Hasn't he played more that 2 seasons worth of games in total? + 2yrs ago he had a full season.

No doubt he probably has tbf.

Giving him the centre shirt last season shows at some point in time he’s obviously been playing and playing well more importantly.

I don’t think anyone is saying Goulding is better than Gleeson or that we shouldn’t have signed Gleeson either just that the club has to become smarter in the way it operates and player development and potential loan moves is one area we are behind clubs like Leeds and Saints.

Goulding needs more game time than we can or should give him but at the same time he’s only 21 and does have potential imo. A loan move is perfect for the club and player and is most defiantly better than casting him off straight away.

As a club we are far too quick to write certain players off like Pryce, Goulding & O’Carroll etc. Other clubs like Saints & Leeds use these type of players as they realise in the age of the SC you can’t have superstars in every single position look at Bailey, Gardner, Hargreaves & Ablett for perfect examples of players who shouldn’t really be in champion sides. By having these players on cheap wages as the club produced them they can afford to have more top draw players who win you games.

We seem on the other hand to cast them off and buy the likes of Mathers, Coley & Bailey on much larger contracts even tho they don’t necessarily offer that much of a better option. This means as well we can’t afford the same number of top class players other teams can.

Absolutely 100% right.

I sincerely hope the story coming out of Warrington is true, and that we've swapped mathers and 100 Gs for Gleeson, and that Goulding is going out on loan somewhere.

Bailey, Gardner and Albert?

I meant Ablett sorry.

But come on you must be able to see my point all three and Hargreavs as well are good SL players nothing more nothing less just like Pryce, Goulding and O'Carrol either are or will be.

You wouldn't have any of them in a dream team, they probably aren't on massive wages, they do a good enough job and in the age of the SC they are the types of players you need in order to have a team which contains five or more top class players.

Wigan can’t afford that many world class players cause our average players like Bailey, Coley, Mathers & Phelps are all on to much money for the role they play imo.

As Cruncher said I really hope it’s just Mathers going the opposite way and not anyone younger on a permanent basis.

LOL - I thought they meant Darren Albert as well! Not good enough - thought he'd been on the ale!

But right about Ablett, mind you

Fully agree

And if Goulding isn't part of the deal - as some are now saying - will that send the opposite message, i.e. the one you yourself have often voiced, that in the past Wigan have only unloaded youngsters who weren't that valuable?

If so, I'd expect you to give Wigan at least as much credit as you've given them grief as a result of [uthe possibility [/uthat Goulding might be going.

And in the meantime here's another question. If Wigan are so determined not to release Goulding that, as a result, they don't land Gleeson, will that then fuel the belief - another one you have often voiced - that Wigan can no longer sign the sort of quality players that title challengers need?

I'm not playing the devil's advocate for its own sake, but it seems to me that, for some posters, Wigan can do no right - whatever action they take.

Just a question, at what age is it acceptable to cut our losses on a player?

I remember some time ago where it was a case of if a player is around 21 and not seriously challenging for a first team shirt they never will... Gouling is at risk of falling into this category imho... not quite good enough yet, but in a few years time will we have a better option from the juniors? a tough juggling act imho...

Why would I not? It would be a bit of a result if they managed to get Gleeson AND keep Goulding in terms of managing the cap.

Whether Gleeson will transform the side as some think will be interesting to see if he signs. Personally I think if the dosh is available to pay the likes of Gleeson why have we not signed what we really need which is a prop to replace Coley? My guess is because IL and BN are reacting to events and Gleeson is available.



I don't think I have said that. What I have said is we do need star players like Barrett, Peacock and Webb etc to compete and we should be in a position to sign such players. That does not mean we should need to get rid of the likes of Goulding.

If Wigan do not sign Gleeson because losing Goulding was judged too hgh a price that would be a statement that the club had some faith its youth set up.

I think the clubs recruitment is haphazard and event driven.

Had the club not signed Phelps for 2009 and got Roberts a year early then perhaps we could have got Gleeson without considering letting Goulding go. Why did we do those things?

As Phelps (and another possibility for an offload Smith) is(are) quota players we would struggle to get them out to make way so the only option would be a player like Goulding i.e. none quota. We ought to be getting Phelps and Smith out not Goulding but can't as other clubs can't take them if they wanted to. If we do have to offload a player being forced into releasing the likes of Goulding over Phelps and Smith just confirms my view Wigan are reacting to events both when they signed the Aussies up and now they need a player to leave.

All this assumes of course they do need Goulding to leave.



It's dead simple. If Gleeson comes and Goulding leaves permanently this is IMO a bad move.

If Goulding stays or goes on loan it isn't.

Dave

Thats part of the rationale behind the salary cap, to force each club to have a healthy crop of youngsters coming through....however it only holds for those youngsters' first contract. Ade Gardner was probably on a modest deal when he first signed from Barrow but once he became a prolific scorer in time for his next contract, Saints will have had to pay the going rate just like Wigan don't pay pittance for O'Loughlin and Hock just because they are Academy products. Teams who produce a lot of good young players have to be good at managing the salary cap like Leeds are, which means the odd player doesn't fit in the jigsaw (Calderwood, Walker). It happens to Parramatta as well in Aus.

If you're a good team though and consistently successful, you can persuade decent squad players like Hargreaves and Bennett to stick around on reasonable money because the payoff they get is big finals and trophies, clubs like Wigan and Warrington can't do this atm.

