You don't learn to play the game at SL level, if he still needs to learn he should be in the 20's and left there until he knows how to play the game.

This thread is just a prime example of why I hate some Wigan "fans" the expectations of certain Warriors fans is frankly laughable it really does get me down when if a player isn't top of every stats list inside 10 games then their the worst player they've ever seen in a Wigan shirt its embarrassing how some can even claim to be a fan of this Club.

When a player breaks into the first team he should be ready, Gelling clearly isn't. People say he's still learning the game, and it shows, it's not like he's learning to play at SL level, he looke like hes still learning the game at every level.

Loyal doesn't mean blind my friend.

Who else should have played in his place?

I never said we had no choice but to play him, now we have cover he needs to go back to the 20's to carry on his development. I stated my opinion that he isn't ready yet.

Erm... these people had track records though that stretched further than simply sh**ting in wardrobes.

So basically what your saying is that the people who've been slagging him off for the last 15 weeks (Because they always want to have a scapegoat) were wasting their time because we didn't have anyone else better?

But yet he's been picked for 3/4 months in front of players that others would say are "Natural" at the game, what does that say about the others he was picked in front of or the person who picked him?

I'd have liked to have seen Ryan King given a few games, or even Matty Russell (I know it's not his favoured position, but it's not Gelling's or Thornley's either). Gelling was given 13 games to try and make the spot his own, I think the other two deserved at least a 3- or 4-game tryout.

So in theory should be up to speed with SL Level quicker than someone who hasn't (In your words) done anything more than "sh**ting in wardrobes"?
Piggy was slagged off for 12 months
Richards was slagged off for 12 months
Finch was at least 3/4 months of sceptisism before people realised what he could do.

Gelling was brought in as a long term project and due to circumstances was played out of position, quicker than expected, because we didn't have anyone better (According to the coaching personnel that most of us have been eulogising over for the last 4 months!) and yet he shouldnt be given the same if not more patience as seasoned Pro's?

Here's an idea

Richards was awful and we should have sold him to Wakey
Then it was Mather's fault
Then it was Piggy's
Then Pryce's
Now Gellings

Why don't we just sign 1 "Scapegoat" each season that we can blame every defeat on????

Saves a lot of problems and pointless arguing

And our coaching staff in general didn't?
What does that say about those players respective qualities & attributes at this point in time???

I saw Russell on the wing at Salford, he was far worse than Gelling has been in any game this season IMO.

Ask yourself this

If Ryan King or Russell were better options at any point in that 13+ game period then why did they not use them?
Do you not think that (IMO) the over exagaration of Gellings faults (Which he has to work on moving forward) had more to do with certain fans knee jerk reactions and the way they look for scapegoats than about his actual contribution in those games?
If it wasn't then I'm guessing these fans must think that Wane & the coaching staff must be Idiots if Gellings is as bad as they make out yet they still picked him?

You know that we HAVE to have a scapegoat at Wigan, and currently it's Gelling. Thornley [ichasing[/i back on Saturday made Paul Wellens look like Usain Bolt, but got no criticism whatsoever. Had that been Gelling the this board would have been on fire.

Gelling fits the bill in terms of how Wane wants his wingers to be. Big, strong and like extra forwards when taking the ball in to contact. Luckily we also now have another player who fits the mould to generate a bit of competition.

King got an opportunity against North Wales while Gelling was given a chance the week before and Gelling's performance was better. While King was perhaps unlucky that most tries were being scored before the ball even got a chance to get to him in that game his performances for the under 20's haven't exactly been at the same level as they were last season so over the course of the last few months he hasn't exactly put much pressure on Gelling.

Russell didn't do his chances of getting a place on the wing much good because, as you said, he was awful against Salford and much worse than any performance Gelling has put in so far this year.

Now that Thornley is in the frame there's a bit of competition for places. It's certainly worth giving Thornley a go given that he's expected to have a much bigger role in the side next year.

Between Gelling and Thornley there are bound to be different strengths and weaknesses. Thornley's positional sense already seems to be a little bit better, the same goes for finishing. In terms of enthusiasm and hard work during a game he's got a difficult job to match Gelling.

When it comes to the last point though, anyone who puts forwards even the slightest criticism of a player is lumped into the 'against' category. It wouldn't matter whether the criticism was harsh or fairly light, as soon as a reasonable number of people make those opinions known then they'll be dismissed as looking for a scapegoat.
I've lost track of the number of times a thread has contained mostly a bit of minor criticism of Gelling over areas of his game that aren't as strong only for someone to come along and insinuate that everyone is against him. It's just a little bit pathetic.

However if that's the way it has to be then perhaps people should start compiling their love and hate lists of all Wigan players so that it's clear for everyone. No fence sitting allowed and even the smallest criticism means you don't rate that player at all.

WANE OUT!!!!

Bloody Mathers