Is Tommy injured? Dropped? Seems odd after signing a new deal; one week he is in, then out for a few weeks, then in again, then out.

Agreed seems strange especially with all the other yoof given chances recently. In addition after all the pantomime of Wellens being removed from fb , first game back he slots straight in at no1 rather than his new position.

Hopefully it is just a question of picking a side suited to the conditions and the fact that easter is just around the corner and not backtracking.

As a sidebar - With all the talk of searching Oz for a new scrumhalf , Saints could do a lot worse than Sneyd.

Sneyd, in the game against HKR looked exactly the half we need. He has a great kicking game, which we need.
Him and Hanbury should be targets for us IMO.

I just think Gardner is ahead of him at the moment. His kick returns, experience and defensive reading of the game make him more of a necessity for the team at this time (an example being the big hit on Gibson last night).

I'm sure Makinson will get his chances throughout the year.

Totally agree!

That's a bit presumptuous isn't it considering they probably have much more money than we do now!

All about ambition, the harsh reality is they'd have more chance of trophies and international call ups here

They certainly wont be a selling club, but if Sneyd wants to leave, it mightn't be worth the drama of forcing him to stay. Besides, with all their cash, they may well be looking for a bigger name to fill his shirt.

People talk on here about competition for places and that being the reason for rotation yet at Saints it just isn't. If a senior player is injured then a young bloke may get a chance. Makinson is only ever played when Gardner is injured, regardless of what either player brings to the table.

We're only 8 games in though. Maybe when we've had a settled run with Wilkin at 7, lomax at 1 and whoever he settles on at 6, he'll tinker a bit more with the wings (or give him a run in the centre).

I did not see the game, but I thought Sneyd played FB not halfback. If we brought him in to play halfback would we not risk doing another Lance signing. would he be as effective when not at FB and lets not forget that was 1 game.

I'd rather we went with someone more tried and tested over a longer period than, just going off one match. Plenty of Saints players have had one good match only to be followed up with not so good matches.

Like I said, I was not there.

Sneyd is a half back who has been played in the full back role, I'd say.. In the televised victory over HKR, he looked everything we needed - canny, conrolling, schemeing and with a good kicking game. Granted it was only one outing.

What like at the start of the year when Makinson got the nod for a number of weeks due to his form in the friendlies and gardner had to go out on dual reg? Ade wasn't injured then was he?

Stop using facts, you'll confuse her

Yes, he went to Rochdale because he was coming back from injury. That's what the club said at the time.

If you think they're the facts then you're the one confused.

He went to Rochdale and Whitehaven because he was behind Makinson in the pecking order and needed match practise. Ade played in at least one of the friendlies but as said was behind Makinson in the pecking order after pre season. Makinson made errors V Hull and was dropped/rested/rotated, Ade was dropped/rested/rotated against Wakey.

That's not what the club said.

But Ade can't have been injured while he was playing for Whitehaven, so Brown obviously preferred an warmed up Tom than a rusty Ade.

Did Ade play in a Friendly game? Yes. Was he in the squad early doors but then go on to play for said teams? Yes. So he wasn't injured for said games where Makinson played therefore your "theory" is simply incorrect. Ade HAD been injured and missed a lot of last season so possibly took longer to get back to sharpness however, quite simply, Makinson was preferred early on and was until the Hull game when he made a few errors. He'll be back and has been since.

Nowt to do with theory. It's what the club said. Are you accusing the club of lying?

You've spent weeks accusing Nathan Brown of lying, so hey why not?

Can you show me where it was said? Before you go off on one I'm not saying you are wrong but I never saw it. All i remember is Mak being chosen ahead of Ade and Ade being sent out to get match sharp which was understandable. How can Ade be injured if hes playing for another club?!?

Clubs play all sorts of games and say all sorts, you'd have to be naive to think otherwise. Lance was meant to be out for 6 weeks with his last knock, he was back in a few