Ok I have to address this, the Wigan game at the DW last year was not a one man show. Wheeler actually played 30 mins according to the official report and he had an influential position to play within that match. But he did not do it alone. Lomax and Wilkin where also playing. We scored more points after he went off than when he was on. We missed him as it meant we where a sub down as well as his skills down.

Memory is a poor decision maker, we always remember things different to the way they were. ie 50 mins rather than 30.

Also I think people miss the point. Lets say Wheeler is a better half back than gaskell. Lets rate him 1% point above gaskell.

My point is the % difference with having Wheeler at centre over meli is greater than having Wheeler over Gaskell at half back.

You gain a 1% in the halfbacks if you accept the hypothesis that Wheeler is the better man, but lose a greater % in the centre position.

So over all the team loses % effectiveness.

That is only if you accept Wheeler is a better Halfback from 30 mins of play.

In the end it's one we can debate, I have no particular favourite, I just prefer to go with what I see. I see that we only beat Wigan with Lomax and Gaskell at halfback. I see Gaskell having the best kicking game at halfback. I see Wheeler being taken out as having many impacts on the Wigan game, but the same would have happened had it been Lyon Pryce, Kyle Eastmond, Lee Gaskell or Wilkin taken out. In the end you are down to 1 half back for 50 mins, you are a sub down and you have to shuffle the team around putting people out of position. But we still scored more in the second half.

I'm not a wheeler hater, far from it, but I don't see the logic that some propose to move players playing well, yet keep players that have known flaws.

A player doesn't have to miss eight tackles, drop three try-scoring passes and generally stink the place out to be judged ineffective. Indeed, he might make few - if any mistakes - but still be considered inferior to other options. As for why Simmons might select him at stand-off? The same reason a coach might select any [ipromising[/i playerI am not judging him off that game alone. I am exposing a theory that a player who has played in that position for most of his youth and at U18's and U21's MAY actually be quite good at it.'"

These young lads have all done great over the last couple of years. I am sure over the season injuries and suspensions etc will kick in and they will all get their chance. Realistically I think Royce does not really know his best back line yet and there will be a bit of experimentation in the games against the lesser sides.

It is a great position to be in, to have Gaskell, Lomax, Lance, Wheeler all capable of playing in the halves. It was only two years ago that we were having to borrow matty smith back for the playoffs!!. Competition for places is fantastic and it will keep everybody on their toes. For some reason I feel quite confident that we can have a good season this year and I have not felt that way for a few years.

What i would say is, If I was Meli I would be very nervous about my place in the team at the moment!!!

Dixon did have a very good game but did grab a bit when chasing down kicks. He looks like he has picked up his game. Royce said in the match summary on the saints website that he told Dixon to up his game at the end of last year. I can see the Joynt comparisons with Dixon, people forget that Joynt started as a free running second rower and did not have a high work rate early in his career. It is a shame we cannot send Dixon to the Newcastle Knights in the off season to toughen him up.

Regarding Flannerys place in the team, I am sure that if Maggenis, Dixon and even Hale have good years then there will be no need to keep him on for next year. I am sure that if Dixon (and Ashurst) had played better last year then he would have nailed down his spot and Flannery would have been released. On the basis of what he did do letting Flanno go would have been a brave, i.e. foolish, move.

Wheeler did look good in the first half but the tactics resulted in him not getting a lot of ball in the second. It would have been good if he had gone into the centre of the field and looked for work like Gardner does. I would like to see Royce continue his rotation and give Shenton, Wheeler and Meli equal time in the centres assuming they all stay fit.

Makinson is a good goal kicker but is obviously out of practice. Foster needs to work on his defence and getting to balls on the ground. Makinson at the moment is the more complete player. Percivals goal kicking was amazing in the preseason game at Oldham and he already looks good enough to play in the first team. In a year or two he could be putting Foster under some real pressure for his place.

Gaskell had a great second half. Our halfbacks cannot win sometime, Lomax passed most of the time and got accused by Cullen for not taking the ball to the line and Gaskell runs the ball more and gets accused of being greedy.

^


What he said.

I don't see why Gaskell can't play centre. Other than being a good kicker, his game play would easily transfer to being a top centre. IMO Wheeler at 6, Gaskell at 4 would be a good option.

And what she said

O er missus

I've no doubt wheeler is a good stand off and no doubt Gaskell could make a decent centre but having wheeler and lomax in the halves for me won't work as I don't think lance with either wheeler or lomax won't work.

Lance, wheeler and lomax are runners, they like to take the line on but Gaskell is a ball player as well which means IMO Gaskell has to stay stand off.

I think Friday night showed that lomax may not be a scrumhalf, he didn't have a bad game but he runs far to often for me when it needs to move wide, he's stepping back on the inside instead of moving it wide.

If you saw finch and lulu move it wide against leeds you could see they ate natural halves with good quick hands.

I'm not bagging lomax as I think he's a massive talent but I'm not sure just what his best postion is.

This option crossed my mind after the games played so far. I don,t think Royce really knows how to structure the back line.
Lomax, Gaskell and Lance are too similar with the exception of Gaskells kicking game.
3 seasons ago Wheeler was destined to be our No 6 and over that period due to his and the teams injuries has been played out of position.
What I have noticed is Lomax looking a bit lost in his role play, especially when Lance and Gaskell are trying to run the plays as well.
Royce needs to sort the situation out quickly before the big close games come up.

I've been saying for some time now that Lomax's game seems better suited to the ruck area than controlling the play at seven. People talk about Roby being dangerous when opposition forwards are tiring and Saints have a roll on but Lomax is a leaden-footed prop's worst nightmare. The kid can step off either foot with seemingly little effort and no telegraph. He's one of the fittest players at the club and his tackling technique is excellent. Throw into the mix a first class skill set, a keen eye for a break as well as boundless enthusiasm and you've got the makings of a lethal rake.

I was really encouraged by the chip from Lomax on Friday night which was regathered by Gaskell who passed on that lob to Meli to score (great try, that). I've been hoping to see that kind of play from Lomax and so it was a treat when it finally happened.

I think Lomax would be more suited to either hooker or full back. I think some of you are judging Wheeler wrong yes he is a runner and loves to take the line on but he also has an unbelievable rugby brain for his age. Gaskell has done well filling in but he's not even in the same league as Wheeler. I've been told we have another promising stand off in the academy though that has the potential to be world class? The future looks bright no matter where they play.

Agree, I think because Wheeler has been injured so long, people have forgotten how good he is, the Wigan game at DW proved that in that he was Wigoons Worse Nightmare until he was taken out of the game.