Perhaps you're right, I should place less emphasis on what he does on the pitch when picked and place more faith in far fetched internet message board gossip.

He does seem to have really suffered with last year, I don't know if it's permanently damaged his development

I can tell when I've made a point with you as you always resort to either insults or sarcasm.

Hohaia was brought over here to play at 6. It is very easy to make a young bloke a scapegoat or even just drop him rather than face the challenge of dropping from the position the Kiwi your boss paid a fortune to bring over for four years, even though he really isn't a good 6.

At Saints the senior players are never dropped. Never. Not since Simmons dropped Perry anyway. And we know how that worked out. There is nothing internet message board gossip about that: it's as plain as the nose on your face.

Quote ="bewareshadows"Sorry got to take you up on that one. Makinson did Naff all??? I thought he was most improved since his spell out. He really ran the ball in hard just in the style that Ade has been doing. Also unlike Ade he is much more solid and dependable with the ball coming down. I've no doubt Ade will get more games this year, but I thought there was a marked improvement in Makinson's returning of the ball. Also the stats don't bear out your view on Makinson either.. Almost the same number of carries Similar average gain Same number of tackles less missed tackles etc as Backrow says Stats are the predator of the common troll, I'd say they are also the predator of the throw away remark. viewtopic.php?f=18&t=546605&tsmp=1363631946 I did think that Makinson was more improved before I saw either this thread or the stats thread. viewtopic.php?f=18&t=546453&tsmp=1363632264&start=40'" So his stats show he was steady and basically the same as Gardner. Not exactly going out and making a point is it. Naff all maybe harsh but he certainly never stood out.

Quote ="bewareshadows"Sorry got to take you up on that one. Makinson did Naff all??? I thought he was most improved since his spell out. He really ran the ball in hard just in the style that Ade has been doing. Also unlike Ade he is much more solid and dependable with the ball coming down. I've no doubt Ade will get more games this year, but I thought there was a marked improvement in Makinson's returning of the ball. Also the stats don't bear out your view on Makinson either.. Almost the same number of carries Similar average gain Same number of tackles less missed tackles etc as Backrow says Stats are the predator of the common troll, I'd say they are also the predator of the throw away remark. viewtopic.php?f=18&t=546605&tsmp=1363631946 I did think that Makinson was more improved before I saw either this thread or the stats thread. viewtopic.php?f=18&t=546453&tsmp=1363632264&start=40'" So his stats show he was steady and basically the same as Gardner. Not exactly going out and making a point is it. Naff all maybe harsh but he certainly never stood out.

Are you being serious ?

Grow up, what a horrible individual you must be.

I think you must be talking about yourself because it wasn't me who implied things about Gaskell and alcohol intake, etc. That was you. Therefore, it would be you who must be the horrible individual.

Well, when he scored his try he certainly stood out.

I assume you think Wello (as captain and a senior player) will be straight back in at full back then? Or do you think someone has made a compelling argument to take that spot?

That's what we need from Gaskell - a compelling argument. He hasn't provided one. I've said a million times I hope he does, but he doesn't seem to have it in him.



Lance has 2 tries in 2 games since he returned to the halves - does the same argument apply, or should he be dropped for Gaskell to return?

I never mentioned anything at all regarding Lee Gaskells alcohol intake, you really do have a poblem dont you ?

Everybody is on the same train here, we all want our players be the best and win everything. I have no problem with Gaskell playing if he performs. You seem obsessed with the lad and paranoid with anyone else that doesent believe he is geat (including the club).

If you wanna discuss Saints then fine, however dont write back being catty or trying to cause a argument because i simply will not entertain it!

Back on topic, I actually think he will play on Friday.

Surely you can't be happy with Gaskells performances this year?

Hope so, we shouldn't entertain moving Lomax out of full back or Turner out of the centres IMO. I'd like to see Gaskell alongside Wilkin and Lance to 9.

And yourcontinued insistence that Gaskell is not picked for a reason other than his playing ability and contribution to the team is ridiculous, frankly.

Lance was signed two coaches ago. The idea that Brown plays him for any other reason than what he can do on the field is strange. Gaskell got the nod in the matches at he beginning of the year and now brown has decided to try something different - with marked improvement.

I'd play Gaskell, but the fact Nathan Brown disagrees with me doesn't lead me to the conclusion that there's a conspiracy afoot. This, combined with things like your exaggerated pro Makinson/anti Meli stance, confirms that you, in fact, are as guilty as anyone of placing favouritism of certain players ahead of reason based around on-the-pitch evidence.



Brown's having a good tinker and it's all starting to go in the right direction.

I doubt that'll happen, NB can see how much better we are with J-Lo at fb. I'd be astounded if welli goes straight back there!

And you would know that how?


