Nope they coped really well. But that's my point they still had lululi and O'loughlin is handy with a ball too. But the game was much less attack minded, who knows what the score would have been, if Wigan had all 3 of their backs ready to play?

But yes Wigan have greater strength in depth at halfback.

Any way back to the squad.

It depends on injuries but I'd go for


1. Paul Wellens,
2. Ade Gardner, 3. Michael Shenton,
5. Francis Meli, 22. Jamie Foster,

25. Lee Gaskell.20. Jonny Lomax

8. Josh Perry, 9. James Roby, 10. James Graham,
11. Tony Puletua, 13. Chris Flannery,
21. Shaun Magennis,

14. Scott Moore, 15. Louie McCarthy-Scarsbrook, 16. Paul Clough, 19. Andrew Dixon,


I think the half back pairing who ever it is will be interesting as we have yet to have a full game with 2 halfbacks playing for the full 80. Either due to injury or Eastmond indifferance.

Whether it's Wheeler and Gaskell or Gaskell and Lomax, I just hope the rest of the team, the experienced heads actually give them some go forward and build a platform for them. That is not a bad pack Dixon has enough experience now to be a squad player and I'd rather rotate Roby and Moore, and give a loose forward role to megenis

However I suspect this will not be the team the coach picks, but if he put Foster on the bench again, well he's learning nothing. We need 3 forwards and a hooker who can be a utility player not a freaking Winger who will do now't then get 10 mins at the end when the game is dead.

Riiiight! Except Foster never once hid on the wing. He plays like a fullback. He's all over the pitch, reading the game, rescuing mistakes, taking the ball in, nipping in and out. That is why I said he was the most improved player. He put himself out there and every time he comes on the pitch he is full of energy and drive, wanting to be a part of everything. But he was dragged off at Salford. There is no knowing how a player will take adversity and while throwing Gaskell in is a big ask, I agree, there is no reason why he can't kick on in the same way Foster did. He's been playing at halfback for a long time in the youth leagues so he knows the game. He just needs to get fit and wise enough to play it at first grade level. You are a gloom merchant because your default setting is to see failure at every turn! Well, some people can succeed you know, even when you assume they won't!

The rest of the team have to work, that's how we'll startr to get penetration.

People are quick to say about Gaskell that "He's too young/inexperienced" to be an affective 7, but that's only completely true if he's got options and he's taking the wrong ones.
Yes, there's an element of half back to marshall your troops, but these guys are training full time, they should know where and when to go and run, and since we've an inexperienced half back, they should be working doubly hard to provide him with options, which I don't feel is happening. There's too much one up rugby, the defence line is slow, leaving us on the back foot even against not-so-fast play the balls.

I remeber a young Wellens getting swapped to full back at Odsal and getting crucified. I thought that day, that experience like that could crush his confidence and potentially his career.

Sorry mate but I don't agree with that one little bit. Thru no fault of his own, Gaskell is not good enough at the moment to be our first choice regular number 7. Maybe if Leon was fit and on form it could work but the fact we've got no experienced halfbacks will spell huge problems.

This current team on this seasons form lack creativity and will struggle to score points this year and our defence ain't good enough to grind out wins.

I honestly believe without halfbacks we will be in a fight for top 6 spot maybe even a fight for top 8.

How can you say he's not good enough? I've listed on other thread all the positive things he did through the game, breaks/half breaks, try assists, good kicks etc. He has no glaring weakness, except the odd mistake, which we'll all forgive a rookie for.
I know its not perfect, but I was there last Friday, and Gaskell was definatley not the problem. The lack of our regular 6 compounds the problem terribly, but had Pryce been playing, the only reason it would have changed the result would have been due to a number of individual peices of brilliance. The team as a whole were not performing.
An inexperienced 7 is a trial, but its one that we should be doing a lot better at than the game against harlequins showed.

Think your missing the point mate. I'm not saying Gaskell ain't good enough, I'm saying he's not ready yet to be our 7 with no experienced halfback alongside him.

I think Gaskell has done pretty good since he came in to the first team but he's not ready yet.

