Would be the right signing at the right time.
The team needs a directing mind which Gale does not give

What people seem to always overlook is the inevitably of injuries

I'm sure I read somewhere that Gale and Sammut have only started something like 5 games together due to injuries. That figure is probably a bit higher now, since they've both been fit these past few weeks, but still the point is valid - we can't rely on two front line half backs.

FC seems to want Addy to make the 13 role his own, which means we need another half back. That's where Gaskell comes in. And the bonus is that Gaskell can play in the centres too if we find ourselves a bit short there.

Did you mean making tea?

That wouldn't be a Gale, it would be a storm in a teacup.
i'll get my coat

As a fan of Corrie, I really hope this is not the end for the Gale-Platt combination.

Do you still think he is a 'class act'?



I got slated months ago for saying he was overrated and an average player, looks like more and more fans are now agreeing. If we really do have our sights set on being a top club, he can't be our first choice 7.

I'm interested in your coining the cliche that he's "overrated". Whose ratings? People come up with this repeatedly about all sorts of players they personally don't rate, usually radio show phone-in types etc., but what does it actually mean? Are you saying that you concede the majority opinion of Gale is that he is rated far better than you rate him?

Anyway, in answer to your question, yes. And I think he could potentially blossom with Gaskell playing stand-off and taking some of the weight off.

Sights? Listen, right now, we don't have our sights set on being a top club. Yes, we can come up with brave 'Black knight' guff like that, and you wouldn't expect them to bravely say anything else if asked, but the reality which you and your more-and-more fans should face is that we have our sights set on NOT BEING RELEGATED NEXT YEAR and rightly so. That is the first and foremost and paramount thing, if you exclude the tough business of staying solvent, and you can only set your sights on one thing at a time.

So " If we really do have our sights set on being a top club" my arrse. We haven't even made the playoffs for years. That would be a step in the right direction. Take your rose-tinted specs off.

You also don't get that the standard of your first choice 7 doesn't in any way guarantee what you'll do in the league. I believe the current first choice England scrum half is a chap called Rangi Chase. To what heights has he propelled his club?

Behind the right pack, and with the right mix of backs, Gale has shown plenty to suggest he could merit a place in a very good team. Whether that be with us, or elsewhere. Sure he's a way from the finished article, but I've see nothing to suggest he's just "average". Even you and his other detractors must concede he's had a hugely disrupted season and of course his inclusion again in the 2013 England Knights squad alone suggests he is better than an "average" player.

To me, we are steadily building what potentially could be a very competitive squad. If we manage to overcome the next several hurdles, stay out of trouble, avoid the drop and consolidate, then IMHO it would take any newly assembled side a number of seasons to gradually blend and gel, and only then (if that happens) might you realistically start talking of being a top club.

I agree that Gales has "shown" glimpses of a being a decent half back. However that is not enough IMO. The Hull game I thought he was excellent. However for me it is not enough to show every now and then he can be a decent half back. He actually has to BE a decent half back. He's had two full seasons with us now, having a handful of games where he's done well isn't enough.

How many more years are we going to wait before he becomes the decent halfback?

Next year is a crunch year for him IMO

To be fair though he hasn't had two full seasons. If you remember, in about his third game for us, he did his ankle ligaments, and was out for months. Obviously he was nowhere near match fit when he did come back, plus the team had to re-adjust to playing with him in the side again as he increased fitness.

Worse, he didn't play at all for the first 10 rounds this year, as he had surgery in the off season, and his season was later further disrupted following a bereavement.

These are just the facts, not excuses, but I think it's reasonable to take them into consideration, and it isn't the case at all that he's had "two full seasons".

I'd agree that next year is an important year for him, but then it is for the whole club.

He is overrated buy some of our fans, plus the media to some extent, or at least they did when he first signed for us. You yourself rated him as 'a class act', so you are one of the fans who has overrated him, he is far far from a class act. A lot of fans on here commented that he was a good player, funny how a number of them have now conceded that he has been a let down, others discussing him being dropped. Expectations of him as a player have dropped, that's normally a sign of him being overrated in the first place.



I was merely making a statement, fairly simple really, if we (fans, club, management/owners) have sights on becoming a top club then Gale isn't good enough. I have no idea realistically what the clubs 'sights' are, but I'm sure they're higher than avoiding relegation. This season we were hoping for a top 8 finish, with the way the squad is shaping up for next year I would expect management have a similar target at least.



