the blokes come over for a holiday...gets a car..big wage..etc...then does NOTHING...he's just going through the motions like easmond did...seems he's more contented with just passing than trying to make a break....like some other poster said on here, one of the worst overseas players wev'e signed..(hope he proves me wrong in the long run) but i doubt it.

I think we're all being a little unfair towards the guy. Consider the facts:

1. He's settling into an alien lifestyle on the other side of the world.
2. He's settling into a struggling, unsettled team.
3. The guy likely responsible for bringing him over and who he quite possibly based his decision on moving over was gone after just 8 games.
4. He's being forced to play a key, pivotal position that he has practically never played in his entire career.
5. He's being forced to try and run the entire team from that position, something else he's never had to do in his career.
6. He's being forced to be the team's main kicker, something else etc.
5. He's playing next to a kid at #7 who's inexperienced and as out of position playing there as he is.

He's a waste of a shirt right now, but under the circumstances how could he not be? He could be a very good player at Saints indeed playing #1 or #9 where he can actually play and has some experience of the position, but unfortunately Saints have an abundance of talent at those positions which is why he's being forced to play in the halves where we simply have no other experienced quality at all right now. He was the wrong signing for the wrong position, but that's not his fault at the end of the day. Maybe if a Brough comes in and he's allowed to play one of his natural roles in one of his natural positions then he might still actually become a good signing even.

If only we'd spent his money on Leon and his overseas spot on an actual #7 instead...

I don't have a problem with his effort or him as a person.

I have a massive problem with him continuing to play at 6, a position he has little experience in and which he brings very little to in terms of the required attributes.

Should be playing 9 from the bench or fullback this season. Then we would be in a position to judge him.

Hohia was just a strange signing all round. I cant say I have ever particularly rated him anyway but if you needed a 6 or 7 why not just sign a 6 or 7. To sign someone who has played mainly 1 or 9, when you have no intention of playing him there, just makes no sense. He seems to be a quota signing for the sake of making a quota signing because he was available, I really cant see any other reason.

It was a panic buy when the club found out Eastmond wasn't renewing his contract. We'd already been told Pryce was leaving so, with Gaskell and Lomax untried at that point, we effectively had no halfbacks. I think Hohaia's camp probably sold his availability and ability to play halfback to Saints and at the time we probably didn't have many alternatives.

I agree, I can't fault his attitude and I like him as a person but is not working him playing #6 which IMO is totally Royce Simmons fault. I just can't believe his thinking behind it!

I don't like him at #9 either, he just basically passes and passes and passes with no variety to his play.

Play him fullback or don't pick him in the 17.

Why is it Simmons fault that he's at 6? Simmons never played him in the position after one half of a friendly.

It suggests to me that Brown isn't the only one not to think he's a 6...

When Simmons signed hohaia he said he's playing in the halves.

When Simmons signed him he gave him the #6 shirt which is the stand off postion.

When lance signed he said he's coming over to play stand off.

When I spoke to lance when he first arrived in this country, I asked him what postion he playing which he replied Royce wants him in the halves.

I think it's pretty clear he was signed by Royce to play stand off.

Surely Gaskell has to be selected at 6 for your game at Hull FC?

But then he never played him there, preferring an inexperienced Gaskell, which says more to me than press interviews and what Hohaia had been told.

Maybe the intention was to play him there (and given the influence McManus has on recruitment are we sure he was actually a Simmons signing?), but then Simmons obviously didn't want him there once he'd seen him in training and in a match situation. The lesson had been learned and he'd seen what most of us see now, that his skill set is not to be an organising half back.

The fact that it's not working with him at 6 is completely down to the current coaching team who are persisting with the current set up, maybe in the hope that it will finally click and we'll kick on from that. The apparent removal of his kicking duties appears to me that the coaching team know it's not working, but for whatever reason, don't want to move him from the 6 position.

Aye, and Soliola was signed by Potter as a centre but he's never played there!

That's myth, sia was playing backrow at the time and signed to play backrow.

Listen, ive asked lance himself and he told me with his own words that Royce signed him to play in the halves.

Agreed with Sia he was signed as a backrower and its obvious to any fan/coach thats his best position.

Yes, that's why he still wears the no.4 shirt.

Well, that's the justification you used for Lance to play at six yes? That he wears a no.6 shirt?

We don't know what Lance was told. And even if he had been told that he was here to play at six, Royce - having not coached him before (definitely) or seen him play at six before (possibly) - found that maybe it was (a) not such a good idea to play him at six after all or (b) he would need to be drip fed into the team over time. Meanwhile, he was working with Gaskell and Lomax and trying to teach them how to deal with adversity (Royce's quote, that).

No! The justification was the fact Royce said it and also hohaia said it himself.




How much more fact do you want ?

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.

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.