But to play Goulding or Pryce would completely contradict the ethos set by Shaun Wane and Michael MaGuire. In that players have to earn their spot in the team. Regardless of 'experience', which if that's the ground you'd base your decisions on then in reality it is playing players based on reputation. If we were going down that route Stefan Marsh, Ben Davies, Liam Farrell and Johnny Walker would not have got a game this season because we had players available who were more 'experienced' (reputation!). The Joel Tomkins idea is ludicrous. Darrell Goulding has been in reputable form on the wing so I wouldn't change that. If it's not broke don't fix it etc. Karl Pryce has not played in two weeks & so has no ground to demonstrate the level of form that Josh Charnley is in at Hull KR.

Josh Charnley deserves the spot on merit. Regardless of age or experience. I believe he deserves that spot above any other centre at the club simply because of the excellent form he is in at the moment. It would not unsettle the lad or be 'messing Hull KR around' because it has been stipulated in his contract that he can return to Wigan at any time from his week to week loan, providing we give Hull KR 24 hours notice. Shaun Wane and Michael MaGuire will have been telling Josh to earn a place in the Wigan side with his performances for Hull KR. Has he not earned a shot now an opportunity has arose? Liam Farrell was recalled from Widnes because he was in excellent form, and Ben Davies has also had some game time after his performances at Widnes. The same should now apply (and I'll stick my neck out and say that it will happen) with Josh Charnley and he should be recalled from Hull KR IMO.

Agreed, Pryce or Goulding would cause less disruption to the team, and that's what should come first.

But surely for the sake of two games, you'd bring in players who've already done ok in the first team this year, as opposed to bringing back a kid from a loan club in SL, where he looks fairly settled into their first team, and could stay there for the rest of the season if we played Pryce/Marsh for the next 2 games.

Why should that matter?

It all comes down to performances on the field. Josh Charnley is producing the goods. He deserves a crack. You seem to suggest that Charnley is inferior to the other two because he hasn't been training with the first team, but his performances clearly show otherwise.

I'll stop here because this will end up a ten page thread with the same points repeated. Let's agree to disagree and see what happens. The positive we can take from this is that we have the strength in depth to warrant a debate about who should be played once a player is injured.

Pryce has played one less game than Charnley in the last two weeks, for reasons explained earlier.
We don't know yet the extent of Gouldings injury, it maybe that he needs an extra week off.

Marsh scored two tries this weekend, should he not get the spot because Charnley didn't play this weekend?

Firstly, Josh Charnley is at Hull KR NOT for the benefit of Hull KR, but for Wigan RL & his development. The argument that he is getting cosy at Hull KR does not sit with me. If he's in the right sort of form & is producing the goods, and an opportunity for him to show what he can do in a Wigan shirt has come up then he should be rewarded with that shot. You do what's best for the team.

Stefan Marsh has looked a little out of his depth at Super League level in the games he has played so far. I thought he was caught out on numerous occasions by Huddersfield (how ironic - perhaps they'd target him again?) and hasn't looked as good as Charnley does at Super League level. We've had numerous thread on this board and the Hull KR board stating how well the lad is coping. Most importantly in defence. Senior in his back pocket etc etc.

Karl Pryce has never played a Super League game for Wigan RL at centre for Mike MaGuire. He hasn't played in the last two weeks so has not had the opportunity to stake a claim in the team with impressive performances. Josh Charnley has and should be rewarded for it.

If we recalled Charnley he could end up playing just the one game for us before Gleeson returns. After that he will probably have to go back to playing under 20's rugby unless he has a very good game. I don't think it would be worth recalling him for what is potentially just one game. If Gleeson looks like he will recover quickly and we need a replacement for one game then Marsh or Pryce would be favourites in my opinion. It would make more sense.

If it looks like Gleeson could miss 2 games or more then I think it might be worth it recalling Charnley, as he's likely to play 2 more games for Hull KR.

Joel for me.

Daz is doing a grand job right where he is at present so i would leave him there.

