Fair enough. I am, unfortunately, used to reading posts placing Gaskell as the answer to all our woes. He isn't, and never will be, anything more than a journeyman stand-off. If he could bulk up and gain some aggression he may become a decent ball playing second row ala Gilmour. Beyond that Bring in the next gen and ship him out.

I would not say he is the answer to all our woes, but I would not say he is a journey man either. RL is littered with Journey men, who have been shipped out of clubs too early. Gaskell had one year so far and not a bad year at that, well in advance of when he was supposed to be hitting the first team.

It seams he is the marmite of Saints rugby at the moment. But I could well see him playing a Sinfield role, I'm not saying he is a Sinfield, but playing that role. Giving the team deep kicks, and hitting gaps at speed. Whilst a more experienced half is put in place to guide the team about the field.


Brown has take on alot of these journey men at Huddersfield and molded them around brough to make a formidable team.

I'm not a fan of bagging young players, but in my humble opinion, top saint is right, I've seen nothing from Gaskell to suggest he'll be a [itop[/i level half back. He wont be in the same class as brough, let alone tomkins.
I'd love to be wrong but i see Gaskell as a ball playing 13 when he matures

Makes me laugh,ship out the kids but play the 29 year old fulback/standoff wanabee.
Gaskell Is a better standoff than Hoahia,but lets stick with Lance because he's erm on a big wedge,from the NRL or because he says he's a stand off.

The reason given by Rush for sticking with Lance is that he (Rush) thinks stability is important. So basically our first team players could all be playing total crap but Rush is going to stick with them anyway.

And remember, Rush thinks that Gaskell is 'learning his trade' in the u20s.

I haven't seen Gaskell playing u20s, but hope that he has been specific areas to work on,away from the super league spotlight. If he has, then I see no problem. If he has simply been put there to play his game and learn from those around him, then I see little value. However I also se little value in him going to Leigh or swinton to be surrounded by players of lesser ability, and coached by second string coaches.

just wondering but why are we playing on a monday night?
i could understand if it was easter/xmas/bank holiday etc.

TIA peeps.

Money.

More specifically, RL having to dance to the tune of it's Sky Overlords once again.

Footy is off Sky Sports for more than a week.

Surly gaskell is a better option in the half then the current two we have playing is it down to him and rush dont get on and this is why he aint playing at present

Just for the record I have also said that Hohaia isn't worth his place either. Unfortunately IMO the club at present does not have a Stand-off [sizeof the required standard for this club[/size. This is what I have previously said and I stick by it. We may, unfortunately, have to make the best of a bad situation and play Lance. I don't particularly like this option but he is the best we have. People may not like it but there it is.

So does all sports. get real

No he's not.

Yet you seem to be happy with Hohaia at SO, who, apart from the Leeds game, has done utterly nothing to show he should be picked ahead of Gaskell.

The reason I would give for putting Gaskell in is that I believe a professional rugby league team really should have at least one player with a kicking game. Madness, I know.