First and foremost I'd like to say I'm only here to heap praise on two young English halfbacks that are lomax and Gaskell these two where great tonight as have they been all season for you guys. Pair of them compliment each other very well and it just shows that this country is capable of producing the talent if we give them the chances they strongly need. Let's hope McBananna was watching and realises we don't have to play a new zealander at half back for the forthcoming four nations.

Unlucky tonight it was a cracking game of rugby league and a great advert for our sport was awesome seeing so many youngsters on the field good luck for next season and see you guys at your new home in 2012.

Daniel.

They have both had good seasons but tonight showed their inexperience,its to early for them to be talked about as international halfbacks and Australia and the Kiwis would certainly target them and play through them right now.

Great post and exactly what I've been saying all season. If saints stick with lomax and Gaskell them we will get hit and miss games due to inexperience.

Gaskell made the wrong options at times tonight but he'll learn and it will come with experience.

Both have done as well as they possibly could. Personally I think Lomax's game is better suited to the hooking role. Another scrum half might possibly be the key to unlock the whole combination.

The difference tonight was Burrow - Leeds' big-game matchwinners were on the field while ours were sat in the stands unfortunately. This was always going to happen at some point with 2 still very raw and inexperienced halves in the team sadly. They've both improved massively, been an absolute credit to the team and dug us out of deep **** this season (we wouldn't have been at O/T without them), but just aren't quite up to getting the better of the likes of Burrow and McGuire in the big game yet. Maybe next year... I still don't think Lomax looks a long term #7 though....

We need to fix Lomax's position quickly. The LAST thing we want is him becoming the dreaded "utility player" - shunted around various positions to suit and never establishing himself in any of them. I used to think he is the logical replacement for Wellens but perhaps Makinson is a better prospect there. I don't think he's a scrum half, but he does combine well with Gaskell. Which leaves centre or hooker. Lomax has never showed any real form as a centre so that position is out. Which leaves only hooker. To me it is the logical position. Lomax's footwork is best suited to the ruck area where big forwards that are tiring find such a nightmare.

Yes, Roby is tearing up trees at hooker. But he is also putting a LOT of miles on the clock. Can any player continue to churn out the yards and demonstrate superhuman feats of fitness season after season without breaking down? I'm not so sure. Working Lomax in tandem with Roby might just extend his career as well as giving us a very useful second tactical option. If Scott Moore is off then I think we will almost certainly see Lomax taking the spot with Hohaia coming in to play the role he is rumoured to have been offered. Whether THAT will work out is anyone's guess.

The pair of them not up to the task last night -that's why we lost.

Lomax & Gaskell's inexperience was A problem but not THE problem. The pair did as well as could be expected given their lack of big game experience. If we are going to point the finger there are far bigger culprits.

I thought Gaskell took the wrong option far to many times last night. And you could seethe outside back getting frustrated with the fact he didn't let the ball go when he should. I'm not knocking him as it's to be expected as he's a young lad and was threat with the ball in hand. His kicking was terrible, sliced off the outside of his boot all night. He's stood up tho of late and has been fantastic.

Lomax didn't get involved enough, to many slow inside balls that didn't cause Leeds and trouble at all. Came to life a little in the 2nd half with few half breaks. Like I said with Gaskell, stood up all year and been outstanding.

I think if saints stick we these two in the halves then we will get games like last night as they are still learning.

Do you know why that was? I do. Our forwards decided to play in the second half. When a team's forwards play then their halves have a chance. When they don't, they don't. Quite basic really.

He is and he isn't. He doesn't have guile. He's an amazing player but we need a player with guile there too. He was out-smarted by Buderus last night.

You want a hooker who can break SL records in terms of yardage (and other stats) AND be as clever as Buderus (one of the best hookers Australia has produced in decades)? I've heard of setting the bar high ...

No. I want two hookers back again. Roby is fantastic and I'm not criticising him at all. But he doesn't have the guile of Cunningham or Buderus. We need someone who does to bring a different facet to the hooking role. Guile isn't something you can buy; a player has it or doesn't. He could be a young player or an older one. But relying upon Roby only at hooker leaves us open to a 'clever' hooker.

I don't think so at all. Buderus is demonstrably better at organising than Roby. But he has nowhere near Roby's directness. The hooking role is a strange position in rugby league as it has no clearly defined attributes and therefore you find players of all talents not just occupying the number nine shirt but doing well. If a player lacks a certain ability (in Roby's case - organizational) you do what teams have done since the beginnings of the sport - shift the burden of responsibility somewhere else. You could alternate between Lomax and Roby at the play the ball. Or you could even bring Wilkin in occasionally. I'm not saying any option would amount to rivaling Buderus' abilities, but you could get by.

they looked like rabbits in headlights but i dont think they lost you the game, what I felt did lose you the game was taking graham off around the 60 mins point, the turn around started there and with the loss of wellens earlier in the game graham should have been kept on.