We have played him in a number of positions over the past couple of seasons and he's done reasonably OK but does seem to have settled into the FB role very well indeed. I still think Paaaaat is our best full back, but leaving Phelps in the FB role is not much of a backward step and gives Paaaaat a wider dimension to his game. Phelps just needs to get those high balls sorted so he catches them instead of letting them bounce, whereas Paaaaat needs to go find a new pair of kicking boots.

Quite pleased to hear this news . I think that given more time now he will become even better. He is only young and Rads has obviously made a difference to him already in a short space of time.
He still has a slight problem with the high ball but that will come. For me even though hes a quota player the extension he has earned is well deserved, you can also tell he loves the place and gives everything every week. Keep up the good work Phelpsy

DaveO wrong again, what a suprise.

Hes young, hes good, likely to get better, hes willing to put his body on the line for Wigan and hes cheap.Whats the problem here?

Logical move by the club.

1 yr contract to fill til Briscoe comes back??

Forget about Briscoe.

The only person I hope the club is concentrating on to be the next fullback is Josh Vievers.

And Josh could well be our best fullback since Radders. The way he plays reminds me a lot of his Dad and with the help he is now getting from Radders he could well be the next GB fullback for many years to come.

Well he is 24 so this is hardly what I'd class as a young player who still needs to be learning the job but the problem is obvious and one I have mentioned time and again every time Phelps name has come up in the "lets give him a new deal type of thread"

I will spell it out again.

Phelps is both a quota and none federation trained player. Re-signing Phelps means we can sign one less such a player to strengthen the side.

What we should do IMO is simply let Phelps leave and move one of Roberts or Richards to full back. That would then free up his none federation and quota spot so we could could sign one of these high quality overseas players IL is on about.

If we don't let him leave we must look to the UK for at least one of the two players IL says he is looking for.

Do you want to re-sign Phelps and strengthen the pack with someone like Darrell Griffen from Huddersfield? That is what it boils down to in my opinion.

Also if we want to sign another overseas player having retained Phelps then Carmont must also leave.

So what do you want? Phelps at full back and Griffen type player to "strengthen" the pack or one of Roberts or Richards at full back and a high quality forward from OZ in the pack?

Signing Phelps means one UK player and one overseas player with Carmont out of the door as IL's two high qulaity sigjings. I suppose we could be lucky and our one UK player be Myler but we still need to lose Carmont if we sign another overseas player if Phelps stays.

When you look at the whole picture the cost of retaining Phelps in terms of signings it allows us to make is far too great for a player of his ability IMO. He is not world class and not good enough for such compromise with the rest of the squad to be made for a player of his standard.

Last season we signed Roberts and he took up a none federation spot and quota spot (we had to get Carmont a Samoan passport to get him off quota to fit Roberts in). Signing Phelps is doing exactly the same thing. Signing Phelps means we reduce the options to improve the side just as signing Roberts did. Phelps just like Roberts takes a quota and none federation trained player spot.

I have been saying this for months now whenever discussion has come up. I don't accept people are too dim to understand the implications of re-signing him for the rest of the squad so I am baffled at the support for this player.

Dave

Hobby. Horse.

Facts.

Dave

Therein lies the best advice to Wiganers posting on here.

No Phil Bailey leaving makes no difference. The problem with Phelps is he is a none federation player as well as a quota player.

Bailey can apply for none federation status at the end of his current deal but Phelps can't.

The number of none federation trained players we can have is reduced to 6 for 2010.

They would be with Phelps retained:

Feka, Richards, Riddell, Roberts and Phelps.

Five players (three of which are quota) and we can only have six none federation players. So we could actually re-sign Bailey as he will only count on the quota and we will have two quota slots free for 2010. Phelps counts on both quota and none fed lists and that is why retaining him means we could only sign one more overseas player on the assumption Carmont leaves.

If Carmont stays we can't sign any overseas players because Carmont while off quota is also a none fed player so we would have the full compliment of 6 none fed players.

Dave

You often accuse me of inventing things to support my opnions. Check out the above.

I actually agree with you that Phelps, being quota, is someone we can no longer really afford to accommodate. But the first point you make here is a scare story that doesn't necessarily correlate with Phelps staying. It might, but it's not a given.

Regarding the second point - sometimes you just have to accept that if a guy is playing well and is clearly determined to make a shirt his own - especially a difficult shirt to fill, like no. 1 - then instead of moving others players around in order to justify releasing him, it might be simpler and more beneficial just to keep hold of him for another year.

As I say, I actually agree with the jist of your argument. But don't be calling other posters 'dim' just because they have a diferent view. You seem to be more and more influenced by CP Wigan every day.

No it doesn't. I thought this but if you look at IL's postGeorge Carmont, Pat Richards and Feka Paleaasina therefore become Federation Trained immediately'"

Well if you read what I actually said, I said it was my [iopinion[/i that we would have to strengthen the team with players of that standard if we sign Phelps. That is we must look to the UK because we can't sign an overseas prop. I was not suggesting it was going to be Griffen as such but someone "like" Griffen. Unless you know of any UK props we can sign of a higher standard I am not sure what you are picking me up on this for.



Well that is the entire point of the debate. Is it worth keeping Phelps given the standard he is when the consequences for the rest of the team are what they are?

Not in my opinion. He isn't even one of the best in SL by some distance yet the recruitment will be compromised if we retain him.



I did not call other posters dim, the exact opposite. And as to "seem to be more and more influenced by CP Wigan every day" your post would seem far more reasonable without closing in such a ridiculous note.

Dave