You would have to ask him that question. I know he was offered a contract from Widnes as well as Bradford. Obviously decided on Bradford and good luck to him hope he does well for himself wherever he goes.

I agree.

And this as well!

So if you credit Maguire and Wane as coaches, why do you think they opted not to use Ainscough?

ainscough is moving on good luck to the lad , cant believe these threads turn in to we should of,its BN MM SW fault ,wigan letting go of young lad again , Ainscough has moved on so has wigan end of.

Ainscough is like Kevin Penny was for us. I knew he was in trouble in the days when everybody was raving about him and you started seeing the phrase "who cares if he can't defend, Offiah couldn't defend". Offiah was never a weakness in defence in fact if you bombed him you had to watch out that he didn't catch it and go the length.

Karl Pryce. Too old to go on dual reg and too expensive to be a traditional loan player. Why else would you think they opted to use Pryce? ( In know some people clam he is worth another contract so must think he is a good enough player to warrant it but I don't think you do - I certainly don't).

The point being if it were down to who they would rather have had out on loan in either Ainscough or Pryce I reckon it would have been Pryce. I have no facts to back that opinion up other than the fact we know Ainscough qualified for dual reg and was obviously cheap enough and Pryce was neither but I do think Ainscough was a victim of circumstance in terms of his first team opportunities this year as much as he was last year a victim of a poor coach.

Dave

I find it hard to accept that if Wigan had felt Ainscough was a real talent for the future, they'd have loaned him out all season and then released him. If the reports on Ainscough from the clubs he was loaned out to weren't encouraging, but Wigan still believed in the lad because they knew his talent, surely they'd have kept him on?

If it's purely down to bad luck that this didn't happen, it makes him very, very unlucky indeed.

You don't think there's at least a possiblity that Maguire assessed him and found him lacking in some way?

Not a Chance in a Million!

That wouldn't fit in with his argument.


PS

IIRC I think I may have said something similar middle/back end of last year when I & Others said we would pick Roberts over Ainscough.
i.e
Lets see Who the next coach picks? He picked Roberts, Then Goulding & Then Pryce

They obviously don't fancy him as a 1st team option for the next couple of years so good move all round?

Strange how when Ainscough was scoring tries for fun down our left for 10 games or so he was going to be a World Beater yet Pryce did the same thing whilst letting less in the other way he was deemed Useless by a lot of the same people?

As I've said numerous times, everyone is entitled to their opinions but surely we must accept that these "Professional" coaches who deal with these players day in day out know a bit more about the Merits of each player with regards to the Team's overall success than we do?

I think Maguire's dropped a couple of Ricks this year at certain times but then again that's alway's going to Happen, No-one (Apart from Tony Smith obviously) is perfect!
Maguire (And the coaching staff) has got 9/10 thing's right IMO and some players may end up as casulaties of that 1 wrong decision in 10.
I don't think Ainscough is the 1/10 I think Maguire has got it right, only time will tell I suppose.

If he carries on getting 9/10 right and more importantly get's the Big Decisions right that'll do for Me!

I do but I also think his opportunities this season were limited due to circumstance as much as anything else. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive things.

The statement from the club about the four players leaving goes on about the salary cap as regards Ainscough and next season he would be 21 so like Pryce would not qualify for dual reg. The other young players often mentioned as going to be better are still young enough for that so its easier to keep them on.

It does not seem to have crossed anyone's mind that factors such as these (i.e. that the salary cap is "working"icon_wink.gif are at the root of why he is being let go. It's got to be he is not good enough it seems.

Dave

Can you really not see Ainscough is a far more dangerous player than Pryce regardless of the statistics? Roberts (for the first half of this season before he got injured) is better than either and so he should be given his age, wages and experience but Ainscough at 20 has IMO far more potential than Pryce whereas Pryce at 24 ought to be way ahead not still at best waiting to show his potential.

And if you really think not being able to send Pryce out on loan didn't play a factor in why he got his chances and Ainscough didn't I think you are simply wrong.

If Pryce is kept on it will truly be a mystery to me and many others as I know I am not alone in not rating the player and I have seen enough wingers in my time to know I have not gone blind or forgotten what a good winger/player looks like.



If we want to discuss who gets signed or let go we don't. It's as bad as the "have you seen him play in the academy" argument.

The coaches always know best stance is an argument that simply kills any debate about who gets selected, signed or let go and hiding behind it does IMO show people can't think up a decent reason to argue the opposite point of view to those who question what the coach or club have done.

Dave

The only assumption being made here is by yourself that both Wigan coaches didn't play Ainscough for the same reason - that he wasn't good enough and I don't think that is the case.

As I have pointed out I believe Ainscough was dropped by Nobby for one reason only - that he carried on with his own stated policy of going for experience over youth every time.

As I have also said I believe Ainscough went out on loan and Pryce got chances denied to Ainscough at Wigan purely because of the factors previously mentioned that Pryce did not qualify for dual reg and was too expensive for a loan.

Those two things do in my opinion explain his limited opportunities at Wigan rather than the idea neither Noble nor Madge rated the player.

As to why he has now been let go this is IMO as the club mentions down to salary cap considerations. With Ainscough turning 21 this would limit his opportunities next season and the club can keep other younger players who quality for dual reg or the under 20's much more easily. They can play in the under 20's or be sent out on dual reg/loan whereas with Ainscough the fact he no longer qualifies as an under 20 player is a big problem. I predict we will see some players touted as better than Ainscough leave next year at this time as well for the same reason. They will have hit 21 years and as a result of the fact the junior competition is now under 20's off they will go.

Dave

These are also assumptions, Dave. So it's not just me who's making them. You admitted in another post that you don't have any facts.

Now as I said before, if the coaches really felt that Ainscough was worth keeping, I'm pretty sure they'd have found a way to keep him, regardless of salary cap, Karl Pryce etc.

You can't just dismiss the possibility that Ainscough has failed to satisfy his coaches. He's had two years in and around our first team, and other clubs' first teams, to impress people. Claiming that it's purely down to bad luck that he hasn't is the biggest assumption of all, and a rather strained one IMO.

Also, why do you feel the need to rake up earlier posts? We'd already given our views on this issue in later exchanges. There are times when it seems you can't let a single thing go if it's something you don't want to hear, without trying to find some way to counter it - even if the conversation has moved on. No disrespect, mate, but it seems a bit pathological.

About 100% as correct as you can be (IMO of course!)

You made this point to me in another thread and I got no reply to my argument. Shaun Ainscough was on dual registration. The whole concept is that it allows clubs to recall their dual registered players whenever they please with something like 24 hours notice. Wigan never had to play Pryce at any point they could have just called back Shaun Ainscough. Just like they did against Harlequins. Just like they have done with Liam Farrell when they could have played Phil Bailey. Just like they have done with Ben Davies when they could have played Feka/Eamon O'carroll/Paul Prescott. Just like they have done with Johnny Walker.

It's not like Shaun Ainscough was on a traditional loan for three months and we couldn't have him back. We could have him back at any point during the season. Including in his loan spell at Castleford. If the coaching staff really wanted to play Shaun Ainscough ahead of Karl Pryce then they could have done. This idea that it was because of 'circumstances' is speculation on your part to think of reasons why he can't have been given a game. If none of what you say actually exists then why do you think he has not been given more opportunities?