Only because we had two coaches in one season. He is only in his second season. He was brought here to play at 6. He came here because he was told he was to play at 6. He is unlikely to come halfway around the world for four years other than to play at the position he has said himself he plays at best.


Is it? Didn't Brown himself say he wouldn't play him at 6? I am sure that is what he said after the widnes game. But hey, Brown says all sorts of stuff. Like Gaskell's kicking game is as good as Brough's. I don't think there is anything strange at all about a coach not automatically having free reign to do what he wants. Isn't that why some coaches are sacked?


Yes, he has played Wilkin at 7 rather than Lomax. Oh. Sorry. That would be to suggest that the reason for our improvement is someone other than Gaskell! Clearly that isn't trendy thinking just now. The problem was all Gaskell, clearly. It wasn't a matter of two inexperienced halfbacks or, in the case of Lomax, a square peg in a round hole plus an inexperienced halfback (who had hardly played for a season).

The solution required was to put an organiser and leader in a position where he could organise and lead. That is the adjustment that has brought dividends. We were lacking an organiser and leader midfield because clearly Lomax is neither.

Against Salford would be a good time to bring Gaskell in alongside Wilkin who would take the pressure off Gaskell and allow him to be the 6 that he is supposed to be, with Hohaia moving to hooker where he has had experience himself. With Wello at 13 that would be a nice mix and match of skills.

Sorry I missed out a key word in that post of mine.

Same as Meli in the same game, not the same as Ade in the previous game.

I just don't know what all the fuss is about regarding Gaskell. It is plain to see he is mediocre and would always be in the shadow of a fit Wheeler.

I think this would be the best solution as well, and realistically, we can probably survive against Salford even if Gaskell / Wilkin doesn't work

That's certainly a point of view that has been stated again and again .........

Gaskell may well look the best kicker in the world in training but if he doesnt actually do anything on game day (which Brown hadnt seen when he said it) then it's no bloody use is it no matter what he may have said!

If I remember correctly he said he wasn't sure Lance was a 6, however in the new system we play he may be best suited to it, given the progress we have made in the last few games I think Brown has earned the right to get time to see this. Though I do agree it would be a decent time to give Gaskell a chance, may be the last he gets if he goes hiding. Though with Percivals arrival on the scene he may get the nod at centre and Turner to 6.

At least we have options!

Educated guess, based on the idea that Brown's livelyhood relies on and his professional reputation is based on the results his side produce on the pitch. Unless you have some actual knowledge to the contrary, rather than just wild acusations of Mike Rush's evil schemes of Gaskell's oppression, then I don't see why we should think there's another reason.

Lance does not pick the team. Nathan Brown does.

Brown said, on the bbc, before he agreed a deal to come to saints, that he didn't know whether Lance was really a 6 - I don't really think that this comment should dictate his coaching selections for his entire contract. In his opening matches for Saints he did not pick lance at 6. I don't know whether he'll stick with him there now, but he's certainly allowed to change his mind if he finds he can make it work.

Did I say that Gaskell was the problem, or did I actually say that if it were my choice I'd play him? I said that just because Brown does things differently to how a bunch of amature critics on a message board want, it doesn't mean he's wrong - especially given the fact that the last two weeks have yeilded one strong, determined and defensively sound performance to beat a main contender for the league and another performance with a hat full of absolutely top drawer tries.

Yes. We had a lot of posts talking about who we'd get/how we'd do this - a lot of us talked about poaching Hanbury from Widnes for next season. One poster mentioned looking at players from the Championship like Liam Finn. There were also rumours that an established SL half back was unhappy and looking for a move. I'm glad Wilkin is making it work, perhaps a touch suprised he's done as well as he has, but I do think he'll continue to grow into the role as the season goes on.

Yes it would. As I said above, I'd be playing Gaskell, but I think that there's a good chance Brown will bring in Percival to the centre, which will mean either resting one of our two other centres, or moving Turner to 6.

As I said on another thread, I'd start Gaskell 6 and Hohaia 9 and take Speakman on the bench to have a look at him.

I often thought Gaskell's problem was the lack of a natural organizer inside him - hopefully with Wilkin at 7, he will be able to play that bit wider, and show us exactly what he's made of.

If he can't get in the side with J-Lo moved to full back and Lance moved to hooker then it really does not look good for the lad at saints

Reading what brown keeps saying about no wanting to move lance then it doesn't look like Gaskell will be returning the way saints play he might stick Flanagan at nine but have lance playing dummy half

I'm not on here much these days and I think the only thing that keeps me coming back is threads like this degenerating into SaintsFan spouting random nonsense about her little pet love and hate players despite all evidence to the contrary as usual, and everyone else falling for it and fruitlessly trying to argue some sense into her - top entertainment value every time