If we look at what he has done in the past few years I do feel he has tremendous ability. 2008 - England academy in oz was named as man of the series. 2009 - was top try scorer in the league despite playing fewer games. This year was farmed out to poor sides and lost confidence but given a chance in the 9s last week scored 5 and was named as man of the tournament (according to twitter this was the day after his baby was born).

No matter who he plays for I for one hope he does well and is given the chance to develop his game further and has every success in his career.

I am really completely bemused by this tread now.

I can't for the life of me (short of going on some 3 day bender of drink and mind altering drugs) understand the suggestion that SA has missed out playing in the first team due to Karl Pryce not being eligible for duel reg. Phil Bailey wasn't eligible for duel reg and yet we gave some younger players a good run when the opportunity arose (Tuson and Farrell, including calling them back from the other clubs) and kept them in even when he returned to fitness. Yet SA is the exception to this policy? We selected Karl Pryce over him even though we thought SA was a better player? We then gave SA a game (which potentially the proponents of this theory felt he did nothing wrong in) and then dropped him straight away, just so we could continue to select Karl?

So we're a meritocracy, apart from when it comes to Karl Pryce/SA?

I truly have heard it all now.

Anybody thought about writing for the National Enquirer?

I also have a good line in tin foil hats going at good prices for season ticket holders, i'll even do you buy now pay in 2012 which you won't need to worry about because the world will have ended by then anyway....

so very very NOFL.

Trying to suggest Bailey falls into the same category as Pryce is ridiculous. Bailey is an established first team squad member and has made 17 appearances for the club this season and would no doubt have made more if not injured. Pryce has made 7 and is a bit part player who stayed with Wigan rather than go out on loan because he didn't qualify for dual reg and was too expensive to be an attractive loan proposition.



If you want to believe how much players are paid and how old they are doesn't influence who goes out on loan or dual reg you carry you carry on. Unfortunately life isn't that simple.

Dave

Well said

I really cant believe some of the posts on here, the most alarming thing is that people must actually believe the rubbish they are writing. DaveO really should write a conspiracy book on Shaun Ainscough's Wigan career as he seems to have fallen victim to the biggest set of misfortunes known to man, none of it is his fault though .

I really cant believe that anyone would seriously think that a coach would purposely pick a worse player just to keep Ainscough out of the team and that for some strange reason only Ainscough is a victim of this policy. Pryce not being eligible for dual reg is completely irrelevant and it is just a very poor excuse made up without any basis whatsoever. People who try to use it as an excuse completely ignore the fact that Ainscough got recalled from Castleford and got his chance at Wigan this season before Pryce, as did Charnley when he was recalled from Hull KR. Unfortunately for Ainscough he did not take this chance and the coaches did not see enough promise for him to get another. If he had done better than maybe he would have got a run of games like Pryce. Oh I forgot this was all Baileys fault and Maguire's and Wane's faults for not picking him again.

He also did not play particularly well at Castleford either, who didnt want him back and was dropped by Widnes. All in all he has had plenty of chances to impress whilst on loan, as Tuson did at Castleford and Mossop and Goulding did last year but for whatever reason he didnt. I suppose this is all Matterson's and Cullen's faults.

I also cant believe that anyone would think the salary cap would come into us keeping on Ainscough. Ainscough would be on a low wage and if he was thought to be good enough he would be kept, even if he was over 21, as Pryce was and as numerous younger players have been. To try and blame the salary cap is just laughable. Who's fault is this Lenegan's?

There is a common denominator in all of this and it is Shaun Ainscough. Various coaches from Noble to Maguire and Wane and from Matterson to Cullen have deemed him not to be good enough. I simply do not believe that they are all wrong. The simple fact is that he is at best Wigan's 6th choice winger, behind Richards, Goulding, Roberts, Pryce, Charnley and he has glaring weaknesses in his game. He also has no versitilty and has shown no improvement in 4 years which has resulted in him being overtaken by younger players such as Charnley and Marsh. Indeed centres like Goulding and Pryce are preferred to him instead. When you look at the facts, and not the fanciful assumptions that some like to peddle, then the decision to release him is a no brainer.

When I mention its a known fact that Noble (as stated by the man himself) will select experienced players over younger players which he then goes and does, it is not unreasonable to suggest that is what happened with Ainscough. Common sense suggests that is exactly what happened as does his track record of doing the same with other young players.

In contrast suggesting he dropped him because he didn't think he was good enough and for no other reason goes against what Noble actually did with other young players (given Ainscoughs form at the time) who were also equally good enough to warrant selection but were overlooked. It is an entirely reasonable conclusion to draw based on the evidence of how Noble picked his sides. What actually went on backs up my opinion more than it does yours. How Noble overlooked younger players despite how they played was one of [ithe[/i biggest complaints levelled against Noble. He picked on reputation rather than form as you know. For this suddenly not to apply in Ainscough's case is too far fetched (or should I say convenient!) to be a reasonable opinion given Ainscough's form.



