settled into the side and the country.

He has improved from the start of the season imo but i'll agree he throws the odd shocker in now and again. Thats an area for him to work on. He seems to struggle for concentration at times which lets him down now and again.

I'm possibly just being optimistic that a new coach will bring about an increase in form from a number of players. If we look at the impact Tony Smith had on King and Monaghan it shows what can be done and neither of those were preforming aswell as even Roberts has.

So we should loan the next Edwards / Farrell / Robinson out?

Thats one hell of a player

Sad to think that they are all now plying their trade on the Dark Side....

Sending players out on loan offers them the opportunity to experience a different atmosphere and a different regime from the one they've been cocooned in for whatever number of years.

However good the coaching ability of your backroom and development staff they simply can't teach every player every aspect of being a professional rugby league player. They almost certainly don't have the range of coaching experience that someone like John Kear will have.

Therefore it has to be beneficial for a young player to spend time learning from all these other experiences that they simply could not get if they stay put.

At the same time the space vacated by those juniors has to be taken by another junior therefore offering that player an experience he couldn't have gained otherwise.

JohnH!

Looking back over the season Cudjoe or Lawrence?

Yes if they are not good enough to play first team at the moment and it helps there development. Obviously.

This is going round in circles. And they prove they are good enough by?

Performance in the reserves, or taking the chance when an injury occurs, or where you have a large squad where they are down the pecking order like many of our younger quality players are by going out on loan and showing they can handle the step up from the Reserves.

What is the big issue here? Surely you want young players when they are introduced into our first team to play well and make an impact and for all this talk of us handling them badly pretty much all the guys who have had to step up have taken their chances well. Surely this proves we are doing something right?

This season we have seen players get their first taste of SL by being thrown in at the deep end. Sam Tomkins and Ainscough did not go out on loan prior to making an instant impact at SL level. Ainscough with zero SL experience and Tomkins with one game against Haven in the challenge cup. Tomkins is 20 not 17 or 18 and so when people say we have not handled the young players well he is the prime example.

He went from one game in 2008 to 20 games in 2009 and does not look out of place. This says to me he has been held back, not handled well. Ainscough is similar and Mossop went to Barrow for a few games then had Huddersfield singing his praises and saying just about everything they could about how good he was without being accused of trying to entice him over there.

Flannagan went to Halifax on loan but is another player who has had to wait until he is in his early 20's to get a debut. Had he been given a sniff earlier in his Wigan career he might not be so keen to go to Oz and his g/f might have found it harder to persuade him to go!

The question of who would you drop to give such players a chance ignores the fact our first team players are not the greatest and of course there is always the subs bench.

Sending players out on loan is fine but I get the impression some people have suddenly decided that is the only way to do it. Send the young players out on loan and let other clubs teach them their trade is a bit presumptuous IMO. You are going to get some young players as good as Faz and Rads were in their day that are special talents who ought to be brought into the first team younger than age 20.

Dave

I've tried my best to defend Pryce stating that he isn't fit and needs regular game time to improve, but lets be honest the size of him he should hurt people and he doesn't. The only man you can blame for that is Roberts

(see what I did there)

Each player has to be assessed and handled as an individual case. If a player is ready and worthy of a shirt, not just given it becasue he is young and from the juniors then fair enough.

The days of 17 year olds coming on the scene and making an instant impact are over, or they are at least the exception not the rule, i would wager across the league the age of players establishing themselves in first teams has considerably increased since the advent of SL simply because of the extra physical demands it is very very rare for a junior now to be ready at a younger age. The Ronbinson, Farrell and Radlinski era was a freak a rarety. Again all these lads only started to get a chance through injury, they then took that chance and made the shirt there own, this is the challenge for the players today.

They will get a chance and when they do it is up to them to make it there own. They have no birth right to a shirt simply because they are young and from Wigan.

Loaning players out gives them a chance to experience week in week out higher quality than the reserves and also allows us to assess them in that environment. The notion that we generally should throw in a lad from the reserves and expect them to become established first teamers is generally unrealistic due to the gulf in class and the step up you are asking them to make.

Players like Ainscough should in my opinion try to get a loan move to a SL club but the others should be looking at top NL1 sides where we can keep them at the club yet send them out to play best of both worlds.