Regardless of who Simmons prefers in the playmaking positions and in the absence (and likely future absence) of Pyrce a decision must be made NOW on which two players are going to lead the club forward till the end of the season. If it's Gaskell and Lomax, or Lomax and Wheeler, or Gaskell and Moore etc. play them and KEEP PLAYING THEM. It's bad enough that we are going to have to rely - long term - on second string players and kids. Let's not make things far worse by continually swapping and changing players week to week. I firmly believe that Lomax and Wheeler especially have had their development slowed because they are forever being moved about to accommodate others. If we give them a run of ten-or-so games in one position they'll improve far quicker.

Er, so how exactly does Gaskell become ready, if not by actually playing? I always think this approach, adopted by some fans, is a bit of a dumb one to be honest. The only way an inexperienced player will 'be ready' to play at first grade is by playing at first grade, being given the chance to learn from his mistakes and build upon his strengths. The key to whether Gaskell will be successful at this level is whether he can learn from his mistakes or is buried by them. If it is the former then there is every reason to believe that we have a good little halfback in the making as he has shown some great touches so far. We wouldn't have had at least two of those tries against Quins, for instance, if it hadn't been for Gaskell. He has pace. He has potential with the boot. He has energy and commitment in defence and attack. He can pull off some lovely passes. He just needs to continue learning and slowly he will pull his game together. As he does that, he will be able to focus on the bigger picture rather than on getting his kicks right or what have you. But he has to have a chance to get that far first and the only way that will happen is by playing him.

Fine. But what if we lose all those games while he's merrily learning the ropes? What if we're out of the play offs, the crowds are at 5,000 and all those bar you who are there are chanting 'Sack the board', 'Saddened! for president' and 'Boooooooo' all the time?

Saintsfan wrote: Er, so how exactly does Gaskell become ready, if not by actually playing? I always think this approach, adopted by some fans, is a bit of a dumb one to be honest. The only way an inexperienced player will 'be ready' to play at first grade is by playing at first grade, being given the chance to learn from his mistakes and build upon his strengths. The key to whether Gaskell will be successful at this level is whether he can learn from his mistakes or is buried by them. If it is the former then there is every reason to believe that we have a good little halfback in the making as he has shown some great touches so far. We wouldn't have had at least two of those tries against Quins, for instance, if it hadn't been for Gaskell. He has pace. He has potential with the boot. He has energy and commitment in defence and attack. He can pull off some lovely passes. He just needs to continue learning and slowly he will pull his game together. As he does that, he will be able to focus on the bigger picture rather than on getting his kicks right or what have you. But he has to have a chance to get that far first and the only way that will happen is by playing him.


I a ideal world Gaskell would have been selected in certain games that would be deemed of a easy nature to develop his progress. Young players are better to have the games hand picked so they ain't thrown in the deep end as things can easily crush young players confidence.

I'm not saying he's not good enough, I'm not saying he won't turn into good player and I'm not saying he's doing a bad job but what I am saying is he wouldn't get a look in if Leon was fit and Kyle saga wasn't on going, that says to me that the coach and club know he ain't ready yet!

If we went with your throw them in at the deep end method, then maybe we should just throw all the kids in. We have to be very carefull not to ruin his chances of becoming a good player by just playing because we have nobody else. With him being a halfback makes it harder as he's expected to run the show which tajes alot of confidence and experience.

Maybe we could get away with playing an inexperienced halfback if we had Pryce fit but that's not the case.

This sort of game tonight can make or break a young guys confidence if things don't go well.

Jes, the glass is not just half empty for you is it. Sounds more like the glass has never even be made and the only water is poison.



Anyone would think Gaskell is the cause of all this, lets lay the issue where it truely lies. Poor coaching choices, Foster on the bench for entire matches, poor defensive structure and effort (again coach and players), Disruption (board, Union and eastmond). Lack of half back option (can't play pryce and wilkin, won't play Eastmond)

The most gaskell has done wrong are a few wayard kicks and passes. This is not something unusual to my eyes after watching long for the last 10 years. He is not that far off the mark and has been more or less our only creative force going forward, kicking pasing and running wise.

If Eastmond was doing half of what he could do and gaskell was our weak lin then fair enough, but thats not the case. Gaskell is having to cover both 6 and 7 positions. There is maybe just Lockyer who can do this and get an average success rate out of his underperforming team.