Yes. He'd be a member of the team rather than Rugby Leagues answer to Darren Anderton.

For every "injury prone" rookie that doesn't fulfill his promise there's a star who just needs that little bit of help and patience to shine. Think of Tommy Martyn who eventually succeeded in spite of years of cruel luck. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to have got rid of him (we almost did under Hanley).

I have heard that Arnold is doubtful with a dislocated bank balance

Good point, I suppose. I'm a huge fan of Wheeler as a player and think he looks very natural in the centre, but I can't help thinking that getting injured in practically every game he plays for the 1sts, followed by a months lay off, isn't doing him any good at all.
Perhaps we've put him back in too soon? A few games in the reserves may help steady him for first team action.

Martyn got a couple of horror injuries that kept him out for a year at a time. Sean Long had the same experience. That, I think, you can put down to bad luck. Wheeler, on the other hand, just seems to pick up minor knocks every time he plays that keep him out for the next two or three weeks. The same goes for Eastmond. That seems to me more like a lack of resilience than bad luck. Hopefully it's something he'll grow out of.

I find it very hard to believe that - for want of a better term - too many "soft" players are given first team squad numbers at Saints. Whilst the junior grades aren't anywhere close to SL in terms of ferocity they are still tough. If Wheeler is prone to crying off he'd have been so in the reserves. I accept that Wheeler did pick up injuries in the academy - but many were bad enough to put ANY player on the treatment table.

Look, it's not just Wheeler. Lomax, Eastmond, Foster and the rest have all been out with niggling injuries recently. I think this is more a reflection of their physical immaturity than anything else. I don't care how talented you are - if you've not matured physically (usually between 21 and 22) and you're being asked to play repeatedly against SL's leviathans (who may be four inches taller and two stones heavier than you) the end result will be injuries.

Look at boxing. Think of the colossal advantages 7lb extra on the frame of your opponent gives. Ricky Hatton went from being the most feared man in his weight division to a huffing, puffing featherfist by moving up just one division.

Whilst I can see where you're coming from, some players just ARE more prone to injuries than others. There is every possibility that Wheeler is one of these players. I hope not, but he might well be.

I don't believe in the idea that a player can be "injury prone". Or not least the commonly held notion.

Yes, I accept that a part of the body - say a ligament, or a bone - may be weak for some time (or permanently) after injury and that the player may be prone to re-injuring himself because of that weakness. I also accept that some people may suffer from congenital conditions which render bones weak, tendons stiff etc. (although I doubt such people could make it to academy level, much less SL).

I think the jury is out on the theory of "Pain Threshold". It's commonly believed that someone can function whilst suffering the same injury as another who finds it impossible to. But given the uniqueness and vast complexity of individual physiology and neurology how could you even begin to argue that the injury (and its effects) are EXACTLY the same for both parites?

At a more general level - human beings are highly adept at discovering patterns in nature. But we often get things wrong and attribute meaning where there is none at all. It's easy to find meaning when we see a player repeatedly fall victim to a succession of injuries whilst others around him stay injury free for months. But how reliable is the assumption? Perhaps he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time - many times. To many this doesn't sound convincing - but we witness improbable events all about us.
If you flip a coin and it comes up heads ten times in a row do you see some grand plan at work (some do) - or do you just say - "that's lucky"?

Yes, Gary Wheeler's had a ban run of injuries. It seems odd. But could this just be ten-heads-in-a-row played out on a bigger scale?

And how do we KNOW for sure that if we could put James Roby (arguably the toughest lad at Saints) in EXACTLY the same circumstances as those surrounding Wheeler when he was injured he would be completely unscathed?

We don't. What we DO know, however, is that Roby is not injury prone and Wheeler is. Whether you agree with the definition of "injury prone" and its application, Wheeler is prone to getting injured and Roby is not.

You're right that it might be a huge dose of "wrong place wrong time", I don't dispute that and I desperately hope you're right and that Wheeler goes on a run without injury now, but frankly some human beings just have stronger bodies than others for whatever reason.

Anyhoooo,
With Eastmond of of the game on Sat, we'll need eith er Wheeler or Lomax to play 6. If its Lomax, a centre will be required out of Wheeler, Makinson, Foster, (Ashurst maybe) or shuffle round to use Flanders, Meli, or Sia (if fit) or even recall Armstrong.

I'd go:

Wellens
Gardner
Shenton
Meli
Foster
Gaskell
Moore
Graham
Roby
Perry
TP
Dixon
Flannery

Clough
LMS
Magennis
Lomax

Lomax can cover the outside backs and halves and could also spell at hooker if needs be.

If Wheeler is fit, he plays centre and Meli to wing, Foster to drop out.

Good enough to beat this Leeds team IMO.

I'd swap TP for Clough. Give us some impact a few minutes in.

