In a game we lost, which is my point exactly

.

Losing a centre to injury is less problematic than losing a half back IMO. I'd be looking to rotate Lomax, Gaskell and Hohaia (although I still think that Lomax could be as successful as Tomkins at full back...)

i thought Lomax was a shoe in for our future fullback, until Makinson exploded onto the scene, now i just cant decide! Lomax is more creative, but Makinson is possibly better under the bomb, and is faster. Both can beat a man one on one. Its a good problem to have

That it is.

After seeing him start at hooker in the GF, I figured he'd replace Moore on our bench.
He'll come on, take some responsibility at dummy half but also jazz things up with some extra energy from first reciever.

As for Makinson; if he's going to start on the wing (and unless we improve our distribution to the right), I'd move him over to the left to see him get more of the ball.

However, by the end of the season, I would love it if we were regulary seeing something like

#1 Makinson
#3 Wheeler


#6 Gaskell
#7 Lomax

I think Tom could be a cracking full back - I just want him to get the ball in hand more. He's not just fast, he's got the skills aswell.

Because he would dip after a few games. He was getting better overall but ideally he was the kind of player who needed to be eased in. Makinson didn't dip. He just steadily improved. He was outstanding in our biggest game of the year. Anyone in a Saints team who can look like a winner at the GF should be kept in the team. We don't have many of those players.

That inexperienced backline you talked about helped get us to the GF, bar Wheeler who was replaced by Meli. They were also winning the GF until we lost Shenton and Lomax to injury.

I'm not interested in Wigan. They are a different team with different players.

I think Gaskell is a different case than Makinson due to the responsibilty his position places on him. He would look refreshed whenever he'd been rested/injured.

A winger's job is more straight forward, I'd say, i terms of the thinking game. As makinson played more, got used to the pace of his opposition and 1st team rugby and the physically of the same, then he looked more and more at ease.

Gaskell has to run the game and make a lot more decisions for the team. This is a lot harder, so it perhaps does him good to step back every so often and consider the things he's learnt.
It may be the case that he comes in and is playing the ball, assesses the situation and comes up with a winning play. The week later, he knows that play worked for him last time, so he's tempted to force that same play or attempt to contrive a similar situation with the specific intention to use the same move, which won't work aswell.

Dipping him in and out may not only give him the chance to watch how others do it, but when he comes back in, he could be more possesed by the motivation to take his chance than the negetive pressure of an organising position on a young half back?

Nothing was expected of Makinson then, things will be this year. Some players thrive on it, some don't, Makinson could be either. I see no harm in not putting him under unnecessary pressure in his second season. If he plays and plays well enough to consistently keep his place, then fair enough. The resigning of Gardner allows the club to take him out of the firing line, if he needs it.



Yes it did, luckily all our youngsters look a talented bunch.



You never are interested in examples that don't fit in with your closed mindset...

I think the step up in physicality also took it's toll on Gaskell last year, though as the season went on he became stronger. His defence by the end of the season was far better than it was at the beginning.

I think more and more was expected of Makinson as the season progressed and fans - except you possibly - became aware of his talent and commitment.


Nothing lucky about it. We have good backroom staff who talent spot and train up our young players, and a good first team coaching staff who, along with the first team, helped them to integrate.


Nope. That comment is just a reflection of how silly you can be. I'm just not interested in Wigan. There is no rule in life saying that I have to be.

Talk to me about expansion clubs, though, and I'm interested.

Oh dear, making things up now? Point out to me where I've said I don't think he's talented and committed? Nothing was expected of Makinson last year, not by any right thinking fan anyway.



Yes, we do have a good set up, but that isn't always enough. Lots of sports teams have good youth set ups, that doesn't always mean that there is enough raw material to work with.



You're not interested in anything that you don't agree with, not just Wigan.



If that topic had anything to do with the subject we're currently discussing you might have a point with that sentence, alas it doesn't.

He did struggle at first. Not just with the tackle but he was guilty of giving too much space to the centres he was marking. It was especially noticed (by me) in the home games against HKR and Wigan.

However, as you said, it improved an awful lot by the end of the season.

Another thing I'd say with Gaskell is that I expect him to develop physically at quite a rate. He may look as skinny as a rake now, but do you remeber when Roby and Tomkins came through? They looked just as skinny, but Gaskell has a lot of height. If he packs meat on as the other two have, he's going to be very hard to pull down and those half breaks he making will turn into clean ones.

So glad I clicked on this link the other day as can't get the bleeding thing out of my head now