Looks clear enough to me, try reading it again.

His contract is soon to be up, as is KC's.

If it were up to me I'd keep KC and let Long go - he's starting to pick up knocks and we now have kids capable of stepping up.

Sure, we might not be as slick for half a season or so, but we need to phase him and KC out rather than lose both at once later down the line.

For years people have been saying we'll be stuffed when x, y and z retire. We've done a good job replacing the irreplacable over recent years (Sullivan, Newlove, Iro, Gibbs, Albert, Martyn, Sculthorpe, Joynt, Perelini, Lyon, Anderson etc etc) and with the young lads knocking around KR these days, we'll be fine without Longy.

Unless he'll take a reduced contract a la KC/Scully last time, he'll be off IMO.

The money Long would free up could be invested in a utility player that could cover the halfs aswell as upgrading a few of the young players deals.

A sensible way to go in all honesty.

The article states "The 19-year-old winger, who has proved a sensation with 12 tries from his nine senior appearances, had to be content to be named as 18th man.".

I thought WE were 18th man !!

Will be interesting if/when Pryce is unavailable whether we go Eastmond/Wheeler/Wilkin at 6.

You'd expect Pryce not being available would benefit Eastmond but I think in a round about way it will limit his opportunities, as I can see Wheeler being preferred at 6 and Potter not wanting 2 kids in the halves - meaning Long plays more.

I might be in a minority, but I think Wheeler is a better player than Eastmond, oozes class.

Anyway sorry Wiganers, back to Ainscough . . .

Hmmm I see everyone's points, they are all good points..

But, I'm the same age as Ainsy, and I want to play every week if possible, but your mind can overpower your body, it's good to have that extra rest very so often, your nerves and adrenaline can sometimes cover up the fact that you are fatigued, if that makes sense. He'd of been gutted not to be picked, but be happy with the rest. A rest away from the match pressure.

I agree yes, could of played him, could of scored a hat-trick, but I think we have more important problems that the Super League Top Try Scorer

If Ainscough is our main attacking threat and we need him to play against the bigger teams then that is even less of a reason to rest him against Celtic. He is not the finished article and you can not improve your game carrying water.

Add to this the player who actually needed a rest was clearly Richards we ended up risking our first choice goal kicker when we had a fully fit player available.

If he isn't going to play the full season you rest Ainscough against the tough teams and you play him in the less difficult fixtures. This has always been the sensible approach to blooding young players, not the other way around.

If on the other hand he is such a key player he must play v Leeds etc he won't benefit from not playing in the easy games.

There was just no logic to dropping him at all.

Dave

Correct. If you're resting him for his own benefit you rest him against Saints, not Celtic.

Well that is why Noble said he rested him - duty of care and all that. Not because he was saving him for the big games as some are suggesting.

Dave

Anybody fancy Long back at Wigan for a year working with Tomkins ??