Why was he dropped on sunday?

[urlhttp://www.wigantoday.net/warriors/Noble-Shaun-will-be-back.5185107.jp[/url

Let's not forget that he is a young player who needs to be nurtured.

He`s top scorer in sl and we play the worst team in the league

Which is a great time to rest him.

Aslong as it is a way of giving him a rest and Noble does really plan on brining him back in asap then i have no problem with it.

If it's another Noble case of blaming the youngster for the teams problems and because he's the easiest man to drop then i won't be best pleased.

We'll find out in the next few weeks i suppose.

Not when it was as plain as day the player who needed resting was Richards.

Dave

Players have fitness tests, Richards would have had to pass to play.

Edward.

Where did the Edward bit come from?





Gertrude.

I am not sure to be honest.


Bartholomew

The point still stands. Richards was not comfortable out there and fitness test or not it was yet another poor selection decision by Noble.

Ainscough supposedly needs to work on some aspects of his game well what better practice match do you want? Leeds?

The perfect match to rest him would in fact be a game against a side like Leeds. This I would have thought was obvious.

It was also Noble who was saying just a few weeks ago age doesn't count it is the players ability (or some such words) well take away Richards goal kicking and it is starting to get to the stage Ainscough should be in the side on merit alone.

All this duty of care tosh is just that, tosh. Ainscough (and Tomkins) are old enough to be in a SL sides first 17 on a regular basis and their form is also good enough to keep them there.

Or it would be if we had a coach with a brain.

Dave

Alll excellent points.

Nigella

I'm inclined to agree. The dropping of Ainscough worried me a lot last Sunday. Compared to other 'senior players', he's done very little wrong this season - yet he's dropped at the first opportunity. It's not good.

The problem is Ainscough for his few faults is our best (only) strike weapon. Hes put himself in the position that he has to be picked in the bigger games however as Hogan said he has to be rested at some point so it seems logical to give him a rest against a side we should be beating comfortably.

Richards probably needed that game to get his match fitness back.

Spot on.

However, as you say he's not the finished article but is doing very well for himself. If he was 'dropped' for a big game against likes of Leeds, St Helens, it would do his confidence no good at all and would be on par with dropping him as the coach worry that he could be a 'weak link' etc and not good enough to be playing the big teams.

There's valid points on either side.

#

coaches dont rest young players they just keep there feet on the ground, great example eastmond at saints, he should be infront of long on merit alone but hes not

No he shouldn't. For a start he's hardly strung 5 games together without getting injured for a couple of years.

Eastmond's progression is being handled just fine. If he can shake off the knocks, he'll take over from Longy next year for sure.

This imo is what Noble thought as well.

Ainscough is our main attacking threat and has to play against the bigger teams but he’s also a young player who imo shouldn’t play all the games in his debut season.

Celtic were the perfect opponents to rest him against as he wouldn’t be as badly missed as say against Leeds.

I’m not a Noble fan but he’s done well with this one for me.

You not expecting Long to be at Saints next year?

His influence on the side doesn't seem as great as it once was.

what you tryna say, it makes no sense

Looks clear enough to me, try reading it again.

His contract is soon to be up, as is KC's.

If it were up to me I'd keep KC and let Long go - he's starting to pick up knocks and we now have kids capable of stepping up.

Sure, we might not be as slick for half a season or so, but we need to phase him and KC out rather than lose both at once later down the line.

For years people have been saying we'll be stuffed when x, y and z retire. We've done a good job replacing the irreplacable over recent years (Sullivan, Newlove, Iro, Gibbs, Albert, Martyn, Sculthorpe, Joynt, Perelini, Lyon, Anderson etc etc) and with the young lads knocking around KR these days, we'll be fine without Longy.

Unless he'll take a reduced contract a la KC/Scully last time, he'll be off IMO.

The money Long would free up could be invested in a utility player that could cover the halfs aswell as upgrading a few of the young players deals.

A sensible way to go in all honesty.

The article states [i"The 19-year-old winger, who has proved a sensation with 12 tries from his nine senior appearances, had to be content to be named as 18th man."[/i.

I thought WE were 18th man !!

Will be interesting if/when Pryce is unavailable whether we go Eastmond/Wheeler/Wilkin at 6.

You'd expect Pryce not being available would benefit Eastmond but I think in a round about way it will limit his opportunities, as I can see Wheeler being preferred at 6 and Potter not wanting 2 kids in the halves - meaning Long plays more.

I might be in a minority, but I think Wheeler is a better player than Eastmond, oozes class.

Anyway sorry Wiganers, back to Ainscough . . .