I think only Rush in the entire universe thought that playing Lance at #6 all last season instead of Gaskell was even remotely a good idea...



...what we're saying is that in a league where Smith and Myler are the best young halves around and where the biggest club in the game are having to make do with Green as their creative lynchpin for at least the next few seasons then a player like Gaskell is practically made of gold. Why do you think we continue to persevere with the forlorn hope that Wheeler will still come good? You may want to wait indefinitely for the next Long, Martyn, Goulding, Cooper, Ropati or Pryce to appear (they won't, trust me) but I'd rather we focused on signing the best players that are available to make the best team we can here and now if you don't mind.

Generally Gaskell's defenders say that his mistakes can be attributed to inexperience. Good players learn from those mistakes, poor players don't. I've yet to see a player consistently make the correct decisions in a ball playing role in his first or second full season, yet Gaskell's detractors expect him to do that.

Interestingly, the same expectation is not applied to Lomax who on numerous occasions last year made the wrong decision on a run or a pass, passed the ball poorly and put a hell of a lot of very poor kicks in.

He has the potential to make it as an excellent half back, he may not, but to say that he will never be good enough after a season when he was part of a very inexperienced half back partnership is very short sighted considering he has the technical ability.

Aren't you one of those who reckon we should still be playing Paul Wellens at fullback?

I would generally agree but for 1 detail, He never learned from a single mistake in the 2011 season and continually took the wrong option in attack. I could have accepted this as it was his first full season but he then proceeded to carry the same flaws into the the 2012 season and was quite rightly dropped from the team. Unfortunately our only other viable option was Lance.

Now you try to use the same argument with lomax but fail to realise that his game is based on running good lines and supporting play in a similar way to McGuire at Leeds. He isn't expected to do any ball handling because it is not his game. Leeds have an organising scrum half to do that job.

The main problem Saints have is the lack of an organising half back. Gaskell is not the answer because he is not reliable enough at super league level. I am actually on record as stating that he would make a good centre. I am not discounting him as a player, only as a half back.

Gaskell is good young player with loads of potential. My only concern with him, his decision making is poor at times and can prove costly.

I thought he was our most dangerous player on the last Grand final with ball in hand but took wrong option time and time again.

That might come in time or Brown might be able to coach it into him. I'd go with him at 6 to start next year.

I don't have a problem with Gaskell but imo he wont be the half back most of you expect but I hope he proves me wrong. Half of you desribe a young Darren Lockyer. IMO he could make a decent full back where he will have reduced pressure and responsibility.

And what happens when the same flaws surface again. Notice I said when not if. He has a lot of potential, but not as a half back.

Is plan B going to be Lance again? God help us all if that's the case. Wheeler maybe if he stays fit.

To be certain of success we need a proven half back to partner Lomax. If we have to buy one then so be it!!!!

It's pretty clear we ain't bringing in a halfback. IMO Gaskell is better #6 than lance so I'd go with him.

I don't think we can go another year with lance at stand off, he's just not a stand off. He's no rugby brain, can't control a game, no kicking game and not creative enough.

Exactly. Gaskell may not be tommy martin but he's better than lance now

Can't argue with that. Just a thought, ask Tommy to pull his boots back on now and he would be better than both of them!!!!

You are feeling very sleepy..... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............

I find it hard to believe that he failed to learn from a single mistake. I agree that he was quite rightly dropped, his form and confidence had gone.



A half back isn't expected to do any ball handling? Like I said, excuses, excuses.



He's not reliable at the moment. But very few kids are at this stage in their career.

Sean long was pretty average for his first few seasons, only learning from Tommy and a couple of seasons of experience brought the player we now remember

Long as I recall used to do alot of running about, but had many aspects that he worked on over time. Even when Anderson came in I recall his kicking game getting a boost. We are talking of a player there in his late 20's.

The difference and it's a major difference is the people around him, Cunningham, Joynt, Sculthorpe, Martyn, Hammond, in a team like that you get time to make mistakes and make progress. In our current team players with the creative aspect are not given time. Because of weaknesses elsewhere we have this clamour for an instant halfback. But I think even someone like brough would get it in the neck, because the nature of being a creative half is that you take risks and take chances and you back yourself.

I recall the game against Huddersfield last year where we lost by 1 point. This was a match that Gaskell played. He was not played off the park by Brough and Huddersfield were in red hot form. He more than held his own and gave as good as he got from Brough that day. But because we don't see Huddersfield week in and week out, we don't see the kicks out on the full, the run's when he should have passed etc against other teams.

Given where we are and that we are not going to sign another half, then Gaskell must play, if we can pull another half like Brough out the bag then fine he will get in ahead of Gaskell.

A lot of good half backs could not ball handle. Schofield and Hanley being 2. They were both excellent at backing up and devastating runners but their passing game was woeful.