Forget about age. These players have been introduced in to the first team successfully when needed and thats really all you can go off. Saying that they could have been introduced earlier just as effectively is guesswork/opinion and is in effect, again, trying to find a negative in a positive. On the subject of loaning out fringe players/young lads, i am for it as long as it is to the right team and it benefits us. It is still a big step up from reserves to first team so why not give them that bit of extra experience elsewhere so we get a player back that is 'ready'.

No one suggested that.



This is just a sweeping generalisation that isn't true. Players like Westerman and Myler show this to be the case. I am sure there are other players who made meaningful débuts of more than the odd game as teenagers in the game now and that there will be others to come.

The notion that the club would bring players on gradually by actually playing them in SL games has seemingly gone out fashion because we didn't actually do it this year and only played the younger players when needs must. It is one of Nobles biggest failings in many peoples eyes and it seems a very odd position to take to suggest these players are good enough for SL but not at Wigan.



No one suggested that either.





Isn't that exactly what is being suggested? This thread started with the rumour that two of our young players would go to Wakefield. Are they going to Wakefield to play in their reserves? No. They are going to make the step up to SL level at Wakefield are they not?



So what about Davies and Veivers then? Where should they go?

It's pretty clear the club intends to send some young players out on loan to SL sides and they will have to handle the step up. What I am saying is there is some notion that has seemingly developed that we can't blood these players in our own side. I do not have a problem with players being loaned to SL sides but I do have a problem with the implication we are only ever going to give our own players a chance if one of the first 17 gets injured.

That idea is right out of the Noble book of coaching and it's crap.

Dave

Firstly Dave do not be so defensive I was not critiquing your post picking it apart line by line just responding to it generally, i do not have enough time to pick each post apart if i do not agree. I was responding to the general tone of your post.

I will guarentee firstly that Veivers and Davies WILL NOT be playing SL week in week out if they go to Wakefield and will spend time in the reserves they will be first choice back up and will come in when injuries hit.

In that position next year we have good depth and back up so there is more chance they will get game time than at Wigan.

If you think either are going to Wakefield to play week in week out you are deluded.

Dave you choose to name 2 players both who have been blooded in the National League by the way as examples of players coming into SL and making an instant impact clearly given the fact both were blooded in NL1 you are wrong on this.

I think Dave from recent posts firstly your sig is very appropriate and secondly you need to catch up with the modern game, you seem stuck using pre cap days as an example of how things should be run.

The club has blooded S. Tomkins, the club has blooded Ainscough, maybe there is an argument for blooding them last year but the club have far more info to hand to make that decision regards there ability to cope. We are also not in a position like Leeds where we are able to bring a few in everynow and again and still win comfortably generally we have to scrap for every victory and need our strongest side out.

It is the nature of almost every sport that generally young players get there chance when injuries take there toll, its a sink or swim mentality, now we are able to ease them in and bridge the gap between reserves and SL it is a win win situation in most cases with the odd exception depending on the athlete.

I generally find you a good poster and enjoy reading your posts, but of late Dave all i see is negativity and unneccassary criticism of the club and its methods.

Well that is good excuse for not answering the points I raised.



So you think these two lads are going to agree to go on loan to sit in Wakefield's reserves on the off chance they may get a game there?

None of our recent SL loan players have done that IIRC. Goulding at Salford and Mossop at Hudds both got regular game time and Mossop in particular was at a similar stage development wise as these two.

If they go I am sure it must be with view to having more chance of SL game time than at Wigan or there is no point. And by more chance I mean guaranteed chances not game time down to the off chance of someone getting injured. That just makes no sense at all. They may as wel play in our reserves rather than Wakefield's.



When did Sam Tomkins or Ainscough ever play for an NL 1 side?



What a ridiculous statement.



You know as well as I do these payers would not have got the game time this year never mind last had circumstances been different. Just the same way as J Tomkins would have not had Lockers not had an long term injury. You are suggesting it was all part of a plan and it patently was not.



That would be a good argument if it were not for the fact other teams who are not at Leeds level bring young players in as well.



Easing them in by having them play SL for another side is not easing them in. I don't have a problem with us doing that but it is illogical to suggest doing this is easing them in.



It has even been suggested one reason why Nobby won't be here next year is a disagreement between him and IL over the use of our young players, that IL wants more use made of them in the 1st team and Nobby does not. If that is true I am the one arguing for IL's position and you are the one arguing for Nobby's position.

Dave

Not to break up your friendly banter, but as a wakey fan l must agree with Jonh. Neither will start for Wakey, or will play that many games (injuries aside), we have strong 1st team players in each of thier respective positions.

