The rest of the team have to work, that's how we'll startr to get penetration.

People are quick to say about Gaskell that "He's too young/inexperienced" to be an affective 7, but that's only completely true if he's got options and he's taking the wrong ones.
Yes, there's an element of half back to marshall your troops, but these guys are training full time, they should know where and when to go and run, and since we've an inexperienced half back, they should be working doubly hard to provide him with options, which I don't feel is happening. There's too much one up rugby, the defence line is slow, leaving us on the back foot even against not-so-fast play the balls.

I remeber a young Wellens getting swapped to full back at Odsal and getting crucified. I thought that day, that experience like that could crush his confidence and potentially his career.

Sorry mate but I don't agree with that one little bit. Thru no fault of his own, Gaskell is not good enough at the moment to be our first choice regular number 7. Maybe if Leon was fit and on form it could work but the fact we've got no experienced halfbacks will spell huge problems.

This current team on this seasons form lack creativity and will struggle to score points this year and our defence ain't good enough to grind out wins.

I honestly believe without halfbacks we will be in a fight for top 6 spot maybe even a fight for top 8.

How can you say he's not good enough? I've listed on other thread all the positive things he did through the game, breaks/half breaks, try assists, good kicks etc. He has no glaring weakness, except the odd mistake, which we'll all forgive a rookie for.
I know its not perfect, but I was there last Friday, and Gaskell was definatley not the problem. The lack of our regular 6 compounds the problem terribly, but had Pryce been playing, the only reason it would have changed the result would have been due to a number of individual peices of brilliance. The team as a whole were not performing.
An inexperienced 7 is a trial, but its one that we should be doing a lot better at than the game against harlequins showed.

Think your missing the point mate. I'm not saying Gaskell ain't good enough, I'm saying he's not ready yet to be our 7 with no experienced halfback alongside him.

I think Gaskell has done pretty good since he came in to the first team but he's not ready yet.

Regardless of who Simmons prefers in the playmaking positions and in the absence (and likely future absence) of Pyrce a decision must be made NOW on which two players are going to lead the club forward till the end of the season. If it's Gaskell and Lomax, or Lomax and Wheeler, or Gaskell and Moore etc. play them and KEEP PLAYING THEM. It's bad enough that we are going to have to rely - long term - on second string players and kids. Let's not make things far worse by continually swapping and changing players week to week. I firmly believe that Lomax and Wheeler especially have had their development slowed because they are forever being moved about to accommodate others. If we give them a run of ten-or-so games in one position they'll improve far quicker.

Er, so how exactly does Gaskell become ready, if not by actually playing? I always think this approach, adopted by some fans, is a bit of a dumb one to be honest. The only way an inexperienced player will 'be ready' to play at first grade is by playing at first grade, being given the chance to learn from his mistakes and build upon his strengths. The key to whether Gaskell will be successful at this level is whether he can learn from his mistakes or is buried by them. If it is the former then there is every reason to believe that we have a good little halfback in the making as he has shown some great touches so far. We wouldn't have had at least two of those tries against Quins, for instance, if it hadn't been for Gaskell. He has pace. He has potential with the boot. He has energy and commitment in defence and attack. He can pull off some lovely passes. He just needs to continue learning and slowly he will pull his game together. As he does that, he will be able to focus on the bigger picture rather than on getting his kicks right or what have you. But he has to have a chance to get that far first and the only way that will happen is by playing him.

Fine. But what if we lose all those games while he's merrily learning the ropes? What if we're out of the play offs, the crowds are at 5,000 and all those bar you who are there are chanting 'Sack the board', 'Saddened! for president' and 'Boooooooo' all the time?

Saintsfan wrote: Er, so how exactly does Gaskell become ready, if not by actually playing? I always think this approach, adopted by some fans, is a bit of a dumb one to be honest. The only way an inexperienced player will 'be ready' to play at first grade is by playing at first grade, being given the chance to learn from his mistakes and build upon his strengths. The key to whether Gaskell will be successful at this level is whether he can learn from his mistakes or is buried by them. If it is the former then there is every reason to believe that we have a good little halfback in the making as he has shown some great touches so far. We wouldn't have had at least two of those tries against Quins, for instance, if it hadn't been for Gaskell. He has pace. He has potential with the boot. He has energy and commitment in defence and attack. He can pull off some lovely passes. He just needs to continue learning and slowly he will pull his game together. As he does that, he will be able to focus on the bigger picture rather than on getting his kicks right or what have you. But he has to have a chance to get that far first and the only way that will happen is by playing him.


I a ideal world Gaskell would have been selected in certain games that would be deemed of a easy nature to develop his progress. Young players are better to have the games hand picked so they ain't thrown in the deep end as things can easily crush young players confidence.

