[DaveO]

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:26 pm  

Ancient & Loyal wrote:

O'Carroll and Prescott have been brought in gradually, if they both stay injury free and Prescott can return to full fitness these are two young props who are ready for first team action everyweek. Brian Noble has overseen the gradual input of both O'Carroll and Prescott into the first team and it's proved effective. Lets hope Sam Tomkins and Ainscough follow in the same vein.

If he had not played O'Carroll and Prescott who else would he have played? Don't forget in his first season IL said we would not sign any new props given who we had on the books. Nobby had no choice but to play these two players.

If O'Loughlin had not got injured would J Tomkins have got the game time last season and left Noble with the dilemma of which back row to drop (one he has not worked out the answer to yet)? I would say not.

Had injuries to the likes of Phelps and suspensions not occurred would he have played Ainscough and S Tomkins? I would say not again.

It seems pretty clear to me he has only played younger players and diverted from his preferred 1st team ever since he has been at Wigan when his had was forced.

Unless someone can convince me otherwise I would not be surprised if this is how the young players at Bradford came through as well i.e. not due to a deliberate policy of Noble's but only when his had was forced.

Unless you look at the circumstances as to when new players get introduced it looks as though Noble has been responsible for bringing in young talent at Wigan i.e the players I mention above J & S Tomkins, O'Carroll, Prescott and Ainscough. In fact when you look at the circumstances of their debuts his had was forced into playing them each time.

Anyone who thinks different is daft IMO.

Dave

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:55 am  

DaveO wrote:

If he had not played O'Carroll and Prescott who else would he have played? Don't forget in his first season IL said we would not sign any new props given who we had on the books. Nobby had no choice but to play these two players.

If O'Loughlin had not got injured would J Tomkins have got the game time last season and left Noble with the dilemma of which back row to drop (one he has not worked out the answer to yet)? I would say not.

Had injuries to the likes of Phelps and suspensions not occurred would he have played Ainscough and S Tomkins? I would say not again.

It seems pretty clear to me he has only played younger players and diverted from his preferred 1st team ever since he has been at Wigan when his had was forced.

Unless someone can convince me otherwise I would not be surprised if this is how the young players at Bradford came through as well i.e. not due to a deliberate policy of Noble's but only when his had was forced.

Unless you look at the circumstances as to when new players get introduced it looks as though Noble has been responsible for bringing in young talent at Wigan i.e the players I mention above J & S Tomkins, O'Carroll, Prescott and Ainscough. In fact when you look at the circumstances of their debuts his had was forced into playing them each time.

Anyone who thinks different is daft IMO.

Dave

Did Noble play the young players in question yes or no? YES he did. Most young players become starting 17 material through some kind of oppurtunity. Wigan young players have got there oppurtunity and that is the end of the matter.

You are daft IMO.

[DaveO]

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:24 am  

Red Hot Jalapeno wrote:

Did Noble play the young players in question yes or no? YES he did. Most young players become starting 17 material through some kind of oppurtunity. Wigan young players have got there oppurtunity and that is the end of the matter.

You are daft IMO.

You know as well as I do that he only played these players when he had no alternative. Everything I said about the circumstances he chose to play these players under is correct and you can't dispute it. As you didn't because you can't.

Its as plain as the nose on your face he has only played J & S Tomkins and Ainscough when injuries and suspensions have occurred because that is when and ONLY when he has played them. Given this has happened several times it is not possible it is pure coincidence and that it was all some sort of master plan to introduce these players at the time he did.

Saying he has played them so that is all that matters is to be honest too stupid for words. It is important these players have got the game time that have but it should be by design and not by accident and by accident which is exactly how it has happened. It's obvious and why people won't see this I really do not know.

I'd hate for you to be on a jury if Nobby was up for drink driving having failed the breath test because despite all the evidence he was over the limit you would say he was not guilty even if he had run your granny over.

Dave

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:32 am  

Bill_Barlow wrote:

I think Noble is giving the young lads a chance he just doesnt want to have to rely on them weekly and put that pressure on them of having to maintain a level of performance. I think this is were we went wrong with Kev Brown, following the examples of Roby, Graham, Clough and Eastmond at Saints with Tomkins, Mossop, McIlloram and maybe Goulding might be put back down a step and introduce them slowly easing them into regular first team spots.

By the age Sam Tomkins is now, Roby had played 40-odd SL games for St Helens.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:39 am  

its not often i agree with Dave O....BUT this time i think he is right....Ainy and Tomkins wouldn't have been in the team if it wasn't for injuries/ suspensions and lets be honest if Ainscough had not had a fantastic game he would of been dropped...thats how Nobby does it. he likes to stick by HIS players no matter what.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:03 pm  

jackdog wrote:

By the age Sam Tomkins is now, Roby had played 40-odd SL games for St Helens.

And by the same token, Burrow and McGuire as 19 year olds had hardly played at Leeds.

In fact McGuire won the semi final(from the subs bench) v Saints in 2003 and was then dropped for the final.

Burrow didn't even play.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:20 pm  

odemwingie wrote:

Im not doing it, but think people who do have a pop at him are entitled to their opinion. Some people have yet to accept that we are not going to be as dominant as we once were.

People do have the right to thier opinion, correct but to start a thread over just the littlest thing to have a pop at Noble is IMO very very sad. Some people are obsessed with criticising Noble and I get the feeling that even IF we won something this year, they would still turn round and say "Yeah we won it but we played poorly and didn't deserve it."

Noble will never win with some people.

[Bullseye]

Re: Noble Talking Shiite... : Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:46 pm  

Red Hot Jalapeno wrote:

Whats picking Pryce on the wing for GB got to do with him playing young lads?

At Bradford he regulary played young lads. How about Moore,both Pryce brothers,Langley,Reardon,Deacon and others ive no doubt forgot.

Deacon, Leon Pryce and Langley debuted under Elliott as did Fielden, Peacock and Parker.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:52 pm  

100% Warrior wrote:

People do have the right to thier opinion, correct but to start a thread over just the littlest thing to have a pop at Noble is IMO very very sad. Some people are obsessed with criticising Noble and I get the feeling that even IF we won something this year, they would still turn round and say "Yeah we won it but we played poorly and didn't deserve it."

Noble will never win with some people.

Some people have already re-rationalised his bringing through of certain youth players by saying that he only did it because first-teamers were injured. My response to that would be that most youngsters who break through only really get the chance when injuries open gaps for them.

That said, I do feel that Noble has been slow to promote youth while he's been at Wigan. The real test for him now will be to keep faith with the likes of Ainscough and Sam. If those two disappear again as soon as the likes of Mathers and Phelps are back in contention, then everything the anti-Noble lobby says will be one stepper closer to being proved.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:36 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

And by the same token, Burrow and McGuire as 19 year olds had hardly played at Leeds.

Burrow played about 17 games before he was 20, McGuire about 12. In winning teams.
Sam Tomkins (hopefully) will get to 4 before he's 20. And I'll not say owt about a winning team in our case.