To be honest if we ignore him, I would not be calling him Judas for the next 10 years for doing what is right for him. If that's Wigan so be it.

He doesn't want to leave but if saints let him go or don't play him got no other option he got remainder of this year and next year to sort it all

I think that comes across as a bit patronising to be honest. Gaskell played in the Grand Final and didn't do a bad job, especially given he had not even played a full season in the first team. 'Getting on with his job' would be to continue with his first team career. After playing at that level and in a Grand Final, the u20s will be teaching him next to nothing.

I'd guess that what SS means is that, having played a large part of last season in the first team, he is prepared to assess the new coach's intentions before deciding where his future lies rather than hissy fitting now about losing his place.

He's been dropped and been unlucky not to have been selected since, but has taken it on the chin and not gone all Billy Bigbollox.

Ergo, getting on with his job (which is, playing where the coach tells you to).

Indeed. We don't tend to make many mistakes with our player retention, especially with the ones who have come through the system, but I would not be happy if we let Gaskell move to one of our closest rivals. Hopefully Brown sees something Rush doesn't.

yep, thats pretty much what i was getting on about

The same lad also said gadkells been offered new deal but wants a chat to brown before signing it

The major problem here is experience - Lomax and Gaskell are both more than a little wet behind the ears and both need to play alongside someone with said experience who they can learn off of i.e. not each other. Given the choice of which one gets to play in the team then Lomax has to be a no-brainer at this stage of their respective careers. Bagging a good experienced organising #6 (Lynch or Brough or whoever) who will take the pressure off Lomax at #7 and let him just do his thing (which is clearly what Brown is planning if the above is true) seems like a good way forward to me, and that unfortunately may just have to mean adios to Gaskell. If we played Lomax and Gaskell together for the next couple of seasons then you could very well ruin both careers. Hohaia may not be able to teach much to Lomax about good HB play (to put it mildly on performances to date), but he is at least a seasoned old pro who Lomax can absorb many tricks of the trade from.

Does anybody actually know if like Rush doesn't like Gaskell or are people just making their own assumptions because he's not being picked when he might not be picking for many other reasons? Given Mike's penchant for developing talent, I'd be amazed if he's already given up on Gaskell after basically coaching him through the grades (where I'm assured he was pretty good as well coming up through them). If there's something else at play here that we don't know about fair enough but let's not jump to conclusions when we could be guessing.

On the point above, I'm not being funny as this thing about a seasoned half back is a valid comment, however what's wrong with coaching the kids? If Millward can turn Sean "Headless Chicken" Long from a half back who could hardly pass and kick (for a half back) into a guy who could dictate the speed and tempo of a game (within the space of two years) then why can't that happen with the youngsters especially Gaskell who has the kicking game to do exactly that?

That's why I'm surprised that Rush is sticking with Hohaia, and in every game, especially given the massive responsibility Gaskell held at times during the 2011 season. I suspect that perhaps Rush does not want to be involved too closely in coaching individual players as he has openly said that he is continuing oversight of the youth development side while filling in as first team coach.

He has also said in the most recent podcast from Saints that he is in contact with Daniel Anderson on a weekly basis and Anderson is helping him out. That probably has nothing to do with Gaskell not being played but it may be a factor.

I like the sound of that, makes sense. I can perfectly understand if he wants to run with Lance this season either for the experience factor or to protect Gaskell (particularly from the terraces, from where he could get direct career-crippling feedback). I'm okay with that and I'm okay with Mike doing whatever he's doing.

When Royce left our expectations dipped and a couple of crazy wins lifted them beyond what we had at the start of either of the past two seasons so we're probably evening out now which is good. We are better than what we showed last week and this week too. This team is still learning what works this year and it may never reach its full potential but it is a team that is trying to make things work and I'm disappointed more people can't see that (some of our ball work around the ruck has been first rate in fact). It's a challenging time for the club but Monday night showed that we have the ability in terms of playing personnel to compete successfully this year despite what everyone else thinks.

How do we know?

Monday night didn't really show us much, except that we are capable of scoring some beautiful tries from deep. We were good against Leeds last time out remember. In fact, we were good against Leeds last season at Headingley (the match turned our season around if you remember), doing the double on them in fact. Beating Leeds is now becoming a habit (except in Grand Finals, obviously). It is no longer the test it once was. That belongs to Wigan, and we have been nowhere near Wigan these last two meetings regardless of what our present coach has said. We were closer to them last season (bar the match at Widnes).

I thought last season that even though we came out with 3 wins to your 2 that you were the better side in most of our matches. This season though, as you say we have been pretty comfortable. You started well in the cup game but only being 4 points up was your downfall especially as we scored on our first two real attacks.