Is it really? Apart from one great pass against Huddersfield (i think) and 4 tries against the Crusaders I've seen nothing of him to suggest he's anything more than just a big lad with a bit of pace. I thought I'd seen the last of him in a Wigan shirt when he cried off with a bruised leg against St. Helens but the coaching staff think he's worth another 12 months and I'll give him a fair chance again.

Karl Pryce reminds me of the lad in the film 'the blind side'.

If only we could get Sandra Bullock on the coaching team to find what makes him tick

I am as qualified to have an opinion as you are and on here that is all that counts. This is a place to debate the goings on at the club and if you don't want to see differing opinions they why do you bother coming here?



I do not think it was any secret that the coaching staff were not impressed with Pryce last season. I therefore find it odd and mystifying the same coaching staff would want to sign him up again especially as he appears exactly the opposite kind of player they favour in terms of application. Why anyone else, including you, would not ponder this and who decided to re-sign him I have no idea.



I don't think I have stopped smiling since we won the GF but I fail to see why the success precludes disagreeing with the re-signing of a player like Pryce.

Given many on this thread are not in favour the signing either what have you to say to them? Is there implied criticism of IL and/or Madge there? Go and have a pop at them for daring to disagree with Pryce being re-signed.

I think your problem is you didn't like me pointing out the fact Pryce will take up a salary cap slot when you posted about him being cheap as a reason to justify the signing but instead of saying "Oh I didn't think about that" you completely ignored the point and have since been on my case justifying the re-signing of Pryce mainly by adopting the tired old "the coach knows best there can be no debate" argument.

Bottom line is I don't think Pryce deserves a salary cap place and the fact someone at the club does, isn't going to change my opinion. The only thing that will is if he pulls his socks up big time and proves me and others who don't rate him wrong and I really do not think that is being unreasonable.

Dave

If I see an opinion that I think is crap, I'll say so. That's also the nature of this message board.

Look ... the re-signing of Pryce, if it's a gripe at all, is a very minor one in the great run of things.

I just thought it funny and not atypical when you decided that - because this is a decision you don't like - it must have been a decision made by Lenagan rather than Maguire. Lenagan, of course, being the guy you barely had a good word for after it became clear that he wasn't keen on your beloved Mickey Higham.

I don't know what Pryce is earning from Wigan, and neither do you. So there's not much point arguing about that. On that basis, however, I will concede that it's possible Pryce is one of our top-earners, in which case it would be ridiculous to re-hire him on the same terms. But to be honest, I somehow doubt that he is. Whatever stock he first had when he came back to RL, it's surely fallen significantly by now.

Don't you watch the games he has played in ? How can you say inexplicable ? You'll be saying he's a World beater next. Or maybe your related to Pryce ?

The question is, how was it so easy to get rid of Feka, but Pryce is a 'shoe-in' for the squad ?

There's a bit of a difference between saying a Wigan player should have more support from the crowd and calling him a 'world-beater'. There's also a difference between criticising a player for failing to fulfill his potential, and heaping all kinds of abuse on him (I love the bit about how you have to be someone's relative not to want to see that happen to them - truly inspiring generosity of spirit).

As for your question, I'd imagine that Feka's price tag and his inability to do what the coaches required of him was the main reason for his departure; that along with the acquisiton of a far better player in Jeff Lima. I'm not quite sure what Pryce has got to do with any of that that, given that Feka is a front row forward and Karl Pryce a back.

this one is going to rumble on just like last season. IMO the coaching staff must see something in KP. They are trying to get him fit enough to play to his potential. Only time will tell if he will ever be good enough.Maybe with a good hard pre season under his belt he may well do a job for us. I am one of the many that think he will fail to make the impact but would be happy to be proved wrong. It would be great to see the big guy causing havoc and scoring for fun.
on a slight change of subject liam farrel is ripping it up in pre season.

Ok so he isn't in the same league as Pat Richards, but I honestly don't see any issue with giving him another year. It only takes a couple of injuries and we could be crying out for a solid winger. He's nothing special, but imo he showed last year that he can provide good cover for the first team, presuming he's being paid as cover and nothing more. You can't have a squad full of superstars, Pryce is what he is, a squad player. If he pulls a Goulding and improves then great! If not, he will still provide decent cover.

I honestly don't see any problem with retaining Pryce. We've already seen that young players who are doing well will get their chance so Pryce isn't likely to hold back any young player.
In the games he's played, he might not have set the world alight but he wasn't terrible either, which at the very least means as a back up player he would be fairly decent.
There is clearly a lot of potential with Pryce, and at the moment he seems a long way off fulfilling that, but if you see a player with potential and have an excellent set of coaches then I think it's worth trying everything you can to get the most out of that player.

With Phelps leaving and Richards injured for the first part of the season we would be left with Tomkins, Roberts, Goulding, Gleeson, Carmont, Charnley and Marsh in the backs for the early part of the season (King and Russell probably wouldn't be ready for first team). If one of Charnley or Marsh was to go out on loan that leaves us pretty thin if another player succumbed to injury. With Carmont prone to a few minor injuries and Roberts struggling this year I think having another outside back in the side as back up is the sensible thing to do.

Phelps took up a quota spot, which is a waste on a back up player, he was probably earning a reasonable amount of money and had been struggling with injury problems during the year. He deserved to move on and try to further his career without being held back, which means he had to go.
That leaves Pryce as the logical player to be kept as back up to the first team.