Imagine where the club would have been without him? He regularly carries the team and wins games with his inventiveness and unpredictability. He has speed, flair, good kicking game and stands up in defense, all things Gale lacks, he is in a totally different league as a player.



Ahhh, the 'behind the right pack' excuse

Funnily enough this doesn't explain why he does nothing with the ball when the pack is on top and he is getting the space. He struggles in our team, so I'm sure he would look even more out of his depth in a 'very good team'.

NO, he is rated by any given person, however they rate him. All you are saying is you disagree and that you don't rate him much. That's all fair enough but where you are going wrong is then going on to claim that he IS "overrated" - I'm surprised you didn't add "FACT" as if this was any more than just your opinion.


Can you grasp that we DISAGREE on this point? You saying he is very far from this, or not that, doesn't make it so.


Just waffle and guff. We as a team haven't had a good season. No great use singling anybody out.


He is.


Quite, and I'm sure that would be it. Not "being a top club", which would only move into the sights sometime down the track if we manage to halt the slide and make progress in the other direction.


Where they would have been? Well, they're 12th, so I have no clue what your point is. Could they have done much worse?


No, he is in the SL same as Gale. But you forget it was me who gave the example of Chase, as a good scrum half whose team isn't successful as a result of his presence.


If you are seriously suggesting that playing behind a great pack can't immeasurably help the halfbacks shine, then you know zero about rugby league. But I'm sure you entirely know the point.

I get you don't rate him, but all this OTT hyperbole just makes your points lose credibility.

I really can't be bothered multi-quoting, you clearly have too much time on your hands, 22,000 + plus posts tells its own story. Whatever we write we are just going to disagree, so no point wasting any more time really. To sum up, when we signed Gale I hoped (and all the fans I spoke to) that he would be the game controlling scrum half that we needed and we could build a team around him, he is not that player. You think Gale is a class player and obviously that is your opinion, I however have no doubt you will be making the same tired excuses next season.

And?


Wondered how long it wuld take you to slink away from a discussion you're losing and go [iad hominem[/i. Disappointing.


Free country


What, as opposed to others who you reckon didn't hope these sort of things?




What "excuses"? I know you're a bit miffed at your views being challenged, but I haven't made any "excuses", and it just makes you look dumb to say I have.

Hey, I know you must be a very important and busy man, with hardly any time to waste to drip the odd pearl of wisdom to us mere mortals, but it would be appreciated if instead of making stuff up, you would just spend an additional minute to say exactly what "excuses" I have in your view made.

If you have aspirations,Gale isn't good enough,if you are happy in the lower reaches of SL then he's probably ok.

Hanley played behind a beaten pack every week at Odsal and was the first player to score 50 tries in a season behind that beaten pack.I know what you mean though.

I didn't see owt at London and I aint seen owt since GALE came to odsal,if you're happy with that then ok for you,you are happy.

Tristam, I think you might be a victim of the SL stats pages diabolical labelling of the data columns - and
lets hope Nick Scruton doesnt read this blog, as 18% for a prop is awful. and incorrect. If you have used the SL stats page, MT = Marker Tackles, MI = MIssed, and on that basis Nick has a missed tackles % of tackles made of 6.2%. I haven't looked at Addy etc but Langley also stands out as high.

so I have to agree with your conclusion!

To be honest, I don't remember Ellery Hanley "playing behind a beaten pack every week". In the season when he scored 52 tries we finished half way [8th in a league of 16 and had forwards such as Jeff Grayshon, Alan Rathbone, Brian Noble, Dick Jasiwicz and Gary Van Bellen in the side; maybe not a [i:3usc1p46worldbeating[/i problems I suggest just watching replays of our scores and see just how often it's Galey who makes the final pass or creates the opening. There have been plenty of games where I've come away thinking he hadn't really dominated much, only to be surprised how instrumental he had been, when I watched the highlights.

Indeed, and one thing that is different about each scrum half is their individual style. Deacon suffered from exactly the same thing. Some people just want to see a 7 zipping through defences and beating 10 men. If they don't have electric pace then for many they are forever crap, it doesn't matter what they do, it doesn't matter what records they break, it doesn't matter what the team wins. In Deacon's case, his detractors will still tell you we won everything [iin spite of [/ihaving Deacon, not because of him - they aren't capable of getting that scrum halves can skin cats in a wide variety of ways. Gale is not a flashy player and he is suffering and will forever suffer from that same perception amongst those people, who will never rate him, ever, choose what he does.

