No.

Gaskell actually approached Wigan over 12 months ago as well as another SL club, he is no stranger to Kris Radlinski.

I don't see it as an issue of "work". Despite what the critics say, I think our pack has been pretty good this season. There's certainly been plenty of effort from guys like Soliola, Laffranchi, LMS etc. The problem is there's nothing OUTSIDE of the pack. For much of this season our backs have been entirely dependent on weak tackling. Sides which have remained cohesive in defence have stopped us dead.

We were forward oriented last season of course. But back then we had Graham, who could function almost as a fullback in the way he used to link into the line and slip out that short pass to the centre. We also had a bit of a surprise package in Meli who proved pretty useful off his wing and then there was the novelty of Lomax and Gaskell. Two kids opposition defences had very little intelligence on.

All of those advantages are now lost. Every man on the pitch, in the stands and in front of the TV knows who's bringing the heat. Which makes the success Roby's enjoyed this year all the more creditable I suppose.



I prefer Lomax to nine - which gives us a useful creative spine of Hohaia, Gaskell, Lomax & Roby. Hohaia's task would be to give Gaskell the quickest possible service and, most importantly, back up.

I can forgive Hohaia's misdirected kicking. As I said - Leon couldn't kick for lollies and that was after two full years in the job. But Lance has been extremely weak at supporting the ball carrier. Given his foot speed (easily in the top three fastest players at the club) he should be stuck to the back of every man in possession like a barnacle.

I agree that our pack is pretty decent. Decent enough to take on most sides and win on its own with very little if no support from the halfs and backs.

You have to feel sorry for our forwards. It must be terribly disheartening to see all your hard work evaporate on fifth tackle when the opposition full back or winger receives the kick on the full going forward and returns the ball almost to the point where it was kicked.

Graham would have been furious and you can bet greater concentration would be applied on last tackle. Unfortunately, we seem to have no one capable of providing similar coercion.

It seems our club is producing/nurturing some excellent talent but then we seem to spoil the good work when we put them in the 1st team by playing them out of position and forcing them into roles they're not greatly familiar with.

Lomax would be excellent at fullback. Hohaia would be good as a interchangable hooker with Roby.

If we don't sign a scrum half for next season then it will be a repeat of this seasons form. That said, if we can keep picking up points and get ourselves into the top 4 then you never know what might happen in the playoffs.

Spot on with that. Gaskell is simply keeping his options open and his agent has been busy recently. Forget Warrington, Hull and wherever else, Wigan will have Lee Gaskell wearing the number 6 shirt next season.

and how much will you pay us for him?

So far we're nailed on to sign Brough and Smith and Gaskell is definitely staying, and Wigan are also nailed on to sign all 3 of them too. It's all pointless speculation at the end of the day. Personally I'd be made up with Brough but can't see it happening unless the Pies paid us a big transfer fee for Gaskell to fund it, and in that case it'd make a lot more sense for them to just sign Brough instead. I think Smith coming back is by far the most likely scenario which would be a little disappointing, but there really aren't a lot of other options available without a big transfer fee or free overseas spot.

I can't see Saints even considering letting someone as highly regarded as Gaskell go anywhere, let alone to the team we consider can hurt us most. There's little doubt in my mind that Lee Gaskell will, at very least, get considerable game time for us at 6 next year with the biggest question being who will be at 7.

For me the most likely scenario is Smith at 7 (assuming the rumours have any substance) and Gaskell at 6 next season as Brown starts to build his team around youth with some experienced grunt up front. Lomax, whilst I am a huge admirer of him, is never a half so there's another role to be found for both him and Lance; the latter of whom provides us with the biggest positional problem. If we are going to play him anywhere its 1 or interchange 9.

He's been playing stand-off since he was 7 years old. I would suggest he is very much a stand-off. I doubt you have ever seen him play in that position to make a valued judgement. Stand-off halves have a range of skills which should be complimented by their half back partner. I suggest Lomax should be our stand-off and the search should be for a complimentary scrum half.

Wellens was a half in the junior set up if I recall correctly
Wilkin was a Hooker
Peacock a 2nd rower
etc etc

I would not say Lomax is not a half, but neither would I say he is nailed on at that spot.

I also don't think he's nailed on, but only because no-one will give him a chance. He would require a more organising scrum half like Bobbie goulding along side him. Gaskell is not the answer at stand-off. Gaskell may make a good centre or loose forward ( provided he puts on a few pounds ) but there are certain flaws in his game which preclude the stand-off position. These may be corrected in the next few years and I will hold my hands up if that happens. Saints future in the halves is J Lomax and A.N.Other. What position Jonny plays will ultimately be decided by who the A.N.Other is.

That's a silly argument. As posted above many players come up through the ranks in one position only to find that they are either (a)!unsuited to it at the top level or (b) better somewhere else. If Lomax was a SO he'd at least have been given a run there. It's as obvious as Wellens never being a top flight scrum half was.

My view remains unchanged. Great talent. Not a half back.

We'll agree to disagree then!

If Lomax isn't tactically astute enough to play seven he'll struggle at six, which is arguably an even more challenging role. Besides, what relevant attributes (other than a good step) does he have over Gaskell? Perhaps he's quicker over the first ten yards. But he's certainly not over the remaining eighty. His kicking game is vastly inferior and he doesn't possess anywhere close to Gaskell's leg strength. I suppose you could argue he's stronger although only because he's eighteen months ahead in terms of physical development.

You only need look at side-by-side shots of Gaskell and Lomax attacking the line at first or second receiver to realise which player of the two has greater spatial awareness. Lee can track three or four different play options and usually picks out the optimum choice. It's not that Lomax can't execute a play. I just feel that when the defence anticipates such and gears up to smash it he finds it difficult to think creatively and come up with a solution.

This is not to say I think Jonny is an inferior player. The problem is his talents are better suited to another position - just as Gaskell would be completely useless at prop.