But surely it would be for the benefit of Wigan in the long term if we allowed Charnley to get a run of 5/6 games at SL, even if it as another club on loan, than bringing him back for 1 or 2 games and then being back in the u20's for the rest of the season, compared to giving one of the other first team squad members the position for 2 games until Gleesons back.

But he has not demonstrated the Super League form that Josh Charnley has. In fact, he hasn't played since the St.Helens game back in June. Nearly 7-8 weeks. In that time Josh Charnley has been in excellent form for Hull KR, demonstrating that he is capable of playing Super League on a regular basis & can cope with the demands in defence and use his speed/acceleration to cause problems in attack.



If Darrell Goulding is injured then Karl Pryce will probably get a game with Amos Roberts injured. Shaun Ainscough is not doing much to stake a claim in the side, but that point is irrelevant where this debate is concerned.



Perhaps. However see my response to Inside_Man RE Stefan Marsh. Marsh's defence in Super League does not compare to Charnley's.

I completely agree.

Charnley is at KR to improve him as a player and help Wigan in the long run.

However, I do feel that disruption of bringing him back for perhaps one game could be detrimental to the young lad.
I know they are perhaps different situations, but Ainscough has not exactly been aided by being placed at different teams throughout the season. I personally feel that stability is key for young lads.
If this was a longer term injury to Gleason then I would certainly have him back in the side. Just not at the moment.

Agree that Marsh has a bit to learn before he steps up to the first team.

Madge's quote says he'll miss the games against Hudds and Hull KR. Charnley isn't allowed to play against us for KR anyway so he may as well play for us. Once Gleeson is fit again Josh can go back to Hull KR where he'll play in at least two more games (1 reg season game and and at least one in the playoffs, depending on how thay do)

If we do send him back out on loan we can't recall him for a month, so that would mean if we had an injury crisis he'd be stuck at Hull KR when we may desperately need him. It may not be likely, but it would be a worst case scenario.

We can recall him. All we need to do is give Hull KR 24 hours notice. It's written into the terms of the loan deal

Both Pryce and Marsh have played well in their games for Wigan this season so I reckon they will be given first choice, dependant on injuries.

Obviously Gleeson is now out. Personally I wouldn't play him until the play offs so maybe all the players we have mentioned will get a run out.

Madge has said that Gleeson will miss the Huddersfield and Hull KR game. He hopes to have Gleeson back for the Bradford game. Josh Charnley could not play for Hull KR against us so would only have the opportunity to play two remaining Super League games. He could get that game time with us against Huddersfield and then Hull KR. The loan is a week to week basis and if after the Hull KR game Gleeson is back then we can just go back to Hull KR on loan.

Yes, but not if we were to send him back out on loan after he's played for us.

So when would Pryce or Marsh get game time?

And in the short-term by offering competition for places should an injury to a first team player occur.



If we recall him back to his parent club then he plays for against Huddersfield and then again the following week against Hull KR. Regardless of whether we recall him or not he can't play against us under the terms of the contract. So he would get exactly the same amount of game time. When Gleeson returns and we deem to the right move to make we send Charnley back on loan to Hull KR for the final remaining game and any play off matches. The contract is week to week for a reason.

Why not?

Whenever their form warranted a place in the First Team above our other players.

Charnley must be given a go in the next two games.

He's been fantastic at KR and would be playing off the back of a hat trick and is far more dangerous and competent than either Marsh or KP.

Goulding is in brilliant form on the wing, so it makes sense keeping him there. and Charnley is the form wigan centre at the moment bar gleeson so Charnley should play. It's a logical decision really.

Who cares about hull kr? We should be looking after number 1 first and foremost and if we need charnley he should play for us.

Bringing charnley back also gives us a slight tactical edge over KR with him knowing how they play.

I believe you have to go out on loan permanantly for one month initially. Not sure what the case is if a player is sent to a club, recalled and then sent back there on a new loan deal, but I assume it would be the same. I don't think that situation has come up recently though so I'm not certain.

So Marsh should be ahead of Charnley this week?

Charnley's been there for a month already. The loan was agreed to be extended to the end of the season but only on a week-to-week basis, with us having the option to recall Charnley with 24 hours notice