I can dismiss the possibility he didn't satisfy Noble because the body of evidence suggests the reason he was dropped was down to Nobles selection policy. It's the only reasonable conclusion to draw unless you want to ignore what actually went on under Nobles tenure.



I am not sure what you are on about but its a fact that people rounded on Noble's selection policy including you I believe, so to then suggest it wasn't his selection policy but the fact he didn't actually rate the player as the reason he was dropped is just not consistent.

As to why the current regime decided to let Ainscough go I also do not think its a simple form or ability issue. We are faced with the possibility the salary cap "working" has played a part in the decision and this is ignored because ???? He's 20, has scored 27 tries in 28 games and for some reason he's got to be cr@p and really was never any good anyway is how it appears.

Dave

Dave, which ever way you want to dice and slice it, the FACT is four different coaches in the space of two years have had a good look at Ainscough and decided no thank you.

Good luck to the lad I hope he does well, but IMO he has hardly improved in his four years at Wigan.

It doesn't look like you're going to get a reply to it this time either.

I can't really believe anyone would suggest that is what I am saying.

Nor can I believe anyone is naive enough to believe how old players are or how much they are paid won't affect who goes out on dual reg or loan which is the thrust of my argument re Pryce getting a few games and staying at Wigan in place of Ainscough (or for that matter Charnley who went to HKR).

It wouldn't be so bad if Pryce was actually any good. Then people might have point about Pryce being picked on merit and that it was that simple.

It simply does not make any sense to put forward an argument that Pryce got his games because he's better than Ainscough or Chrarnley this season or Goulding last season.



Of course its relevant Pryce was too old for dual reg because he could never be considered for a dual reg slot at any time during the season. The whole point of dual reg is about players being able to be recalled for the odd game at short notice and go back out on their dual reg deal. Unlike a normal loan agreement that does not work that way. It's not a loan. Pryce was not eligible for this so the club could not set up such a deal. That is obviously the case.

I also see you conveniently ignore the fact he was left high and dry in the Quins game by having Bailey as his centre who no one on this board thinks is a centre any more in a million years. Bailey was awful in that game but Ainscough had to impress regardless.



In case you forgot Pryce had an option he could exercise in his favour (as did Calderwood when he was here) that meant he could decide if he stayed here for another year. He did exercise that option and we got stuck with him for another year. Fact. Whatever effect that had on the salary cap Wigan had no option but to keep him on. You can decide if IL made a bad decision there giving him that kind of contract.

So to suggest as you do he was here this year because the club decided to keep him regardless of age is just not correct.

What would you do with a player who wasn't going to get into the team under normal circumstances like Pryce? Send him out on loan dual reg not being an option? No instead the club kept him idle for half a season because he really was a good player after all! It's blindingly obvious the club couldn't get him out on loan and he wasn't good enough to break into the team until Roberts and others got injured.



There is a distinct lack of some basic common sense and a few facts such as Pryce being able to exercise his contract option that people want to ignore IMO.

Dave

Dave, I give up with you, I really really do.

There's absolutely zero budging you on any point ever, your response to me re Bailey baffled me more than just about anything i've ever read on here. You pointed out Bailey's first team credentials, which is exactly the reason I'd have expected him to be straight back in when fit if we were NOT a meritocracy, what happened? Farrell and Tuson continued to get games, I'm assuming because they'd performed as required, i.e. players selected on merit.

Yet we have the one glaring exception to this seemingly apparent club policy, Karl Pryce? And you tell me life is not that simple? Dave it's not that bloody complicated either mate. You can continue to feel there's some sort of Machiavellian plot re: Karl Pryce and Shaun Ainscough, even though Karl and Shaun seem to be good mates judging from Twitter exchanges between the two, and yet all other evidence suggests players get picked on merit and retained on merit, then there's little point of further dialog on the subject.

I'm really so totally completely utterly lost on your point that i'd need a sat nav to even begin to see where you're coming from, and I also think it does a really big disservice to Wane and Maguire suggesting that this is the case, haven't seen any unhappy rantings from Shaun either and he's not normally the sort to keep his views to himself on twitter now is he.

It's my last discourse on the point, you truly are the immovable object, and i'm far from the irresistible force - enjoy your theories, maybe bring them up at the next fans forum, or try and catch IL/SW/MM around the club, let us know how you get on.

Good luck to Shaun, he's a good lad, with a young family now, and I really hope he can forge a successful Super League career.

Shall we take this post as you bowing out of this discussion.

DaveO ground you down has he.

Which is good enough for me.