We have all seen it - in SL where it matters.

The only issue with [iboth [/iplayers defensively IMO is being vulnerable under the high ball and they both are.

If as people are saying opposition teams will have worked this out about Ainscough are you suggesting they are too dumb to do the same with Roberts?

They worked out Tim Smiths frailties quick enough but eventually Noble and the team have seemingly sorted this out.

I do not see why, especially with the arrival of Gleeson, and playing Ainscough on the right suitable tactics could be employed to minimise his exposure. We will need to do this for Roberts anyway!

So at the end of the day this defensive frailty that is the justification for keeping out of the side is IMO, a complete red herring.

Dave

I totally disagree in regards to Roberts being 'vulnerable' under the high ball. His general positioning is spot on and he has already proven that he is more than capable of playing the fullback position. This is the reason why I wouldn't have Ainscough ahead of him at the moment.

Attacking-wise, I think a Gleeson/Ainscough partnership would be better than having Roberts outwide and would love to see it regulary this/next season once Ainscough is deemed ready again for first team.

It's not JUST his weakness under the high ball though it is general kick defence.


Look at the ones we conceded against Leeds and Hudersfield as examples.
Then dropping the ball v Catalan and Saints from kick offs.

He isn't a poor tackler.

It's a problem that IS being addressed, and he will play some more games this season.

Roberts didn't get to 2 at the weekend (Although 1 of which no-one got to and it was scrambled clear) and 1 resulted in a try.

On BOTH occasions Tims Smith's covering was a disgrace! No effort to block the runners etc!

If Ainscough's kick defenc eis a problem with him playing on the Left Wing it will be double on the Right With Smith anywhere near him!

PS

Noble has NEVER said that Ainscough has got problems with his kick defence. He said he had areas to work on in his game.
It is the fans and media that have assumed it is his kick defence and IMHO they are right as exactly the way Rogues as put it in the earlier thread.

"It's not JUST his weakness under the high ball though it is general kick defence.
Look at the ones we conceded against Leeds and Hudersfield as examples.
Then dropping the ball v Catalan and Saints from kick offs.
He isn't a poor tackler.
It's a problem that IS being addressed, and he will play some more games this season."

Roberts is the Better option ATM given the current options and set up of the team.

Well we will have to agree to disagree because I don't think Roberts is particularly good at fielding kicks at all be they in the air or on the ground. I am sure he has been beaten by kicks to his wing on more than just the Salford game this season. I am also not sure when he proved he was more than capable as a full back.

When we started this season and everyone expected Sam T to Ainscough to get a game there was plenty of talk about not going over board if they made the odd mistake. IMO that is all Ainscough has done, made the odd mistake and we can point to plenty of other mistakes by other players just as bad if not worse e.g. Phelps waiting go the ball to run dead while the opposition run up behind him to score.

His contribution on attack has far outweighed those odd mistakes IMO but I don't think the same can be said about Roberts.



Well I hope we see Ainscough earlier than next season.

What most people seem to be ignoring with all this focus on defence in the discussion of the two players relative merits, is that on attack Ainscough has been far better than Roberts who was particularly disappointing v Salford when Gleeson gave him plenty of opportunities..

Dave

I really like the look of Ainscough ball in hand - lets be honest he's the most individually dangerous British winger there is, despite his few games.

I understand the issue with respect to the high ball - Matt Utai at the Dogs had the same problem - but the reality is that a shorter winger is sometimes going to get beaten in the air by someone bigger. If he can make sure that after missing a highball/being beaten to it he doesn't let his confidence crack then it will just be one of those occasional things.

His teammates can and should provide enough protection - the centre partner in terms of (legally) impeding attacking players, and the full back in terms of covering - that this is not an insurmountable problem.

As fans watching our team concede tries from kicks we sometimes tend to ignore the fact that some kicks are simply too well made and the attacking players too well positioned to defend against. Mainly true of grubber kicks in-goal, but a well-placed crossfield kick can be almost impossible to defend against as well if the defence is bunched up and the winger well infield, and a high kick if the defender is static can always cause chaos.

The only other thing that matters is the quality of coaching he gets and the amount of effort he puts into addressing his weaknesses. Far too many young players in SL seem to never get rid of fundamental issues in their game - Penny at Warrington should be sad for anyone that likes to see genuine speedsters. At Leeds Kallum Watkins has some great attributes but also some very poor decision-making, which he can get away with in the Academy but not first grade. Again it will be a crying shame if those flaws aren't fixed.

Agree with this post especially the highlighted line.

That's because in many cases these problems are uncoachable. They are invariably linked to deep-seated psychological, neurological and/or physiological issues that are either too complex or too difficult to address in the short space of time a player has to impress in order to get a squad place.

A player with dodgy hands will - in all but the rarest cases - always have dodgy hands. Yes, you train the player to stay calm whilst the ball drops. Yes, you can address issues of technique - how to place one's feet, holding arms in the optimal position etc. But this is fiddling around the edges. You can't split open a person's brain and take a spanner to deep-rooted psychological obstacles (such as the pressure a player puts himself under), just as you can't tweak psychomotor attributes to turn someone with zero hand-eye co-ordination into a Circ de Soleil juggler.

A good example is Ade Gardner at Saints. For years he took a ton of abuse over his less-than-stellar abilities under the high-ball. To the kid's credit he worked himself into the ground to fix the faults that could be fixed and he's a far better player because of it. But he'll NEVER be great under the bomb. I suspect Ainscough will be the same.

Hang on, Ainscough was ok catching bombs in his first few games so don't come trolling on here trying to plant seeds so that fans seem to think he is useless under the high ball, he has had his boo boos wih the high ball yes but nothing major.

So [sizeI[/size am responsible for your fans thinking Ainscough has questionable hands (I'm sure your fellow C&W posters will thank you for your confidence in their powers of perception and reasoninig)? Am I also responsible for him being shaky under the high ball? Perhaps I'm zapping him with one of those laser pens from the stands, eh? Or am I foisting some weird kind of group hallucination onto you guys?

[Shakes head]

No, but you are rather pretentious......

Come back to me when you want to discuss the issue.

yes me too took the words out my mouth