We played Bradford and Bradford didn't arrive until after halftime. Let's not get carried away, eh?

Jamie foster wasn't good enough for saints and still not good enough for saints.

I'd be surprised if the bulls keep him

That wasn't my point though. My point was that being top try scorer for Saints is meaningless in terms of judging how good/valuable or otherwise a player is to the team. Foster was top try scorer in 2011 and he is no longer with us. So Wello being top try scorer in 2012 means nowt.

I know what you mean but scoring 20 tries a season but letting in 10 tries thru mistakes and poor defence is another matter.

Its a fine balance isn't it, there would be some justification in dropping Wellens if he scored 10 tries in a season but let in 10 tries due to lack of mobility.
Lomax could score 20 tries but let in 10 tries due to poor positioning and reading the game, Makinson might even make less impact. Thats probably why the transition to a new full back is delayed because all our last 3 coaches have possibly seen it that way.
It wasn,t long ago that people on here wanted to get rid of Wellens and Wilkin, now suddenly after one game Wilkin is flavour of the month.
At the end of the day its up to our 3 young players with potential to show there worth and up there game no matter what circumstances are put in front of them.

He played well, ergo he gets praise and people want to keep him there next week to see if he can produce again. I think that's pretty clear.

Wilkin certainly isn't flavour of the month in my eye and I'd replace him if possible next year but that this current moment in time, he's the only player with any sort of leadership skills that can play in the halves.

Gaskell, lomax and hohaia isn't the solution at halfback as none can lead us about the field. Wilkin certainly isn't god enough but he's the best we got IMO .

Is this the end of Gaskell at Saints?

Depends what happens next week. If we're beaten by Leeds and the halves play terribly, then they will be looking at it again.

Gaskell has been really harshly treated by Saints I feel. He was superb in our season at Widnes and got us to a Grand Final. At the end of that season Wellens should have been culled and Lomax moved and an experienced half back brought in.

Half backs need to be playing with a senior figure to develop. There are very few players that can come in as a youngster and organise and control a game and lead his team around the field. The likes of Johns and Goulding probably could, but the mortals need to learn from a more experienced hand.

I know they are similar positions but I would prefer Gaskell fixed at 7 and Wilkin at 6 if Wheeler is restricted to the occaisonal cameo appearance.
Wilkin can handle the close quarters stuff with his short passing game and composure, Gaskell is a runner and would be better coming onto second phase like Pryce use to operate.
The Wilkin and Wheeler pairing obviously isn,t a long term option but merely to give the opportunity for Lomax to find his true position.
As for getting an experienced half back its looking like a very rare commodity these days.

This really winds me up, I hope your not fishing with this statement?

I wouldn't be surprised if gaskell back next week but I also wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't play again this season

Plenty of interesting comments:

Always thought Wilkin had a place in the side as even when he isn't that creative or gives a penalty or skews a kick, he is usually doing the tackling for one of our lazy props. Props......perhaps another reason why our young halves aren't always devasting too.

Noted a comment about the three (Gaskell, lomax and Makinson) making over 150 appearances: Aren't most of Gaskells a twelve minute spell in a desperate and late attempt by the coach to salvage a match? Hardly representative of what he may produce inthe next ten years.

And all this clamour for Lomax to be Full Back: fine if you are one of those who sees a full back that likes to be more of an attacking than defensvie player....the current vogue. I still maintain that your full back is ostensibly a defensive player......just ask the Australian team in November 2013 when they've peppered Tomkins with high (and subsequently dropped) balls or run over him from eight yards out or grounded the ball about four yards to his left (or right) just in time for him to slide in with his knees....still, he'll come into the line two or three times and score a try.

All three discussed are of good quality and may well become of much better than that......and its interesting that us plumbers, firemen, accountants, school crossing patrols, IT bods, PPI salesmen and such, believe we are better suited to Rugby League than those who have much more experience at it.

Come On You Saints

What you just explained is Gaskell as a proper 6 with Wilkin playing first receiver i.e a traditional 7 role. I wouldnt have thought Wilkin was a long term option in the halves like yourself but Sinfield has converted to a half from 13 so maybe thats the plan for Wilkin .. ???