Quote: Famous "I am sorry he is not clearly SL standard at all and it is very much up in the air if he is or not. You are basing your entire argument on tries scored, which is a very flawed argument as the vast amount of tries that a winger scores any winger could score. In any other aspect of his game he has been found wanting, not just at Wigan but at Castleford and even Widnes fans have criticised his defence in NL1.'"
I am not basing it on tries scored but on what I have seen of the player when he has played for Wigan. However some of the tres scored were far from walk-ins and took some scoring in case you forgot. He is clearly SL standard. The defence issue is the most exaggerated issue on this message board and we have other players who are suspect in defence such as Phepls who are not constantly beaten up about it. In my opinion Ainscough's defence is just an excuse those who for some reason best known to themselves don't like the player to justify their position.
Quote: Famous "If he was rated by Maguire then I am sure he would have got more than 1 game this season. The mere fact that Goulding, a centre, has been picked on the wing before him for vast chunks of the season, speaks volumes.Even Pryce got an extended run in the side to see what he could do. '"
You are ignoring the fact Pryce and Goulding can't be a dual registered players (they earn to much and/or are too old) and Ainscough can be and is. With Pryce it was stay in the U20's all season or get a chance. He could not be given a chance anywhere else so the club had only one way to see if he was up to it - play him in the first team. He's has been and now been dropped again but I'd wager if Ainscough were given the same opportunity he'd make far more of a case for himself. Writing him off after one game in the poorest side we have put out all season is a joke.
Quote: Famous "If Ainscough is so clearly SL standard then he would have played more than 1 SL game this season before getting dropped. Castleford would have also taken him back, as was originally meant to be a season long deal, and they were still short of players. '"
We ended that deal and when we did they had players back and that is why they didn't take him back and also I think you can't re-instigate such a loan deal once it's been ended at the drop of a hat. There are rules that mean you can't just loan players out, take them back then loan them out again (unlike dual registered players).
Quote: Famous "Players that are rated by other SL clubs can always get loan deals at SL clubs, as previous players have shown but it seems that only NL1 clubs wanted Ainscough.'"
Castleford clearly wanted Ainscough. I assume the reason they went for him in the first place was because of what they had seen before in 2009. Or do you think they went after him because he clearly wasn't SL standard?
Quote: Famous " Indeed why do Hull KR want Charnley, an unproven SL player, instead of Ainscough? Surely the mere fact that many people think that Ainscough has not really proven anything, has not shown himself yet to be SL standard (not just on this thread but others) means that he is not clearly anything?'"
And why do you think Wigan would want to or can end his dual reg deal at Widnes to send him to HKR for a month? Do you honestly think the practicalities of the situation mean Wigan do not take into account Widnes's views? Widnes are hardly likely to continue take dual reg players if at the first sniff of a loan deal we whip them away and then expect them to have them back after the loan just because it suits our clubs purpose. It also doesn't make much sense to shift him form club to club. He had a long spell at Cas, that came to an end now he's at Widnes. Moving him again would be stupid IMO.
Loan deals and dual registration deals depend on a lot more things than simply a players ability.
Dave
