We could easily have played Flanagan hooker last week (instead of Speakman or Ashe).

We could equally as easily have played Turner at 6 instead of Charnock, moving Meli to centre.

Then there's Greenwood, Walker, Percival.

Fact is, Brown has taken lots of opportunities to blood kids. They're just the "wrong" kids for some people.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good SaintsFan rant!

Yeah: the coach. The same coach who shipped out a grand final winning hooker while at Hudds so he could have Scott Moore back. A coach I am trusting less with each passing week.

We could, but I didn't suggest Brown wanted to shunt the whole team around. I suggested that he was covering for injuries. Had those injuries not occurred, those young players would not have been blooded.

And incidentally, I liked the idea of Speakman at hooker. That is a young local hooker being given his debut covering for our injured hooker. That's exactly how cover should be: a player in that position covering for an injured player in the same position. However, that is very different from player development, which is what was mentioned. For and example of the approach I go for in player development, see Smith's handling of Myler at Warrington. That is phasing a player into the team, not just dropping them in when injuries occur.

We have just brought in a hooker from Salford. So will we see Speakman again this year? Maybe if Howarth is injured during Robes' absence but otherwise I doubt it very much.

Incorrect, please try again.

Scott Moore is a talented player, it was never his ability in doubt. Don't forget he was named in the dream team in 2009 ahead of a few talented hookers. That's also the year he played under NB.

Brown saw that and tried the chance to turn him around but that didn't work out. He now appears to have sorted himself out and starts for Gold Coast.

Not incorrect. Brown sent Lunt out on loan to Leeds to facilitate re-signing Scott Moore. That is factually correct. What is incorrect about that?

I made no comment about Scott Moore's talent or otherwise.

Let's just face it - Gaskell was never as good as some numpties thought he was to begin with. He was extremely raw and limited when he first came into the team and hasn't improved an awful lot since (for whatever reason) - if anything he's gone considerably backwards now opposition defences know about him. Brown's had a good look at him and come to the same conclusion. He won't be at Saints next season and only time will tell if that is a good thing or not, but all the evidence to date suggests that it probably will be for all concerned. When we are so desperate for halves, the fact that 2 successive coaches (even if one of them was Rush) have decided that he isn't up to the job with so few other alternatives available says everything that needs saying. Add him to the same "initial promise unfulfilled" pile as Foster and move on.

Sorry my bad I wasn't clear. The incorrect was to do with the reason Gaskell has gone.

The coach? So our coaches don't decide who goes out on loan then? Who does? The chairman? Mike Rush? Who?

The reason Gaskell's gone is that he just isn't good enough. Simple.

It's common sense for Gaskell to go given that he's been stopped from playing. No point throwing money away, just to spite a player.

Lets not forget we offered him a contract, so I don't buy it that we think he is now below us only a few months later.

I also don't buy the drop in form. If you were to pick the form team in SL, you would need more than just 3 games.

I have no problem with Brown picking his own team and players, that's fine. I'm not getting into the youth arguement, his record at Huddersfield and here shows he will play them if they are what he wants.

Not sure why we have took Howarth, just seams like a nothing signing, he's not a replacement for anyone really. Although it does show how shocking our recruitment has been to not even have an understudy ready for Roby. Don't give me Lance, as Lance was not bought to be a hooker, he was bought and has played as a half.

Just goes to show that playing Roby for 80 mins has been more down to need rather than good planning.

From a Salford p.o.v. I wonder if Brian Noble has had any input. He had Howarth at Wigan and never played him.

Indeed, but in the talent-starved marketplace of the moment someone like Gaskell is pretty much golddust - every team in the league would be offering him a contract in the hope he develops into a player in some position even if they had no immediate plans or place in the squad for him.

That was the point I was making about player development. That is exactly the point although you speak to recruitment rather than development.

Saints still do not phase in young players. They just drop them in when there is an injury. That is such an outmoded approach it is unreal. We should be phasing in young players for all the positions so that we do have understudies and if over a period of time they do not meet the standard Saints want for their first grade players then let them go but to be unprepared like this after so much effort has apparently gone into the youth development programme I think is very poor, not to mention foolish.

The reason Gaskell gone as nothing to do with playing or Nathan brown

Sorry but you can't say that without backing it up or at least being willing to PM people with whichever crazy rumour you've come up with.

Now there's a player who would be great cover for Roby !!! Howarth = dead rubber

I disagree, we do develop young players, however we don't develop them in all positions and neither should we. We need the best players in the best slots, if that player plays elsewhere then we should be looking to recruit.

We have developed the likes of Roby/Graham/Eastmond/Lomax/Jones/Dixon/Ashurst/Clough/Wellens/Makinson/Walker/Emmitt/Higham....

All these players have been drip fed into place at Saints and are still playing. We can't expect to keep them all, but we do develop players.

My point about no stand in for Roby is that in the last few years we have concentrated on buying and developing players without thinking about where they are going to play. We have 4 very very decent players who can play Fullback. Yet at hooker we have just relied on Roby since Cunningham left. Cunningham never did it on his own apart from a short period of time in the 90's. He had Moore/Roby and Higham as stand in hookers.

We have had an unbalanced side, due to recruitment. Recruitment is there to fill the holes we can fill from youth development. Cunningham has been gone for 3 years now. But it takes a busted Roby to finally realise what the rest of the league know, you can't opperate with just one hooker.

I disagree but I'm not going to debate the issue further as I'll just get yet more abuse. All I will say is that with a few exceptions we just drop people in at times of injury. Even Wellens was a case of that. We need to stop that attitude and start phasing players in.

Do share...

I imagine the answer is "he refused to sign a contract".

But, even if true, that is to miss the point - seems like the the club have offered him a contract they feel is reasonable (and based on performances since 2011 it probably wouldn't be a whopper) and he's clearly decided it's not enough.

But you see that IS to do with playing - specifically, not playing well enough to force a club into paying what you think you are worth.

does this mean your going to go and support Salford???? I wonder if the handle 'SalfordFan' has been taken ??

Well you clearly dont like much about Saints, the coach, the management, the player selections etc etc .. try supporting a load of tosh like Salford and then you'll really have something to moan about

An absolutely rediculous bit of buisness by the club again.
Salford must be p!ss!ng themselves.If he's better than what we have comeing through were in deep sh1!