He was due to play there but wello missed the start and makinson couldn't put 3 games together.

That fact he was SIGNED as a stand off by Royce Simmons says it all. He might not have played there to start but he was SIGNED as a stand off as both lance and Royce have stated.

If he was moved to any other postion is still don't hide the fact he was brought on as a halfback. Fact!

Quote ="Billinge_Lump"The evidence that he[i actually played there[/i under Simmons? The most important factor in this is the one you appear to be ignoring.'" www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/13047007 From the horses mouth

Quote ="Billinge_Lump"The evidence that he[i actually played there[/i under Simmons? The most important factor in this is the one you appear to be ignoring.'" www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/13047007 From the horses mouth

Ok I agree it's royce's signing. And for some reason as a half back. But I also agree when seen in training Royce has thought better of this and not picked him as a half. Possibly with the intention of doing a Leon and letting him learn the role whilst playing him from the bench.

It was a poor signing and I don't buy that Royce did not ask for him. If that was the case it would have come out by now. Its the signing not the player at fault. Even though Royce may have realised this too late. It has tide up the backs in an awful mess. We could have kept Leon and played Lomax and Gaskell alongside. Wellens could have rotated in with LOmax or makinson.

In the end its a mess and not one current management have any interest in resolving as it could cause untold bad player relations and they are only in place for one year.

If they try tio rectify it someone other than gaskell is going to have to make way. Lance. Wellens. Lomax. Kicking gaskell out seams the easy option to keep the peace as he will have a smaller voice than the other three. That is why bar fans turning on players and forcing the coaches hands it will stay as it is and we will trunddle through the season with our pack and roby doing enough to fend off most teams.

Totally spot on!!!

Quote ="St pete"He was due to play there but wello missed the start and makinson couldn't put 3 games together. That fact he was SIGNED as a stand off by Royce Simmons says it all. He might not have played there to start but he was SIGNED as a stand off as both lance and Royce have stated. If he was moved to any other postion is still don't hide the fact he was brought on as a halfback. Fact!'" He may well have been signed to play half back (I note that it is half back and not stand off in the article you quote, which by my knowledge would mean scrum half in Aus, not stand off), but even when Wellens came back, he was not PLAYED at 6. His selection at 6 has been [isolely[/i down to the new management team and has nothing to do with Simmons. Simmons never PLAYED him at 6 despite having plenty of opportunity to do so. You still haven't provided any evidence that Simmons preferred him at 6 by actually PLAYING him there. Oh and by the way, here is a direct quote from Potter that Soliola was signed to play centre www.metro.co.uk/sport/extra/6601 ... gn-soliola Quote "Sia will add size, speed and athleticism to our back line and will be a great addition to our squad next year," said coach Mick Potter.'"

Quote ="St pete"He was due to play there but wello missed the start and makinson couldn't put 3 games together. That fact he was SIGNED as a stand off by Royce Simmons says it all. He might not have played there to start but he was SIGNED as a stand off as both lance and Royce have stated. If he was moved to any other postion is still don't hide the fact he was brought on as a halfback. Fact!'" He may well have been signed to play half back (I note that it is half back and not stand off in the article you quote, which by my knowledge would mean scrum half in Aus, not stand off), but even when Wellens came back, he was not PLAYED at 6. His selection at 6 has been [isolely[/i down to the new management team and has nothing to do with Simmons. Simmons never PLAYED him at 6 despite having plenty of opportunity to do so. You still haven't provided any evidence that Simmons preferred him at 6 by actually PLAYING him there. Oh and by the way, here is a direct quote from Potter that Soliola was signed to play centre www.metro.co.uk/sport/extra/6601 ... gn-soliola Quote "Sia will add size, speed and athleticism to our back line and will be a great addition to our squad next year," said coach Mick Potter.'"

Royce didn't ask for him specifically. Royce said in the press what happened. A halfback was needed due to Eastmond leaving and Royce was asked for suggestions. Royce at the time said there were very few halfbacks around but he suggested Hohaia as the best available. We need to bear in mind that we don't know the financial implications of any choices, what budget was suggested, the quality of halfbacks available, the number of them, whether any quality halfbacks would be interested in playing over here from the NRL or whether any were contractually available over here. Royce simply recommended Hohaia as the best available - not necessarily the best or indeed the only.

Keeping Leon might not have been an option. Remember, Leon said he wanted to stay at Saints but only if the price was right. He may have been asking more than we were willing to pay for what had been a liability through injury for 18 months. I don't think it would have been wise to take that risk.

The mistake has been for Rush to persist in playing Hohaia at six regardless of (a) his performance and (b) the opposition. Gaskell has experience of Wigan, both of beating them and of being pounded by them. He has shown hismelf capable of quick thinking, skill and hard work, and he was building a partnership with Lomax. They should be given another chance now. They should have been given another chance after the last Wigan debacle.