I'm not saying he's not good enough, I'm not saying he won't turn into good player and I'm not saying he's doing a bad job but what I am saying is he wouldn't get a look in if Leon was fit and Kyle saga wasn't on going, that says to me that the coach and club know he ain't ready yet!

If we went with your throw them in at the deep end method, then maybe we should just throw all the kids in. We have to be very carefull not to ruin his chances of becoming a good player by just playing because we have nobody else. With him being a halfback makes it harder as he's expected to run the show which tajes alot of confidence and experience.

Maybe we could get away with playing an inexperienced halfback if we had Pryce fit but that's not the case.

This sort of game tonight can make or break a young guys confidence if things don't go well.

Jes, the glass is not just half empty for you is it. Sounds more like the glass has never even be made and the only water is poison.





Anyone would think Gaskell is the cause of all this, lets lay the issue where it truely lies. Poor coaching choices, Foster on the bench for entire matches, poor defensive structure and effort (again coach and players), Disruption (board, Union and eastmond). Lack of half back option (can't play pryce and wilkin, won't play Eastmond)

The most gaskell has done wrong are a few wayard kicks and passes. This is not something unusual to my eyes after watching long for the last 10 years. He is not that far off the mark and has been more or less our only creative force going forward, kicking pasing and running wise.

If Eastmond was doing half of what he could do and gaskell was our weak lin then fair enough, but thats not the case. Gaskell is having to cover both 6 and 7 positions. There is maybe just Lockyer who can do this and get an average success rate out of his underperforming team.

Who would you suggest? Graham at half back?

We have who we have, and berating Gaskell cause Pryce and Wilkin are injured and Eastmond has given up does nothing but add pressure to the lad.

There is not a lorry load of quality half back with no club to play for who will play for free. He maybe 4th choice but he if that's where we are that is where we are. But he's doing a fine job as far as I'm concerned and is not that far off other halfbacks, but he needs a partner.

Then that is how it goes. We have one crocked first choice halfback and one suspended, possibly never to be seen again. We have no option but to play Gaskell in the halves along with either Wheeler or Lomax (I'm favouring Wheeler because I think Lomax has been quite good at centre and Wheeler has the guile of the two). So if that means we have a totally naff season then that is how it has to be. However, since last week he topped the try assist charts in Superleague, I don't think Gaskell will be the cause of any naff season we might have. Our thinner squad in the face of extensive injuries plus a bad work ethic throughout the team may well be, but I very much doubt Gaskell will be.

I agree with this, they need a sustained period in their positions to develop as players, simple as

Yup

No LMS tonight is a big loss

Fair play, unfortunately, we don't really have any options now that Eastmond is suspended.
I think he'll look more comfortable when pryce is back, but the team as a whole need to be pulling their weight in the mean time, which I don't think they're doing.

So it looks like Gaskell is not as awful as people thought. Just needed a foil to take the pressure off. With Gaskell's kicking and Lomax's running the team looked alot more organised in attack.

Meli in the centre's. Hey Please let it continue.

Seems that he was having to do the job of two half backs.

Give him a talented, willing partner and he looks every bit a SL player.

Er excuse me. Some of us didn't ever think he WAS awful, if you remember!

I seam to have wronged you in another life. I've no idea why you think I'm talking about you on every post. I don't even recall trying to disagree with you.

But feel free to continue berating me.

babies did all right though didn't they oh bringer of doom?

Yeah of little faith.
Get in there saints!!!

Salford at 9/2 followed by us at 7/5; now all I need is quins to do to dire what they did to us last week and I'm an even happier bunny.

Did you win on the Gold cup too.

To be fair I was expecting a loss, just hoped for a more balanced side with an improved performance. It was touch and go for a while there, regarding the result.

No, just this one. You were wanting to be all cautious about our win when it's the first one we've really been able to celebrate this season. I demanded my right to go OTT after a win! But I'm sober again now, so apologies if you thought I was having a go. I was but not in a nasty way.




You said that it looked like Gaskell wasn't as bad as people thought, as if all people thought he was bad. I was simply pointing out that I was one person who didn't think he was bad. I didn't think you were talking about me at all; you were just not allowing for the fact that there were some of us who didn't actually think he was bad in the first place.

Fair enough, I've sent Saddened a correction for my missing of Irony. I am quite literal.

I suppose I'm cautious because of the OTT reaction of some fans to a loss and I was really fearful that it could turn into a witch hunt against Gaskell (and Simmons to an extent).

So yes I was excited and delighted by the result, but I'm trying to keep cool incase it all falls apart next week and everyone starts sliding back in the other direction of naming any old Aussie half back they can think of to replace Gaskell.

There was even mention of Robbie Paul last week....... (Robbie Paul

)

We did look fab, sorry I'll try to be more positive.