With the height and weight that Pryce offers and the fact that regardless of how he plays he is capable of getting tries I think there is enough reason to offer him one more year, just to see whether the coaching staff can develop him into the player he promised to be. He got some bad injuries at a young age which means his development as a player will have been much slower than expected.

I think having another player as cover in the backs is necessary, and keeping Phelps wouldn't have made that much sense, and signing someone else wouldn't make sense either, so keeping Pryce is the logical option. If he stays on and Charnley or Marsh get picked ahead of him I honestly don't see a problem. We'd still have a player who knows the players inside out and has a good try scoring record as back up. We probably wouldn't be able to spend his wages on signing anyone else so keeping him on makes perfect sense.

C.P

Of course it makes sense. Pryce is a proven try scorer, is sound defensively, and provides excellent cover as a squad member. What someone needs to do is to get inside his head and convince him that he can do it, sadly some of the Wigan speccies booing him before he has even touched a ball doesn't help. I dread to think what would have been said had Pryce missed the tackle at Old Trafford when Meli scored.

However, Wigan fans have to have a scapegoat (it's nothing new btw) even Shaun Edwards, Andy Farrell, Eric Ashton etc had their detractors.

As I said previously I would like to see Pryce lose about a stone in weight and work on his speed off the mark.

Just to add, I'll bet most of his critics are the same ones who wanted rid of Riddell and Roberts in their first seasons at Wigan, and the truth is that Pryce has had only one season at Wigan where he was anywhere near fitness.
Let's see how he performs this coming season having been in the Bitcon torture chamber.

If I'm not mistaken Pryce suffered his first serious injury at the age of 20, which is a pretty bad time for a young player to get injured as its usually a time when they have made it into the first team and will look to build on that and try to establish themselves. I think Pryce has missed two whole seasons of rugby, so despite being 24 (an age where he should be establishing himself in a side) in terms of development he's only at the same stage as someone who is 22. Goulding is 22 now and has only just started to put in some consistent performances now that he's been given the chance. He also had many critics, especially the fans, but the coaches had faith in him and he took his chance.

No one can be really sure how injury affects a player, but surely if a promising player had injury problems from the ages of 18-22, only completed his first full season at 23 and had a bad season aged 24, it would be unfair to say that at the age of 24 they should be established and therefore they should leave the club, even though they've been playing first team for 6 years.

I think both Pryce and Prescott would fall into the above category at Wigan. Their injury troubles mean that both have less experience than they should and their chances to become established players have been hampered, but both still have plenty of potential and could become the players they promised to be, and so it makes sense to allow them a little longer than you might with other players in order to see whether they can reach their potential.

There is no argument over the fact he will take up one of the 25 salary cap slots. This he must do so even if he was on peanuts we could not sign a 26th player on a decent wage. So the justification put forward its OK to sign Pryce because he will be cheap does not stand up.

As to me barley having a good word for IL I don't think you will find that to be true if you care to look back over the message board. What I don't ever do is adopt the stance that he is either perfect or poor but I comment on each thing he does on its merits. He has got most things right but every now and again he does get things wrong. He must have approved the re-signing of Pryce so even if it was not him exerting undue influence over this he has still agreed too it so he is as guilty as anyone else at the club for this.

Dave

So what? The fact that Pryce at 24 still has not established himself in the side means he must require yet more time to do so. How old will he be before he does reach that potential, 27?

Who in the meantime will be coming through the ranks he will be blocking the progress of?

The thing that is missing from your posts above is any consideration of whether he deserves the chances he has been given at Wigan and IMO he has done nothing to prove he has. Being unlucky with injury does not make you deserving of a contract. Bracketing him with Prescott is crazy because while Prescott has also been unlucky with injury he has done one thing Pryce has not and that is improve as a player! Pryce is no better now than when he was signed.

The "proven try scoring record" thing is surely a joke as well, lies damned lies and statistics and all that. Plenty of players have proven try scoring records. Denis Moran did before he came here and look how that turned out.

Dave

Dave I appreciate this board is all about opinions and speculation, but your posts comes across as though you are better placed than the coaching staff to make this call on the merits as a player in the squad, and also better placed with the financials to make a decision on where he fits into the cap structure than IFL and the clubs management.

Fair play personally you do not rate him I can understand that, but what I cannot accept is the fact that you seem to know the plans for him, the squad and the cap over and above those who deal directly with it and him as a player on a daily basis.

I wouldn't disagree with that. Of course IFL has influence in club signings; any chairman worth his salt would have a say in recruitment, as he's the one writing the cheques.

But that's different from what you originally said, which was something along the lines of "I dare say this was an IL and not a Madge/Wane decision".

You were quite clearly implying that, because this was a decision you disagreed with, and therefore - to your mind, at least - was a poor one (rather presumptuous of you), it must be soley down to IFL. Utterly ridiculous. You have no grounds for that assumption at all. So, whether you intended it or not, it came over as just another contination of your 'conspirarcy-theory' skepticism about IFL.

As for the money thing, I will say again - and for the last time - that I don't know what Pryce is earning, and nor do you. Neither of us have the club's financial plans at our fingertips, and we never will have. All we can do on that is surmise - it will never be something we can use, as you appear to be doing, as the last word in a debate.

As Jonh said, Dave, you do talk at times as if you are better qualified than almost anyone else to run Wigan RL, including the people who are running it at present and doing a pretty good job. And yes, you are allowed to have opinions like these, but don't be surprised if other posters find them rather dubious.