I wondered how long it would be till some idiot came on here saying we always let our youngsters go



Cant believe it took upto page 3 tbh.

Ainscough know why is time came to an end at wigan the lad broke a bond that MM/SW had work hard to instill in the players in pre-season after that there was no way back for him.

Well if that is the case that reflects as badly on on MM/SW as it does on the player. He is a young man of 20 years old and if our coaching staff write players off and leave no way back for them for something that happened pre-season that clearly can't have been serious enough to be a sacking offence then we are going to see a lot of talent leave the club that should not. Shaun Edwards and other headstrong former stars of our club would never have been the greats they turned out to be if the club wasn't able to manage their personalities.

Many great players can be the hardest players to manage and while Ainscough has along way to go to being classed as a great player ending his Wigan career because he screwed up something pre-season with no second chance is ridiculous. I therefore tend to think this is not what happened as I give MM and SW more credit than that as coaches.

Dave

You are assuming both coaches see the same thing wrong with Ainscough. Noble dropped Ainscough because he has well known policy he freely admits to of always remaining loyal to the experienced players and will pick them every time over younger players when he can. He would have done the same with Sam if there was a viable alternative (and did in 2008 despite and amazing debut). Fortunately for Sam in 2009 Tim Smith was very poor.

Trying to say two Wigan coaches don't rate him so they must be right is no argument for this reason IMO. Unless of course you want to disagree that Noble does (and did) as I suggest?

Dave

'Assuming' is what we're all doing.

I'm assuming that two coaches, three if you count Shaun Wane (because I've heard no rumour about him disagreeing with Maguire over this) opted not to use Ainscough for reasons they deemed to be good. You are assuming, or seem to be, that they have no good reason and are just being unfair to him.

Also, I don't think we can just dismiss Nobby's sidelining of Ainscough as if it doesn't count, when the next coach - who is streets ahead of Nobby in terms of his thinking - went and did exactly the same thing. I wouldn't go as far as to call this a vindication of Nobby (who I don't rate much, as you know), but when two coaches, independent of each other, reach the same conclusion about a player, it's a brave man who insists that there isn't an isue with him.

I certainly wouldn't say that if two coaches agree they must be right, nor did I mean to imply that. What I meant was that, though I pontificate on this message board a lot, and talk as if I know the game inside out, I'd have no choice but to accept that two coaches as reputable as Nobby and Madge are probably better placed to make a decision on something like this than I am (especially when they've worked with the player on a one-to-one basis) - and, thus, until they are proved to have been wrong, I personally will trust their judgement.

No I am not. To get to the point I am pointing out you are re-writing history i.e. how and why Noble selected players to justify Wigan letting Ainscough go now. It's amazing how convenient it becomes to decide Nobbly was right all along re-Ainscough if it suits your argument doesn't it?



When Noble behaved as he did regarding the selection of young players at Wigan (not just Ainscough) I think we can do exactly that. Especially as he says himself he prefers to remain loyal to his experienced players. Don't forget he treated Goulding just the same in 2008 as he did Ainscough in 2009. Surely we do not have to have a discussion about this again? I have no idea why MM and SW have let Ainscough go but to suggest the two coaches (MM and Noble) are thinking on the same lines is bizarre to me given one selects on merit and the other on experience.

In any case surely the one thing that gives lie to this theory is Ainscough was give a contract under Noble (and IL)?




I think we are all intelligent enough people to draw our own conclusions about how different coaches work. We have all learnt what Madge and Wane expect from players and likewise we all know how Noble coaches and picks his teams. All I am saying is I think it is far fetched to suggest Noble being Noble thus treating Ainscough as he did has any baring on why Madge and Wane have decided to let Ainscough leave.

Dave

Dave, why do think Ainscough was also dropped by Widnes?

I had all sorts of problems with Noble towards the end, and I was as surprised and disappointed when he dropped Ainscough as anyone else. But it's not rewriting history merely to point out that the next coach made a similar decision re. Ainscough, and, as Rogues has pointed out, so did the coach at Widnes. (And it's not a stretch to look at this case with hindsight, and earmark Ainscough as the common denominator).