Of course they wouldn't be in the least bit interested in watching any replays, as they already "know" you're wrong.

Your Wiki skills do you proud,but I watched every game live in that season home and away and Hanley played the vast majority of games at Numero 6.The reason I travelled away to every match in that particular season,even though we got many tonkings from the top sides was to marvel at Hanley's skills.He didn't need a pack that was dominating and created many of the tries he scored himself.The point I am making is that I haven't seen even a glimmer of real talent from Gale,I wish I had.You don't need a fast No 7 just one with some vision/guile and a kicking game.Seabourne wasn't the quickest but his rugby league brain was sEcond to none IMO.
Anyway some rate Gale,that's fine and they are entitled to their opinion as am I and IMO I haven't seen anything that would make me jump up and down with anticipation.

All agreed - but there is no comparison to be made between Hanley and Gale. Or Hanley and anyone else. The main point the case of Hanley demonstrates would be that even with Hanley, who is arguably the greatest player who ever lived, at halfback you aren't necessarily a good side.


How many times, home and away, have you watched him? He's been our MoM in 3 of the 11 games he's started this season. If he doesn't show a glimmer of talent, what does that say about the rest?


Again agreed, it echoes a point I made earlier in relation to Gale. I'd only add that - just as in the case of Deacon - you do need the way the rest of the team plays to be built around the particular strengths of your particular scrum half.


But I don't "jump up and down with anticipation" at seeing Gale either, and it's a pity when just because you back a player as not being crap, some folk then upgrade that into a straw man as if I 'd said Gale was some sort of complete rugby god and genius, so that they can then demolish it. What I said I have seen from Gale is that he undoubtedly possesses class which the majority of players don't, and this has been recognised by better judges than me eg his inclusion in the Knights setup. At the same time his career especially in the last 2 seasons has been badly disrupted both by serious injury, surgery, rehab and personal issues, not to mention the disruption of the club's recent woes and disarray.

Whether he can have a great season, injury free and in a settled and progressive squad, behind a much improved pack, and alongside the likes of Gaskell remains of course to be seen. I for one am sure he can and have every hope he will. Others don't think he's got it in him, and they are of course entitled to that opinion.

I have seen Gale play many times for London and many times for the Bulls and if he has class I have yet to see it.Maybe I'm blindicon_smile.gif)
I wasn't really comparing Hanley to anyone,it was just that if you have Class it will show UP at some point even though your pack is not steamrolling the opposition week in week out.
TBF our man of the match doesn't take much winning,its not like being awarded the lance todd trophy now is it?
Listen,I hope Gale has hidden potential he is yet to show,but somehow I doubt it.Gaskell,on the other hand,looks to have plenty of untapped potential and will bring a kicking game to the Bulls,hopefully.

I agree that Gale's not stood out much in his Bulls career so far. In fact I'd say that Sammut and Jeffries produced more standout moments in 2012. There are of course reasons for that and Gale not being very good might be one of them but given that he's had some injuries and a bereavement one can't say for sure...yet.

2013 is a big year for Luke Gale. FC now having a replacement for Jeffries in Gaskell should mean that there's pressure to perform on all three halfbacks.

memory I'm afraid.

To be honest though, damning someone as, "not as good as Ellery Hanley", is going to leave you with an awful lot players who weren't good enough - including everyone else in the RL Hall of Fame...as Ellery is probably the most skilful player I've ever set eyes on, it damns everybody else as second rate. You're absolutely right, he did score unbelievable tries. The times that I, and a lot of others in the crowd, were saying, "what an earth are you doing, Hanley", when he ran into what appeared to be a blind alley, only to suddenly appear through the defensive line with an open run to score, were legion. And he did it match after match after match.

He was a 'one off', though - as I'm sure you know..

Hanley was the best player I ever saw. He was world class at wing, centre, stand off or loose forward. Others might have been as good in those positions but I can't think of any that were good in them all like him.

There's no player in the whole of SL that's in his class never mind at the Bulls.

as above

"I wasn't really comparing Hanley to anyone,it was just that if you have Class it will show UP at some point even though your pack is not steamrolling the opposition week in week out."

Move on lad's. This has become boring now!