I think they would have been very useful this season! Dixon was on fine form when dropped by Rush last year, having relatively little game time for the remainder of the season. He came on well under Simmons and it was a shame we let him go as I think he had a lot to offer. I was less sure of Ashurst but then he left a season earlier and so I've basically forgotten what he was like.

While I don't think Dixon is a world beater, he was for example our only try scorer in our 2010 abject failure grand final against Wigan and I've seen his enthusiastic follow up work for Salford, being jonny on the spot for some of their tries. I think he is their top tackler as well (although tbf that doesn't say much given their atrocious defending!).

Whether or not Saints regret letting them go is anyone's guess though.

They have found their level at Salford. While both are good players and could have been good squad fodder, especially Ashurst, both are better off at Salford.

Given that we produce a lot of second rowers, our current ones being Greenwood, Walker, Thompson and soon Savelio, it is easy to see why Saints didn't break the bank to keep either of them. Can anyone remember either Dixon or Ashurst playing as well as Walker and Thompson currently are? The keeper in that generation of backrowers was Maggenis, but his knees put an end to what should have been a good career.

If there is a player I would have liked to keep it would have been Chris Dean as a second row. He has looked very good running in the middle of the field for Widnes with there being a number of parallels you can draw with Josh Jones who looks like a keeper.

I would say that the simple answer to whether saints regret letting them go is NO! We have Thompson, Walker, Greenwood, Forster, Walmsley, Hand and Speakman all coming through into the first team and I suspect all will be better than both of those players.

Don't think either of them ever did anything at Saints to justify being retained. Both are consistent Mike Bennett types that pad the squad out and do a decent job when called upon.

With the likes of Thompson, Walker, Greenwood and others coming through demanding game time, it would have been foolhardy to keep Ashurst and Dixon and stunted the development of the next generation coming through.

Ashurst I'm not too bothered about, but Dixon was more than worth keeping.

Both are better than Anthony Laffranchi and we could have had both for his salary no doubt.

I would have kept Dixon, but Ashurst wasn't worth keeping.

Will say this much for you ,you are really funny.yer know nowt but your really funny!

They are both decent players but I can't say I've given either of them a moment's thought since they left.

That's because you have had a lot more to worry about with the way the team have been playing!

Glad that Dixon and Ashurst are showing what they can do at Salford, at least with the new crop of youngster coming through Saints at the moment under Brown they are actually being given game time, in which I mean the number of minutes they are on the pitch per game rather than the number of games they have played. Dixon was only being played for 15 - 20 minutes a game under the old regime, not enough time I imagine for his development.

Martin Gleeson is full of praise for the duo as quoted in the MEN today:
[i
Gleeson has been impressed this term with the fine form of back-rower Andrew Dixon.
“Dixon impressed me from day one,” he said. “His work ethic is phenomenal along with his fitness. He and Matty Ashurst in the back row are top notch. I am enjoying having Dixon inside.
“He is making 50 tackles and backing this up with 20-plus hit-ups. He is a very good forward and very much an unsung hero.[/i

Think Dixon had a bit more about him that Ashurst, but I wasn't too bothered when they left. There is far better at the club now.

Like I said, they're good players. But we're strong in the back row - we haven't really missed them and I don't think Saints will be regretting letting them go. Kyle Eastmond and James Graham, on the other hand ...

Personally I would have kept hold of Dixon. Was really coming along well. From what I have seen of him at Salford this season he has impressed me. One that got away in my book.

It s about what you gain or lose. Manu for Dixon. Flanagan for ashurst. In the end an improvement. You can't say Dixon for Perry. If we did not have Perry or lance it would not have saved Dixon or ashurst.

Personally I would have kept Dixon and not signed Manu but thats my opinion

Manu is a class player and there was more than enough room for both.

Manu replaced Flannery

Dixon was offered the same contract at Saints as he was at Salford but he decided he wanted more game time so backed himself by going to Salford, think its working out well for him .

I thought Dixon would have improved and took on the role similar to Gilmour ....but he didn,t. Thompson and Greenwood look as though they will have better impact and more consistency.

I do feel Flanners keeping Dixon out was a poor decision last season, we could have seen if Dicko was the real deal

Interestingly enough, Dixon got in the Opta Team of the Week on that Boots N All stats pack show.

Dixon was on his way out and got a lot of game time. I would have rather Saints played a young lad who was staying like Greenwood last year.

Young players have a small window to impress until the next batch come in, if you persist with Dixon then Thompson staying in the academy until he is 20.

I quite liked both of them, but neither will turn into top class players and neither will really come back to bite us on the bum.

Ahsurst is not good enough and I've not given him a moments thought since he left.

I thought Dixon did enough in his last season to earn a new deal. He's playing well at Salford but I've lost no sleep over him not being here.

On the subject of Salford, it seems they have been very busy behind the scenes and will have some new faces next season.

Hock's reportedly turning his back on the Eels to sign for Salford.

Correct

What with this Hock rumour and the talk of Briscoe not going to Cronulla, I can only assume that there are new salary cap rules in place for next season - a marquee player allowance, perhaps.