Having also watched the game, I wouldn't no. However, Pryce didn't have as bad a game as some of us have made out.

Nevertheless Goulding is the far better winger & would come back in the side. Josh Charnley should play instead of Stefan Marsh.

I honestly think it would have been a different result had we played Charnley instead of Marsh.

If we are consistent in saying that if a player plays well enough he keeps his place,(which is what we all have asked for) then yes. I would have thought after watching the game again that Marsh was more in danger of losing his place than Pryce.

Would you not agree?
Or do you think that Marsh was better than Pryce in Sundays game?

I don't think Pryce to played well enough to prevent Goulding from taking the wing spot back and I don't think Pryce is good enough to play centre, so Marsh is our only option regardless. If Goulding is asked to play centre, I'd select Pryce as his wing partner.

Alex,
Serious question.

Have you watched Sundays game again?

No and it doesn't make a difference nor make my opinions any less valid.

I don't see why this always has to be a requirement when people are posting their opinions on here.

It's right up there with "do you watch the reserves/U20s/U18s".

Because as Cadoo has pointed out you will see that Pryce had a decent game.
It's amazing how much you see when you watch a game again. I'll do you a copy if you want.

Or do you suggest the coaches don't review the video of a game before addressing the players at training?

I think it stems from the fact that we're all human beings and we won't always form exactly the same opinion 100% of the time when we have a chance to reflect and review events.

I certainly see things on a second view that I missed first time, sometimes they back up my original opinion, sometimes they give me pause for thought or make me reverse it.

Not quite sure why you're taking exception to the question, it's human nature.

No ta, it'll be on my Sky plus but I do trust what I saw without the need to review the game on television too.

Sometimes television can't see the whole picture and just the edited and focused areas of the game that holds the most action.

One thing that has become evident over the last few years (Bradford and Wigan) is a lack of positional sense in defence.

This has been apparent when playing on the wing, and certainly at centre. A prime example being Barrow away last year.

Defensive nouse is equally important as attsck for a centre, in my honest opinion. Not only because he's defending further in field, but because he has a lot of responsibility organising his winger.

I'd like to think he's overcome these defensive frailties, although I have my doubts. Only the coach knows really, and maybe the fact that Marsh played centre ahead of him reflects this.

Let's face it. Pryce is this years wigan fans target, for some reason we have to have one. If Goulding had done exactly what Pryce did you'd all be saying decent game and a shoe in for next week.

I'm not Pryce's biggest fan but can recognise the potential. I also think the current coaching staff have the ability to take him up a level or 2. The real question is does he want to go up to that level. The answer will come from Wigan depending on whether he is offered a new contract or not. If we do let him go, unlike a previous poster i think he will come back to haunt us. Like Rogues i would like to see him given a 1 year deal and a centre position.

I'll bet you would have watched it if we'd won.

Sorry Rogues, I'm not a fan of Pryce. He certainly wasn't the worst player on the pitch but when he came inside for the kick that Robinson gathered to score, he took an eternity to turn and head for the corner flag to try to stop him. Having said that Marsh was at fault for taking the dummy but I can see that he has promise. Pryce just hasn't got any uuummph and he never will have.
I thought Ainscough looked better for the under 20s than Pryce did on Sunday.
Funny thing is we wouldn't be having this discussion had we beaten Huddersfield. I've just watched the game again and feel that we would beat them by thirty points next time.
My thoughts are now on playing Leeds in the play-offs and then choosing them again in the semi. Then it's Warrington in the final.

No we don't and I don't thing we either need one or have one. Sometimes it's not coincidence several people don't rate a player just as it isn't when most people think a player is brilliant. Why when it's the former does this equate to making a player a scape goat?

If people were blaming Pryce for the loss then perhaps the scape goat tag might apply but all I can see are comments that in general indicate he isn't good enough to play for us which isn't the same thing as being a scape goat. Some disagree about him being good enough but we don't seem to able to say a player is not good enough without the scape goat claim being brought up. Even some of the negative comments get couched in platitudes as if the poster is treading on eggshells in case they are deemed to over stepped the mark.

I honestly do not think Pryce is good enough for a place next season but that does not equate to him being a scape goat. He's only played 7 games for us this season so he'd be going some if he was getting the blame for anything.

Dave