Catalan blew us out the water with what they offered pryce and also gave him 3yr deal and we only wanted to give him 2yrs.

I'm not sure that Pryce would be a much better option currently. He's performing well at Catalans as he's gone back to what he does best, a runner with an organising half back alongside him.

On the strength of his performances (or lack thereof) in the eighteen months leading up to his exit I wouldn't have offered him ANY contract. The fact that Pryce has played reasonably well for Catalans shouldn't detract from the situation as we understood it at the time - he was on a big contract and yet we couldn't be certain he'd play half-a-dozen games at anywhere approaching previous form, much less half a season.

Agreed

I can't believe Saints have arrived at the point where established names dictate selection (not to mention dubious verbal guarantees of an unchallenged period in the halves - as the story went regarding Hohaia). If this is in any way true we might as well ask the ghost of Eric Ashton to return to the club.

I mean, if Gaskell IS being frozen out purely to accommodate the non-performing "old guard" our problems are only just beginning. If Gaskell isn't re-instated next game (barring injury) [userious questions[/u need to be raised. If we were to LOSE Gaskell I'd regard it as the greatest travesty since the boardroom shambles leading up to McManus' arrival.

I couldn't agree wjith you more. We could get 10 years out of the kid who is without doubt the best Stand Off at the club at the moment. It would be a very poor decision indeed and I would be very disheartened!!

I am not advocating this as a policy, but it seams a reasonable assumption, given the fact that Lance is still getting pick despite the coaches having seen enough to remove almost every half back duty from him.

From the coaches point of view it's about stablising what was becoming a dangerous situation for Saints and they have done that. Let us remember only Wigan have beaten us so far since they have come in.

That level of stability compared to the slide down the table that we started with is preferable. These coaches cannot really build a team, to what end can they build, they have what 12 games left and then they can hand over the reigns to the man who will then build a team he wants. If they do anything in the mean time that impacts on that, well they still need a job after these 12 games. I would suggest if Brown has said that x and y is no longer required, then we may see more movement. So lance could drop to FB and allow gaskell in, if the message comes that a Brown wants that for next year.

But as he is the huddersfield coach it will be difficult to pass that message on without breaching his current contract with Huddersfield.

Brown really shouldn't have ANY input to Saints decision-making for any number of reasons - not least of which is the perfectly reasonable argument that he would be acting against the interests of Huddersfield, gaming the competition etc.

That said, it would be tempting career suicide not intervening if the effects of any decision (such as disenfranchising Gaskell to such an extent that he decides to go) could impact upon his time at Saints.

In many ways he's caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea. And yet he can't afford to take the chance of arriving in a disaster zone next season and so you can bet some exchange of ideas will be taking place. Indeed, who's to say they already aren't and it's Brown's decision to put Gaskell on ice indefinitely? I mean, I think it's unlikely because Gaskell's too big of a talent for any SL club to let slip through their fingers - especially as good backs in this league are hard to find and even harder to grow.

Smacks of preferential treatment to Wellens to me. Move Wellens to Centre and drop one of Wheeler or Shenton who also have both been horrible of late. Move Lance to 6 and bring Gaskell back.

I can see that. You can see that. A fair few of us have commentated on it, yet Rush apparently is happy sticking with what we have got.

Move him where ? im assuming you meant to say to 1

Yep, I did. Pulled a right Hohaia there, didn't I!

Now that's a phrase that could catch on.

I was giving them the benefit of the doubt



I'd move Wellens to out of the team, wasn't he abysmal at centre under Anderson (maybe Potter?) a few years back

I would not move anybody to accommodate him.I would drop him and hope he as words with his agent asking him to find a way out.

Didn't Wello originally start in the halfs.

I would be tempted to stick him in at 13, can tackle has some ball playing about him wont need pace.

In the end it would take a coach who was willing to tinker, Milward did not mind playing players out of position and Brown may well do that, but the current 2 are far from tinkerers, stability is the order of the day for KC and Rush.

Seem to remeber that in pre season, Hohaia was the fastest player in the squad. Over the course of the season, i havent personally seen his speed over any distance, have seen him dancing around the middle of the park, but never in the open. Radical idea, why not play our fastest player on the wing? He is defensively sound, played at full back so is reasonable under the high ball, and has good hands. He would never have been signed as a winger, but why not give him a go? After all, he is about about as much use as a chocolate frog in the halves, has no chanve of playing 9, and looks to be down the pesking order for the fb berth.

If there is one major criticism I'd level at Hohaia it is his reticence to follow the ball carrier. Taking the ball on the shoulder of any ball player - with his pace - should automatically result in either a big break or a try.

And you'd think being a fullback he'd know that too ...