I'd also keep Meli as far away from the centre as possible. Personal preference.

Wellens
Meli
Wheeler
Shenton
Gardner
Lomax
Gaskell
Perry
Roby
Graham
Clough
Dixon
Flannery

Moore
Puletua
LMS
Foster

I think I'd prefer Moore to Lomax at scrum half, he at least has a kicking game that is no worse than Eastmond's has been so far this season.

Without any medical evidence to support the assertion we cannot rationally say Wheeler is prone to injury. As stated, all his injuries might very well have been sustained by Roby if he had replaced him at the exact time and place of the injury.

We certainly can't draw any future conclusions as it would be akin to arguing that because a coin has landed on its head ten times it will probably land on its head again, which is the classic "Gambler's Fallacy".

You say that Roby is not injury prone. But he might suffer a knock at the weekend which results in numerous and increasingly lengthy absences and then ultimately early retirement. Meanwhile, "Sicknote" Wheeler could go on to achieve a SL record for consecutive appearances.

We just don't know.

Wheeler will play on Saturday. Maybe Wheeler at 6 and Moore at 7.

Why drop Gaskell? Surely the lad deserves his chance to develop his spot?

Moore shouldn't be in the team simple

I'd rather have Gaskell and Lomax in the halves. Scott Moore is never a 7

Would me self been disappointed with Moore since he came back not the player he was at Huddersfield or even Castleford

No he's not. But if Leon isn't playing, neither should Gaskell. It's so unfair to throw a kid, who doesn't seem to be naturally talented in terms of organising a team anyway, into the scrum half role with another inexperienced half back. Gaskell will do well to come through this season with his career intact the way Saints are using him. Every game he plays his head will drop that bit further as things don't come off because no one is advising and instructing him.

This is EXACTLY why Long coming back would be a wonderful thing for Saints. This season is a mess, but bringing someone with experience in would do wonders for the kids like Gaskell.

Sink or swim time for the kids with a big prize for the winner (s) with Leon possibly going at the end of the year too, if these two make a decent fist of it they could be our half back pairing for the next decade, if not we're no worse off than we are now

I have to say, Saddened!, that you do talk a load of bollox sometimes!



Gaskell is making good progress. His mistakes are howlers, but that's because he's a noob. He pulled off at least two try assists on Friday, some lovely passing. His first kick was fab. He works hard in defence. He takes on the line. Damn, he does everything his sidekick wasn't doing! I don't think he will be allowed to lose confidence. I think he will be encouraged to learn and grow from this opportunity. He must know that this is his big chance to shine. I say let him show that he can. It's going to be a struggle for us no matter what happens unless or until Leon returns so we may as well develop some young talent in the process.

Foster was thrown in at the deep end last season. He sunk at first but then he learned how to swim, and he learned pretty fast. While the halves are a more complex position, obviously, there is no reason to believe that Gaskell can't learn fast too.

Can't agree with this.

Some players are more prone to injury than others. Some people are more prone to certain ailments or diseases than others. Some people have stronger hearts than others. Some people have stronger bones than others. It's not as simple as place and time, our bodies are all different.

Of course you're right that we can't say with any certainty that Roby will be available for selection more often than Wheeler for the rest of his Saints career. We can have a pretty good educated guess based on their apparent physical durability though. To say it's nothing more than a coin toss is daft IMO, but hey I could be wrong.

To change the subject, I hope we don't see Wheeler at 7 this weekend. Too crucial a position to have him taking up in his second game back - I'd go Scott Moore at 7 and Gaskell at 6.

It's a completely different situation to Foster though. Foster played on the wing which means he has no responsibility bar his own game, he floundered at centre, when he had to do a bit more thinking, and was not played there again. He's more comfortable now, and I've no problem with him being in the team, in a year or two he may well be ready to move to centre again when he has more experience of playing first team rugby.

Gaskell at 7, with Lomax at 6, needs to concetrate on his own game and run the team around the pitch. As you say, his howlers are down to him being a noob, how can he develop when he has to concentrate on what everyone else is doing as as well? He is developing, and has in no way been the worst player on the pitch, but he is at a stage of his career when he needs to concentrate on his own game. He needs the freedom of being allowed to take a step back and not be the go to man on every set of 6. Saddened isn't saying he's not good enough full stop, he's saying he's not experienced enough to be the General at 7 that is needed. Hence why Gaskell needs an experienced player alongside him, to take the pressure off. Eastmond isn't experienced enough at 7 to be that General and he's 3/4 years more advanced than Gaskell in his career. This is a point that is often lost in discussion over Eastmond and his performances.

This isn't a slight on Gaskell, it's an acknowledgement that he's a kid in his first full season. Too much exposure and responsibility at this stage can ruin a players career. I can see why Long being brought in would be looked on as being favourable, but only for cover for Pryce, not as his partner when he returns to fitness.