But then the appointment of Brown by McManus would be a strange one given that Brown has made it clear he doesn't see Hohaiah as a 6.

Exactly,theres no way Lance will be close to first choice stand off next season.

Brown has also overseen five straight losses. Simmons was sacked after four. McManus gave the losses as the reason why he sacked Simmons. You'd think, therefore, given that this isn't the first time Brown had overseen a slump in the Hudds team mid season that McManus wouldn't appoint him for results reasons either.

Who knows why McManus chose Hohaia or Brown. He's contradicting himself on both counts (if the mere speculation about Hohaia is correct and if the reason he sacked the previous coaching regime is correct) because like it or not, McManus has the final say on player recruitment. Remember, he owned up to making a mistake about Lee Gilmour.

It's pretty clear why he's gone for Brown (assuming the story about McM promising Hohaiah the stand off berth is untrue) as he's been instrumental in establishing them as a top side rather than relegation fodder. The 'mid season slump' isn't, I'm fairly certain, a coaching technique he employs so there's no reason to think it will happen at a new club, with new players and a different ethos.

The Simmons thing has been done to death, but it was as much the style of play during those losses as the losses themselves which demanded action. For the first time I can remember, I simply couldn't see where the next win would come from.

And, Wigan defeats aside (and I accept that's a major, major issue if we are serious about competing for trophies), results suggest the decision had merit.

Do you just have posts saved on your computer and you just copy and paste them in every now and again?

You're like a broken record...

My point was that there are inconsistencies and my point was made in response to a specific point. So no, I'm not like a broken record. You read what you want to read and not what is there.

I'm not interested in discussing Simmons.

As I have just said, I was highlighting inconsistencies and also the fact that we have no idea why McManus makes the choices that he makes. We are all just speculating about everything.

Except that McManus did admit to making a mistake over Lee Gilmour. That is all we actually know.

Ok I will read what is there...



How many times have you said this?!

How anyone can compare with what's happened to hudds to saints next year is laughable!

Totally different players, totally different styles, totally different clubs, it's impossible to say that saints will have mid season slump like the giants have had.

I remain to be completely convinced by Brown's appointment, but I'm open-minded about it and he was about the best available candidate and you can't use what's happening at Hudds now as any kind of pointer as to how things will go at Saints next season. These days SL clubs have a choice between GB coaches very few of whom are sadly up to it, proven mid-level Aussie/NZ coaches who are known, predictable quantities but won't likely do anything spectacular (Brown, Potter) or punts on NRL assistants wanting a chance to step up who may be great (Maggie) or otherwise (Simmons). I think Saints made the right choice opting for option 2 and the safe option after the last experiment with option 3 failed so disastrously.

As I said in the Hohaia thread, the Gaskell situation stinks for me. It should not be down to an interim coach to play God with a youngsters career like this.

now that i agree on, i'm losing patience with Rush on this. i have no time for coaches who pick players they like rather than based on skill and form!

I don't think lance should be playing stand off as I think Gaskell should be there.

However, I don't think rush is playing god, he's picking what he feels is the best team which is his job.

And to be fair, apart from the Wigan tonkings, is winning games.

As we have done with Gaskell in the halves also, including this season. Winning or losing is not the sole responsibility of Gaskell and yet you'd think so given his treatment since Simmons left.

Personally I'd pick Gaskell over lance any day of the week but at the end of the day he's been getting results with the team he's picking.

Of course, my statement could well be embellishing the truth somewhat, making it some more dramatic, but in Gaskell we have a kid with all the attributes to be a great player, yet he cannot get a look in as someone is seemingly undroppable due to the wage he is on, or having been told so. It's not right.

I would hope Brown will give Gaskell a fair crack of the whip, but the rumour he is looking to bring his own No.6 in would seem to show Gaskell's days at Saints could be numbered.

Totally agree mate.

Lee Gaskell is the most natural stand off I've seen in many years. He's a born #6 and should be playing there IMO.

I agreed when rush took him out as at the time he needed protecting in order not to damage his future delelopment as the team needed the senior players to stand up, which they did.

Why hes not been given a chance now we are stable is lost on me but I can only guess he don't want to change a winning team.

To build on it, I'd say not only does Gaskell have abilities our team lacks, but he seems so natural at 2nd receiver that he also tends to bring on Lomax very well.

If Lance was doign ANYTHING at #6 for us, then it would be worthy of debate, but I'm afraid his contribution considering the situations he's been in have been very dissapointing.

I honestly can't think of one positive that lance brings to the team.

The one major pro Gaskell has over Lance: Gaskell knows how to beat Wigan.

It's a tough one to argue, I think most of us appreciate Rush has steadied the ship and I don't think anyone will argue we have gone backwards.

So in a way we are discussing a minor issue in terms of the team, but a big issue in terms of the player.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Gaskell is World class, but they are arguing that he is a better half than Lance.

Agree with most of this. The fact that the team are winning, Wigan aside, and have climbed the table is protecting Rush and Hohaiah from an avalanche of criticism over team selection. If we were to go on a shaky run, things would get much more uncomfortable very quickly IMO.

The big issue for me isn't what Gaskell would bring to the team now (although it would almost certainly be more than Lance does) but what message it sends to Gaskell that he's not considered good enough to replace an entirely ineffective 6. Come contract renewal time, club loyalty may not be top of his list.

Saints have a good record in releasing players, and are rarely bit on the backside by them, but I feel if Gaskell was to move on he'd very much be the exception to that rule.

Wheeler could still be our next #6. There is a few options next year and Brown has got a difficult job on his hands.