Westerman and Myler were blooded in the National League.

There is more chance Davies and Vievers getting a game at Wakefield as they are running with a thin squad with little depth next year. Davies is up against 5/6 from what i hear maybe even 7 other Props, he will be 5th choice at Wakefield not 8th.

How do young players get a chance other than injuries in this day and age......in all sports? 90% of the time it is due to injury.

They will get exposure to SL games but not be relied on week in week out, they will however have more of a chance at getting game time than they would at Wigan should injuries kick in.

The only thing you can be sure of in rugby is that injuries will happen and younger lads will get a chance its the nature of the beast, in truth it is very hard to plan, because of the very nature of the sport.

By going on loan they are bridging the gap between the poor reserves and SL.

I am not sure what point you do raise that i have not responded to could you do it more clearly than hide it in quotes which are annoying to read please.

On the last point you are chosing to believe rumour when it suits you but not when it does not.

I think the problem at Wigan is that we have so many youngsters knocking on the first team door, compared to most other clubs, that it is virtually impossible to give a decent blooding to them all without seriously weakening the team (no matter how poorly they have performed at time over the past three years or so).

I would dearly like to bring them all on at Wigan but take the pragmatic view that we can't, so why not allow some to go to other clubs. I believe it has worked well with Joel Tomkins, Mossop, Flanagan, and Goulding. If Wigan also believe it has worked why not carry on doing it?

It's a lot harder to blood young players in your own team as there are no easy games anymore except the Challenge Cup where Tomkins and Mossop made their debut.

We've been beat off Celtic this year who are the bottom club in the league so that shows you have to be at full strength every game so by loaning young lads out maybe for half a season you are blooding them out of the way and taking away the risk of losing, destroying their confindence, fans getting on their backs etc.

In hindsight we should have loaned Pryce out for a few months before he even made his debut for us because now the lad can do no right and his confidence is shot.

Loaning players to NL 1 clubs and other SL clubs is working look at Joel Tomkins, Flannagan, Moore, Halley.

With our club as big as it is (que the trolls) the pressure on the youngsters will be big so we need to take that away whilst they gain confidence with playing against the big boys. I'm not saying wrap them up in cotton wool but in some circumstances it is better to let them mature and develop out of the limelight and pressure at Wigan.

Next season :-

Pryce to Widnes (Month to month basis)
Davies to Widnes (Month to month)
Goulding to Salford (Week to week basis)
Ainscough to Wakefield (Week to week basis)

I'll look forward to Davies showing Fielden up next season. Top move for Ben and Wigan though. Just look at what Kear gets out of Moore, Bibey and Korki week in week out. I would expect him to play first team, don't expect him to go there to play reserves when he can do that at Wigan.

I do think Davies will play reserves at Wakey with a bench spot when injuries occur. He is IMO too young to play prop week in, week out.
Prop is generally a position for mature battle hardened players, younger props do find themselves in and out of a team.

The use of our younger players by Noble is and will be a source of disagreement. Tomkins is 20 in his first season in SL and can cope with it. Could he have done as well at the age of 18? I very much doubt it.
Giving him 20 first team games at that age could have wrecked him. There were some who wanted him in last year when Lockers was injured with Barrett going to 13 and Sam in at 6. Would it have worked? Possibly.

Ainscough came in after last year being in the U18s and 21s. His try scoring ability is brilliant, he a natural wingman. He's a lot to learn in defence but there are many of us who will remember at the start of SL Jason Robinson getting murdered under the high bomb. He improved and it didn't stop him nor will it or should it stop Ainscough who, again IMO, is equally as talented.

As for our backrowers in the reserves, Farrell etc. So who would we drop?
Hock, Bails & Lockers were our back three at the start of the season and injuries would see Hansen & Joel come in. No doubt some would put Farrell in there but would we if we were losing more than we were winning which happened at the start of the season. Farrell's inclusion wouldn't have won us matches which we lost.

It has been mentioned above that we now have so many pushing for a first team place and many can't be fitted in especially when we need to win every game after the disastrous start to our season.

Any decision to bring in a younger player has to be equalled by a decision to leave a first team player out. That is rarely done and why injuries are the main reason why younger players are promoted at all clubs in most sports.

The best way of promoting younger players would be for the competition rules to force clubs to play them. In as much as each named squad of 17 must have x number of players who are under, say, 20 years of age. Then every club would have to comply and no club would be disadvantaged.