Get as hot under the collar about Noble as you want. I don't care. I largely agree, and will not dispute it. But none of that will change what's happened to Ainscough since Noble left.

If you're not assuming that all these coaches are being unfair to Ainscough or are inept in their decision-making or are just plain wrong - then I'm not sure what your objection is.

Ainscough asked to be released from the dual registration himself.

Why would he do that when he knew he wouldn't get picked for Wigan first team?

You would have to ask him that question. I know he was offered a contract from Widnes as well as Bradford. Obviously decided on Bradford and good luck to him hope he does well for himself wherever he goes.

I agree.

And this as well!

So if you credit Maguire and Wane as coaches, why do you think they opted not to use Ainscough?

ainscough is moving on good luck to the lad , cant believe these threads turn in to we should of,its BN MM SW fault ,wigan letting go of young lad again , Ainscough has moved on so has wigan end of.

Ainscough is like Kevin Penny was for us. I knew he was in trouble in the days when everybody was raving about him and you started seeing the phrase "who cares if he can't defend, Offiah couldn't defend". Offiah was never a weakness in defence in fact if you bombed him you had to watch out that he didn't catch it and go the length.

Karl Pryce. Too old to go on dual reg and too expensive to be a traditional loan player. Why else would you think they opted to use Pryce? ( In know some people clam he is worth another contract so must think he is a good enough player to warrant it but I don't think you do - I certainly don't).

The point being if it were down to who they would rather have had out on loan in either Ainscough or Pryce I reckon it would have been Pryce. I have no facts to back that opinion up other than the fact we know Ainscough qualified for dual reg and was obviously cheap enough and Pryce was neither but I do think Ainscough was a victim of circumstance in terms of his first team opportunities this year as much as he was last year a victim of a poor coach.

Dave

I find it hard to accept that if Wigan had felt Ainscough was a real talent for the future, they'd have loaned him out all season and then released him. If the reports on Ainscough from the clubs he was loaned out to weren't encouraging, but Wigan still believed in the lad because they knew his talent, surely they'd have kept him on?

If it's purely down to bad luck that this didn't happen, it makes him very, very unlucky indeed.

You don't think there's at least a possiblity that Maguire assessed him and found him lacking in some way?

Not a Chance in a Million!

That wouldn't fit in with his argument.




PS

IIRC I think I may have said something similar middle/back end of last year when I & Others said we would pick Roberts over Ainscough.
i.e
Lets see Who the next coach picks? He picked Roberts, Then Goulding & Then Pryce

They obviously don't fancy him as a 1st team option for the next couple of years so good move all round?

Strange how when Ainscough was scoring tries for fun down our left for 10 games or so he was going to be a World Beater yet Pryce did the same thing whilst letting less in the other way he was deemed Useless by a lot of the same people?

As I've said numerous times, everyone is entitled to their opinions but surely we must accept that these "Professional" coaches who deal with these players day in day out know a bit more about the Merits of each player with regards to the Team's overall success than we do?

I think Maguire's dropped a couple of Ricks this year at certain times but then again that's alway's going to Happen, No-one (Apart from Tony Smith obviously) is perfect!
Maguire (And the coaching staff) has got 9/10 thing's right IMO and some players may end up as casulaties of that 1 wrong decision in 10.
I don't think Ainscough is the 1/10 I think Maguire has got it right, only time will tell I suppose.

If he carries on getting 9/10 right and more importantly get's the Big Decisions right that'll do for Me!

I do but I also think his opportunities this season were limited due to circumstance as much as anything else. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive things.

The statement from the club about the four players leaving goes on about the salary cap as regards Ainscough and next season he would be 21 so like Pryce would not qualify for dual reg. The other young players often mentioned as going to be better are still young enough for that so its easier to keep them on.

