Why did Wigan not give one of their British youngsters a game in place of the injured Richards.

Reasonable point, yes.
But it would have been more reasoned if they had also mentioned that Wigan had eleven players in the team last night that had come through their academy.

The fact Wigan have so many youngsters always seems to get glossed over here by pundits. Saints get praised to the nines over their use of youth yet it barely gets mentioned here. That's though because ours are already winners (two trophies in two years) and at times its been an excuse at Saints.

I don't think the point was that wrong from Phil Clarke about Russell and to be fair he is entitled to be disappointed. I am in a way but I look at it that Russell is still only 18 (turns 19 next month) whilst Gelling is 21 and I can see the thinking. Russell struggled in defence at Salford and thats perhaps the tiny difference between the two.

It was very disapointing to hear clarke say that during the game even more so when gelling was having a very good game. It is as if they was searching for something negative to say. I understand it when a team signs a past it aussies but not young talent.

At the end of the day, neither Clarke nor the Wigfinder General have Wigan's interests at heart. Shaun Wane does. That's all there is to it.

The commentators know bugger all about the situations at the clubs, how players are performing and who might be injured or out of form.

It shows when they big up any youngster who happens to play a game on Sky and make them sound like a world beater when they've probably never even seen them play.

Gelling played ahead of Russell because Russell was poor in his one game on the wing, missed tackles for fun and coped awfully with a cross field kick. He is only 18 so has plenty of time and has been able to secure a move on loan to Hull which will be beneficial and allow him to play in his best position. To just throw him in regardless would be bad coaching.

Gelling played ahead of King because he performed better when they were both given a chance to impress which puts him ahead in the pecking order. It's also an opportunity to keep Gelling involved with the first team when opportunities aren't available to play in the centres, where he'd still be a liability defensively.
King will get his chance, but Gelling, as one of a few potential replacements for Carmont, needs to get up to speed quickly.

Simple explanations, but the commentators don't think before they speak.

Just seen that this morning. Wane answered the question excellently when Eddie asked him, saying that he has already given 9 debuts and he'll play whoever is currently in the best form. Really disappointed in Phil Clarke having a go at 4 of our backs not being English, with no mention of the fact that most of the forwards are and have come through our own system.

also failed to mention if prescott had been fit our starting pack would have been players who have come through our youth system.

Indeed. Jack Hughes was the only academy debutant in the whole of last season. This year we've seen Joe Mellor, Matty Russell, Logan Tomkins, Ryan King, Tom Spencer and Dom Crosby debut from the academy. Whilst Hughes who played 2 last year has played 10 of 15 this year.

In fact of the 32 man squad only Amos Roberts (obvious reasons), Sam Powell, Greg Burke and Liam Carberry haven't had a game. Powell and Burke have both made 19 man squads once though.

You can track a players season involvement here

I'm not one to get caught up In all this crap "we've got better youth than you" as it's about winning and not how many homegrown players you have is what matters.

Don't get me wrong, it's great if you could have 17 homegrown players but it's all about winning rugby games.

I think Wigan have got some very good young lads in tomkins. Charnley (I'm massive fan), jack Hughes, farrall etc but maybe it was brought up by Clarke last night because Wigan fans seem to bang on constantly about youth. It makes pundits and fans look more at the youth and maybe puts pressure on wane to pick youth.

That's not me having a dig as IMO i don't think the is anything wrong with gelling getting picked over a young player and I think wane was spot on with his post match comments.

One simple reason why Gelling gets picked ahead of Russell on the Wing, and that is because he does a better job on the Wing. Im 100% sure that if the spot available was fullback then Russell would get picked over Gelling there. Russell on the wing at Salford was woeful, woudlnt want to see him put there defending against a good team, it looked like Ainscough mk2. In the fullback position he showed touches of class and bags of potential, so keep him there.

If you're good enough then you're good enough no matter where you were born. And I supposed it kills that theory that Wane just wants a team full of Wiganers also.

....or we could just buy them in from Salford like Wire do.

Clarke really does talk rubbish and should be replaced asap. The points he makes are often wrong or atre just plain pointless as are the stats he uses. Also for years he seemed, coincidentally I am sure, to big up players that his brother was agent for which for me was wrong. He was a good player at Wigan but these days I have little respect for the man.

I actually wondered last night if Matty Russell is on Andy Clarkes books?

I wouldnt be surprised and I hadnt even thought of that, it certainly would explain his tirade. I know of players that left Andy Clarke for other agents and now Phil never seems to mention them no matter how well they play.

Exactly right. Waney is doing things exactly right regarding the youngsters, IMO...much more so than Madge did, in fact. Competition for places should, and now does, mean exactly that, irrespective of where they come from.