The worst position to be in is the one that Wire are in, where we have tried to up the standard of our squad by picking up players out of contract at big clubs and paying over the odds, because big money is the only reason we can get them to join us...then finding out these players aren't quite what they were. They eat up our salary cap and just drag the whole club down.

Warrington are in the same situation as Wigan were 2-3 years ago. If given time, Tony Smith will sort Warringon out but it'll probs take at least 2-3 years to get rid of the excessive contracts (dependant on length on these contracts).

While I agree with most of what you say, particularly your final conclusion, again there's an implied criticism here that I don't share.

Our recruitment is 'haphazard and event-driven'?

How could we have known that Martin Gleeson would come available mid-season, or that Warrington would offer him to us?

You say that this business smacks of Wigan 'reacting to events'. I'd ask why is that a problem? Surely any club worth its salt will react to an unexpected event like a GB international being asked to leave by the club next door?

on a new twist to this, the mirror today says we're signing darren goulding, is he any good? or does he exist?






Here's another thought for you, IF you do manage to sign big glees, have you got the quality in the halves to actually get him to make a difference, a lot of his good work is down to briers and westwood creating space for him to exploit.

You've contradicted yourself.

We create space but the slowness of Bailey lets us down.

I think if you have enough decent strike players it makes the half backs job easier as it spreads play when you have to worry whats on the outside.
I would not swap Hock and Lulu for Breirs and Westwood


Last season Carmont was great but this he seems not half as dangerous, obviousy we dont have Barrett but I do think our back line is more of a threat out wide, we have more pace, Tomkins, Ainscough, Roberts and Richards add Gleeson to it and we should see teams strugle a little more as we have strike on both sides and pace on the wings. We also have lost Mathers which is a bonus. Goulding will make it but it's a question of to what level, he seems to be on the edge of being good enough and has had good games against the better thought of but he often blows chances with bad choice like not passing , this may be his weekness and he chooses not to pass because of it , often a game goes by and you dont even notice him.

Definitely is IMO. The signing of Roberts is the best example. He came a year early when the club had planned to pick him up a year later. We filled the quota with Roberts who arguably we did not need in 2009 when what we really needed was a prop IMO. If by not signing Roberts in 2009 he went elsewhere for 2010 would that have been such a big deal? Not in my opinion. I don't know why we signed him.

Because we got Roberts we then could not move for Bird or any other overseas player and part of the reason for that is we gave Phelps a contract - a player who can't make the team. We were too quick to do this IMO and currently we have two overseas players in Phelps and Smith who can't or ought not to make the side.



That is not the point. It is events prior to this that the club IMO reacted to that has left us possibly looking to offload a young British player to sign Gleeson leaving us saddled ourselves with two overseas players who we really do not need.



You have to ask if we suddenly have the wherewithal to go for a player of Gleesons standing why have we not made moves for the various prop forwards that have been available since the end of last season? OK players like Gleeson don't come available very often but there must be at least three props that have passed us by so to me I do not understand why all of a sudden a signing like this is happening when it's plain the pack has needed sorting for some time.

Dave

Gleeson coming to us is not as unplanned as people think. IL said we had a signning in the pipeline and its was quality rather than quantity and that was during the 1st week of the season or even before then.

RE: Prop

Next season Lynch is available and is a better player than Carvell. Though Carvell is a good player id rather we get Lynch. I find it quite ironic its the people that want Noble out that are saying its not what we need. When we dont rush in and sign a player the club gets hammered by some. Yes we need a prop and we need at least 1 prop that can play 50-60 min and get some forward momentum going.

Roberts was needed this season as id guess Noble knew that Mathers was not good enough so got his winger sorted and then had Richards ready to go to FB. Cap situation meant that we might have to wait to get Gleeson as not to go over it. Ainscough coming in and and doing the job he has done has been a massive bonus. But then again Noble will not get any credit for this. Tomkins was enforced on him though by Smiths inability to defend.

I still cant believe people think that Goulding will become a great player. Hes only going to be mediocre hes had chance. The same chances Ainscough and Tomkins had. Goulding has played a few decnet games but hes played more poor ones than good ones and is not in the same class as Gleeson and never will be. You can tell a good player even at a young age.

If we had signed Bird then Tomkins would not get his chance and again the usual people would be complaining that we took an Australian player with problems instead of giving a homegrown player a chance.

Either way there is no pleasing some. If we signed Folau, Kamichael Hunt, Jamie Peacock, Rob Burrows some would always find a fault and want to complain.

Its become such a joke the people who contradictes themselves on here. Especially we did not sign Bird. Bird signs gets a permit Tomkins walks away from the club sooner rather than later. And its the same people who says we dont give homegrown a chance.

Now i aint speculating but all im saying is Fielden, Martin Dawes stand, Half time, Yesterday

Spoke to ex warrington player today, gleeson is on his way

Now here is putting 2 and 2 together and getting 50.

What would peolpes thoughts be on swapping fielden for moz.

Gleeson for mathers plus cash?

I for one would jump at the swap.

Neither fielden or Morley have played in this weekends challange cup. Now that would be an unexpected move.

and Fielden was at WIRE and bought a hot dog

Was Fielden in the squad today?

Who's gonna put 2 and 2 together and come up with 100?

So?