I would think scrum half is a key position. Lomax only played bit parts in all positions in Potters last year so I would consider last season his full debut season same as Gaskell. Lomax winning young player of the year would seem to indicate I'm not the only one who thinks this.

P.S.

Paul Wellens
Kieron Cunningham
Kyle Eastmond
James Roby

That's a few to get started with.

Quote: Top Saint "I would think scrum half is a key position. Lomax only played bit parts in all positions in Potters last year so I would consider last season his full debut season same as Gaskell. Lomax winning young player of the year would seem to indicate I'm not the only one who thinks this. P.S. Paul Wellens Kieron Cunningham Kyle Eastmond James Roby That's a few to get started with.'" His debut was in 2009, he made 8 appearances. 2010 he made 18 appearances. How you can say last year was his full debut when he has been playing 2 season before is a bit of a stretch. Also this drip drip into the team is exactly the kind of thing a player should get and what Gaskell missed out on. From memory Cunningham was like gaskell in that he came straight in. But you can find all the info on the heritage site www.saints.org.uk/saints.org.uk/ ... page_id=10

Quote: Top Saint "I would think scrum half is a key position. Lomax only played bit parts in all positions in Potters last year so I would consider last season his full debut season same as Gaskell. Lomax winning young player of the year would seem to indicate I'm not the only one who thinks this. P.S. Paul Wellens Kieron Cunningham Kyle Eastmond James Roby That's a few to get started with.'" His debut was in 2009, he made 8 appearances. 2010 he made 18 appearances. How you can say last year was his full debut when he has been playing 2 season before is a bit of a stretch. Also this drip drip into the team is exactly the kind of thing a player should get and what Gaskell missed out on. From memory Cunningham was like gaskell in that he came straight in. But you can find all the info on the heritage site www.saints.org.uk/saints.org.uk/ ... page_id=10

So you'll ignore his actual debut season, and the following one, and the fact that he hardly played scrum half in those years, nice one. Lomax winning young player of the year means nothing in this discussion.

Eastmond's first games were at full back, in Roby's first seasons he was the interchange hooker. Wellens was hardly impressive until he moved to full back.

I'll agree with Cunningham, but note that you have to name a player that debuted over a decade ago and has now retired to find a comparable player. I thought you'd have been able to name loads considering he was so average last year...

I am only comparing their first full seasons because you cannot compare a player playing 8 games away from his natural position to another who débuts, due to circumstance, in his natural position for almost a full season.

I was not ignoring those games, but putting them aside due to giving a bad comparison.

But that's the whole point (and half backs making early appearances in other positions is hardly a new phenomenon).

Lomax was in his third season of being in and around the first team last year, that's two extra years of training with the first team, getting used to the pace and intensity of SL compared to the U21s. Gaskell had had a taste with a couple of appearances the year before, but was thrown in at the deep end, and by the end of the season, wasn't looking out of place. He didn't have the luxury of time that Lomax had, yet played more of a role in directing the team than Lomax did (and interestingly scored more tries which surprised me and only had one less try assist in 3 less games).

It's alright to say he was in and around the first team, but he didn't play in the halves. So he was introduced to playing half back at super league level at exactly the same time as Gaskell. This is the reason I believe it is only fair to make the comparison this way. I accept that Lomax had more time around the first team squad to adjust to the pressures of the super league, but he was never expected to control a game at such a young age. By the way I accept that, barring injuries, neither would Gaskell have been either.

My only point on the matter is to compare like with like. Both playing their first full seasons in their current positions ( I say current because Lomax is a stand-off) in which Lomax was considered the better player at the Man of Steel Awards.

I don't think you can disregard 12 months more experience of SL in the matter though, the U21s league is so far removed it's like a different game.

I don't mean to disregard it but you cannot have any type of fair comparison without levelling the playing field a bit. All my comparisons, with regard to Wellens, Roby and Eastmond, were all given allowing for the players to be in the positions they played in regularly for an extended period. Gaskell was given a chance, due to injury, that very few young players ever receive. I think he did OK but I remain to be convinced of his long term suitability in the stand-off role. He may prove me either right or wrong in the long term. That remains to be seen.

How can you compare an established, fully developed (physically and mentally) player with a rookie who has the body of a kid (and [istill[/i does, BTW)?

Stupid idea.

I think we are going around in circles a bit. I'm not going to close the thread as everyone has been very civil and kept in line. But in the end Top Saint does not rate Gaskell and no matter how hard you argue with someone, they have their point of view and with Gaskell not likely to get a game this year, there is no way they are going to be able to change their mind as there are no more practical experiences to do this.


I think Gaskell had a storming first season. I understand Lomax getting young player of the year, but peoples eyes are always drawn to those who have that short burst of speed. But who put Lomax into those gaps last year would be my arguement for that and also Jamie Foster was also nominated in those awards last year, so not sure about the process as Foster was starting to drop off in form, from midway through last year.

Anyway, it could be that if Gaskell does come back or go to Wigan he will blow top Saint away, or come back and have a few mares and we will wonder where the magic went. But until he does come back, it's an academic arguement where no one can discuss the merits of his current game, just games from this year and last year.

Hardly a stupid idea when they are the same age.

I would also like to offer my apologies for daring to disagree with the majority view on here. I don't ram my opinion down others throats like quite a few on here do. I was also under the impression I lived in a free country where I had the right to my own opinion. I know Saint Simon believes this site is a dictatorship but up to now I thought he was in a minority of 1.

Just goes to prove the old saying: Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I you no longer wish me to contribute to discussions on these boards just let me know. I just thought this was a FORUM FOR DISCUSSION.










Maybe not!

I got the impression that the majority view is they don't like Gaskell which is why the argument for him is so strong from those who can see the differential talent he has.

So what? At thirteen I was nearly four inches taller than the kids I hung about with (all of whom were the same age). At sixteen they'd all caught up with or exceeded my height.

People mature at different ages. Lomax has clearly fleshed out. Gaskell has not.



Here. Take this Kleenex and blow your nose.

Better now?

Ok.

First - Yes, you have a right to your opinion. But since NO ONE has made ANY effort to censor or suppress it I'm mystified why you feel compelled to assert your right to Freedom of Speech*

Second - Your idea is "stupid" not because I or anyone else here is on some wild-eyed power trip - desperate to put "salt of the earth" types like you down at every opportunity. It's "stupid" because REASONED ARGUMENT based on observable, unambiguous EVIDENCE illuminates it as such.

Point 1. That's the sort of comment I'd expect from a Primary school child.

Point 2. We live in a constitutional Monarchy in which the constitution give anyone the right to free speech. Please get you're facts right.

Point 3. No-one on here has yet to give a counter argument to which I could not answer. Therefore my arguments are not stupid, however, you appear to be stupid because when you begin to lose an argument you resort to insults.

Point 4. I really don't give a monkeys who you are either. I have worked in factories for 30 years so a few verbals don't bother me in the slightest. You have probably never worked in an environment, If at all, where a few insults are part of the working day. I have a nicely sized pair thank you, and skin as thick as a rhino so please feel free to throw insults around. I will happily throw them back with interest. Now go back to class.

Errr ... you are the one claiming the right to freedom of speech - something which wasn't denied in the first place.



rlBzzzt. Wrong Answerrl



The fact that you can provide an answer to any question doesn't make it right.



[fx