Theres time for Vievers though imo to build a future with Wigan and the same could even be said of Goulding but to me Karl Pryce is drinking in the last chance saloon. We need to see what he can do to make a call on him one way or the other.

Without actually looking at the guy in a run of first team game we can't make a judgement on him and this is the ideal opportunity to make that call. I suspect he'll struggle but would loved to be proved wrong and at least he'd get the opportunity to do that.

We've spent too much time talking about what this guy can do......nows the time to actually see for ourselves.

I agree in regards to your comments towards Pryce, but IMO his chance should come when a player in his position becomes injuries or drops in form. To accomidate Pryce we'd have to re-shuffle a backline that has already lost Phelps and would mean we'd have another player out of position. This will make big impact on a backline that has been very good & clicking well upto now. Utilising Vievers could offer little disruption plus give an opportunity and game time to a young player who has been involved with the club through all ranks.

I'd feel more content with a young, eager, enthusiastic though inexperienced Vievers at the back than having Karl Pryce in the starting squad at all. That's not bagging Pryce, I just don't think he can handle the pace and pressure of this fixture.

I would certainly agree with that! I don't think Ainscough can either though and he would get kicked to death! IMO we should Bring Goulding in.

Agreed, although some will already have decided he is the scapegoat should we lose on Saturday.

I'm sure you know more then me about Vievers ability so I presume you believe he'd be upto the task(both mentally and physically)?

I'd plump for Pryce but I can see other peoples points of views and I know we could do with keeping the combinations between wingers and their centres going. The way Roberts and Gleeson are linking up is very nice but I also thought Roberts looked a huge threat from fullback. His stats for the game in terms of metres made are outstanding(about 260m according to the superleague stats) and he'll continue to make them from fullback imo.

I just feel this game could be a little too big for a youngster on debut and whilst I agree Pryce doesn't look a player that thrives on big games or pressure we simply have to have a look at him.

I can only think that Rogue's hasn't yet posted on matter because he's frantically & incorrectly inputting his log in details because of the sheer shock of me making the suggestion of dropping Vievers into such a big game.

Although I believe he had an unconvincing game against Wire the other week, he is usually a good, solid fullback who's positioning is good, he can take a high ball well and the best thing is that he'll return the ball all day and look for work. Mentally, he's just very hard working.

Maybe utilisng Pryce and Goulding is more practical, but giving Vievers ago could be a revelation and a pretty exciting move.

But fast enough to nip over for 4 tries on Sunday

But he's a winger not a fullback, there are few fullbacks that can score from that distance including Greenshields and Hodgson, maybe Webb ?, did'nt he do that for the Kiwi's against GB ?

All 2 yard specials.

Our strongest options to combat King's aerial threat is Amos Roberts and Pat Richards out on the wings. In truth we only need to replace our fullback and should try not to shuffle the team too much. Amos Roberts is on fire on the wing at the moment and I would keep him there. Ainscough would just get peppered by King and could be a disaster for his return back to first team football. It wouldn't do his confidence much good. As for Pryce, he may have the size, but he I doubt he has the leap to defend high kicks. Plus he is more of a centre and would be playing out of position, same for Goulding.

I don't think Josh Vievers is a bad call. Let's have 2 specialist wingers on the wing and have a specialist fullback at fullback. The lad should be given a chance at some point. Why not now? At the end of the day, even with Phelps missing we still managed to score 22 unanswered points.

I havn't read all of this thread so apologies if this has already been mentioned. Couldn't we switch Pat to defend Kings wing and put Ainscough up against Riley on the other wing. Would this work or are wingers really fussy about which side they play on??

With Roberts chiming in and causing all sorts of problems from fullback.

I'm not saying it's ideal having to move him to fullback for a few weeks but it's going to have to be done I think. We simply can't go into this game with a debutant at fullback. It's too important a position imo and one you can be totally exposed in.

We've got 2 serious options imo-

One is to play Roberts at fullback and bring Pryce in on the right wing

or

Move Richards to fullback and bring Pryce, Ainscough or Goulding in on the left wing. We could play any of the 3 on that side because they won't have to face the same arial threat from Riley that they would from King.

They may not mind personally what side of the field they are on but it would seem a shuffle too far imo due to both centres having to then play with a new winger.

Keep the fuss to a minimum and give Pryce his big chance.