: Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:59 pm  

Charlie Seeling wrote:

Noble does not rate Sam anywhere near as highly. He has real hang ups about small players whomever they are. IL wants Sam in the team (IL in a sense does not help by making Sam 'his boy') So Sam becomes about more than the simple selection it should be and more about the power struggle between coach / owner.

I did say previously that at Leigh, Sam T could have been selected to play at 7 but had he done so and played well Noble would have been forced to select him v Wakey. By not selecting him to play many here agreed that he should at best be sub v Wakey. This is how pathetic selection politics has got at the club. Ironically, Noble talks about the players having their own agendas.

V Hull, Noble cannot not select Sam

However, if Noble had his way the Lockers to 6 ploy would be how he prefers to go. Lockers to 6 is crazy BTW and threatens to damage the good start to 2009 that Lockers had.

Our club is embroilled in a pathetic power struggle between owner / coach.

If this is the case we have a potentially serious situation at hand. Personalities aside there have been cases in Wendyball when the Owner/Chairman has tried to pick the team and overrule/undermine the coach; sadly I can't recall an occasion where this has worked.

Assuming Charlie's statements to be true and again, personalities aside, should the owner/Chairman be dabbling? Even if it IS to bring the player most of us want into the 17? Personally I belive the owner/Chairman should leave team selection to the coach and stand by his appointment of the coach. If he doesn't agree with the coach he needs to butt out or fire the coach.

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:15 pm  

Charlie Seeling wrote:

Noble does not rate Sam anywhere near as highly. He has real hang ups about small players whomever they are. IL wants Sam in the team (IL in a sense does not help by making Sam 'his boy') So Sam becomes about more than the simple selection it should be and more about the power struggle between coach / owner.

I did say previously that at Leigh, Sam T could have been selected to play at 7 but had he done so and played well Noble would have been forced to select him v Wakey. By not selecting him to play many here agreed that he should at best be sub v Wakey. This is how pathetic selection politics has got at the club. Ironically, Noble talks about the players having their own agendas.

V Hull, Noble cannot not select Sam

However, if Noble had his way the Lockers to 6 ploy would be how he prefers to go. Lockers to 6 is crazy BTW and threatens to damage the good start to 2009 that Lockers had.

Our club is embroilled in a pathetic power struggle between owner / coach.

Oh well thats great. Chairman now wanting to pick the team. Noble is the coach not IL. Wether you agree with Noble not wanting to play Tomkins or not,it is Noble who should pick the team and IL should keep his nose out. Noble is the coach not IL. Maurice Lindsay got blasted for this.

Brian Noble has every right to not play Tomkins. Infact,well done to him for standing up to IL and not allowing him to interfere in team selction.

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:18 pm  

wigan pie man wrote:

im being serious, and thought about it.
leon made the transition.
in my early days of watching , when dave bolton was injured, eric ashton went 6 and was good there.
centres make better 6's than 2nd rowers and 13's imo.

what is a 6?
someone who can tackle (barratt), and play like a 3rd centre.

in our present state its worth a try imo, and better than trying to play 2 scrum halves at half backs.

Leon played most of his junior rugby as a 6, and a bloody good one at that, he has always regarded himself as a 6 hence the reason he chose to leave Bradford.

When he first started first team he was promoted from playing 6 and introduced on the Wing, he occasionally got the chance to play 6 but only when Bradford picked up a knock.

Karl is a utility back, but he is a specialist outside back, never in a month of sundays is he a 6 unlike Leon who always has been despite a certain coach deciding a one paced Welsh boy from Union was a better option at 6, and in the bargin lost there best Prop/second row because the signing was made. Still we can only talk of the miracles he performed at Bradford.

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:18 pm  

Charlie, can you substantiate your claim of a rift in any way? I'm not doubting what you're saying as such but haven't read/heard this anywhere else and therefore would be grateful of something to add credence to this.

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:23 pm  

Red Hot Jalapeno wrote:

Oh well thats great. Chairman now wanting to pick the team. Noble is the coach not IL. Wether you agree with Noble not wanting to play Tomkins or not,it is Noble who should pick the team and IL should keep his nose out. Noble is the coach not IL. Maurice Lindsay got blasted for this.

Brian Noble has every right to not play Tomkins. Infact,well done to him for standing up to IL and not allowing him to interfere in team selction.

I believe that is part of the tension between the 2. IL as you say cannot interfere directly and he has to allow Noble to select whom he wants but in less direct ways and bhind closed doors IL expresses his views. If we accept that IL is a 'fan' then that gives him the mentality of a fan. we often pick the team hypothetically etc.

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:24 pm  

wigan pie man wrote:

KARL PRYCE at 6.

Behave yourself

Charlie Seeling wrote:

Noble does not rate Sam anywhere near as highly. He has real hang ups about small players whomever they are. IL wants Sam in the team (IL in a sense does not help by making Sam 'his boy') So Sam becomes about more than the simple selection it should be and more about the power struggle between coach / owner.

I did say previously that at Leigh, Sam T could have been selected to play at 7 but had he done so and played well Noble would have been forced to select him v Wakey. By not selecting him to play many here agreed that he should at best be sub v Wakey. This is how pathetic selection politics has got at the club. Ironically, Noble talks about the players having their own agendas.

V Hull, Noble cannot not select Sam

However, if Noble had his way the Lockers to 6 ploy would be how he prefers to go. Lockers to 6 is crazy BTW and threatens to damage the good start to 2009 that Lockers had.

Our club is embroilled in a pathetic power struggle between owner / coach.

If true. Noble should resign and explain why he is doing so. Noble is the coach and IL should stay as far away from that process as possible. If he has such serious with the way Noble is doing his job, he should sack him.

If this is true, god help us.

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:25 pm  

Charlie Seeling wrote:

I believe that is part of the tension between the 2. IL as you say cannot interfere directly and he has to allow Noble to select whom he wants but in less direct ways and bhind closed doors IL expresses his views. If we accept that IL is a 'fan' then that gives him the mentality of a fan. we often pick the team hypothetically etc.

Yes, but the difference is, it really doesn't matter what we say, because we aren't involved in the process. As such he should act accordingly and leave it to the coaching set up to deal with. Owner or not.

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:26 pm  

WigansForeignLegion wrote:

Charlie, can you substantiate your claim of a rift in any way? I'm not doubting what you're saying as such but haven't read/heard this anywhere else and therefore would be grateful of something to add credence to this.

Most RL media employees would confirm it.

Unfortunately, I cannot print for a example a comment because by doing so it would become evident to IL/Noble who said it.

Other than Wane, everybody at the club tip toes around stroking both IL and Noble's Egos.

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:26 pm  

AJ wrote:

If this is true, god help us.

Massive massive MASSIVE "if" there.

: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:28 pm  

Charlie Seeling wrote:

Noble does not rate Sam anywhere near as highly. He has real hang ups about small players whomever they are. IL wants Sam in the team (IL in a sense does not help by making Sam 'his boy') So Sam becomes about more than the simple selection it should be and more about the power struggle between coach / owner.

I did say previously that at Leigh, Sam T could have been selected to play at 7 but had he done so and played well Noble would have been forced to select him v Wakey. By not selecting him to play many here agreed that he should at best be sub v Wakey. This is how pathetic selection politics has got at the club. Ironically, Noble talks about the players having their own agendas.

V Hull, Noble cannot not select Sam

However, if Noble had his way the Lockers to 6 ploy would be how he prefers to go. Lockers to 6 is crazy BTW and threatens to damage the good start to 2009 that Lockers had.

Our club is embroilled in a pathetic power struggle between owner / coach.

There's only one winner there then, he who pays the piper etc.......