It does not seem to have crossed anyone's mind that factors such as these (i.e. that the salary cap is "working"icon_wink.gif are at the root of why he is being let go. It's got to be he is not good enough it seems.



Dave

Can you really not see Ainscough is a far more dangerous player than Pryce regardless of the statistics? Roberts (for the first half of this season before he got injured) is better than either and so he should be given his age, wages and experience but Ainscough at 20 has IMO far more potential than Pryce whereas Pryce at 24 ought to be way ahead not still at best waiting to show his potential.

And if you really think not being able to send Pryce out on loan didn't play a factor in why he got his chances and Ainscough didn't I think you are simply wrong.

If Pryce is kept on it will truly be a mystery to me and many others as I know I am not alone in not rating the player and I have seen enough wingers in my time to know I have not gone blind or forgotten what a good winger/player looks like.



If we want to discuss who gets signed or let go we don't. It's as bad as the "have you seen him play in the academy" argument.

The coaches always know best stance is an argument that simply kills any debate about who gets selected, signed or let go and hiding behind it does IMO show people can't think up a decent reason to argue the opposite point of view to those who question what the coach or club have done.



Dave

The only assumption being made here is by yourself that both Wigan coaches didn't play Ainscough for the same reason - that he wasn't good enough and I don't think that is the case.

As I have pointed out I believe Ainscough was dropped by Nobby for one reason only - that he carried on with his own stated policy of going for experience over youth every time.

As I have also said I believe Ainscough went out on loan and Pryce got chances denied to Ainscough at Wigan purely because of the factors previously mentioned that Pryce did not qualify for dual reg and was too expensive for a loan.

Those two things do in my opinion explain his limited opportunities at Wigan rather than the idea neither Noble nor Madge rated the player.

As to why he has now been let go this is IMO as the club mentions down to salary cap considerations. With Ainscough turning 21 this would limit his opportunities next season and the club can keep other younger players who quality for dual reg or the under 20's much more easily. They can play in the under 20's or be sent out on dual reg/loan whereas with Ainscough the fact he no longer qualifies as an under 20 player is a big problem. I predict we will see some players touted as better than Ainscough leave next year at this time as well for the same reason. They will have hit 21 years and as a result of the fact the junior competition is now under 20's off they will go.

Dave

These are also assumptions, Dave. So it's not just me who's making them. You admitted in another post that you don't have any facts.

Now as I said before, if the coaches really felt that Ainscough was worth keeping, I'm pretty sure they'd have found a way to keep him, regardless of salary cap, Karl Pryce etc.

You can't just dismiss the possibility that Ainscough has failed to satisfy his coaches. He's had two years in and around our first team, and other clubs' first teams, to impress people. Claiming that it's purely down to bad luck that he hasn't is the biggest assumption of all, and a rather strained one IMO.

Also, why do you feel the need to rake up earlier posts? We'd already given our views on this issue in later exchanges. There are times when it seems you can't let a single thing go if it's something you don't want to hear, without trying to find some way to counter it - even if the conversation has moved on. No disrespect, mate, but it seems a bit pathological.

About 100% as correct as you can be (IMO of course!)

You made this point to me in another thread and I got no reply to my argument. Shaun Ainscough was on dual registration. The whole concept is that it allows clubs to recall their dual registered players whenever they please with something like 24 hours notice. Wigan never had to play Pryce at any point they could have just called back Shaun Ainscough. Just like they did against Harlequins. Just like they have done with Liam Farrell when they could have played Phil Bailey. Just like they have done with Ben Davies when they could have played Feka/Eamon O'carroll/Paul Prescott. Just like they have done with Johnny Walker.

It's not like Shaun Ainscough was on a traditional loan for three months and we couldn't have him back. We could have him back at any point during the season. Including in his loan spell at Castleford. If the coaching staff really wanted to play Shaun Ainscough ahead of Karl Pryce then they could have done. This idea that it was because of 'circumstances' is speculation on your part to think of reasons why he can't have been given a game. If none of what you say actually exists then why do you think he has not been given more opportunities?