Exactly!

We panicked when Eastmond left and signed Hohaia without any thought.

Personally, I was very happy when we signed Hohaia, purely based on his world cup and NRL-winning reputation. Here's hoping he reproduces that form next year.

Lance was not a bad signing, it's just there is no place for him. It's like signing the 2nd best hooker in SL and then realising he is going to get zero game time, so shifting him to centre. No good for either party.

I've nothing against him at all and he's a very nice fella off the pitch but he won't make a stand off as long as he lives and I said this the day we signed him.

I actually felt sorry for him last year as it was clear that even he knew he couldn't play stand off.

Hopefully, assuming Gaskell is coming to start. Lance'll make an impact as a utility player off the bench.

Really? Well if that's the case theres no point playing him regularly at 6,move wheeler there or Lance.No place for those who dont want to be here next year!

Yet he didn't play him there. So even if he was a Royce signing, Royce had seen that Hohaia at half back wasn't going to work and rectified that error, so credit where it's due. Rush and Cunningham persevered for far too long with Hohaia at 6, and wasted a season for Gaskell's development. That poor decision may well come back to bite the club on the backside in future if he decides to go elsewhere.

You have to remember that Wello missed a few games early on last year, so Lance covered at 1, then when Wello returned, Robes ended up missing a few games so he played at 9. As a result, Simmons didn't have the option of playing Hohia at 6, and gave Gaskell the opportunity. Royce didn't decide not to play Lance at 6, he didn't really have the option due to injuries.

I agree with your point regarding his development, and it could potentially affect his performances this season, especially in terms of his decision making. I like Gaskell, and I hope last year doesn't affect him to much. He is a far better Stand Off than Hohia IMO, and I hope shows NB that he has made the right decision in giving him the responsibility in the halves.

Except there was a gap between Wello being injured and Robes being injured and yet Royce still didn't play Hohaia at six.

Really. So when Lyon was not going to re-sign, and when Long was in his last year, when Keiron was retiring, none of them should have played in their last year as they would not be here the next year.

Mind you if we go down that line, why play them the year before that etc etc



As for the Lance halfback / Royce signing not signing debate.

I thought we covered that last year and found out we all disagree and are unlikely to change our positions before the next Apocolapse. The last one was a real poor showing.

At the end of the day, we have plenty of options, which is great from a squad point of view. I would like to see Gaskell at 13 in certain games, just as I would like to see Lance at 1 against the less mobile teams. Warrington rotated certain players thought the regular rounds of last season, so come the playoffs they were fresher ie, Ratchford played 1 to give Hodgson a break in certain games, and when the big games came around Hodgson was brought back in to play 1 and Ratchford played centre.

I would like to see Saints use a similar sort of system this season, we have plent of depth across the park so we may as well use it IMO.

Add a bit more muscle to Gaskell and he could indeed be better suited to 13.

He would make a great 13 if he could bulk up, but for now we need him at 6!

Gaskell needs at least a further 10-15 kilos to consider him at 13.

The days of the ball playing loose are almost, if they are not already, over. Who apart from Leeds uses one like they used to? And even now Sinfield is spending more time at 6 than he is at 13. The 1 is becoming the 3rd pivot and the 13 is used as extra weight.

What are these attributes that people think makes Gaskell more suited to 13 anyway?