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?

While I don't disagree with you that most teams have abandoned the ball-playing loose, it's worth pointing out that Leeds haven't done too badly out of keeping it. You could argue that the reason Leeds are such a potent attacking force (far more dangerous than Saints, it seems), is because they have four potential playmakers on the pitch at 1, 6, 7 and 13. So they have lots of options all over the park. Contrast that with Saints where we have a maximum of 2 (often rather predictable) playmakers, and Roby scooting from dummy half. I imagine teams find it much easier to defend against the predictable Saints side than against Leeds. I'd also put it to you that Saints' most successful side of the modern era had three playmakers, including two unpredictable halves and Sculthorpe at loose.

It is possible to have a big strong-forward who's also a playmaker. I think that's what people are thinking about with Voldermort. He's got the frame to be a very big lad. If he can hang some beef on his bones, and retain his passing and kicking skills, then he has potential.

Just cant see the point in 'blooding' a youngster,perservering with him only for him to leave at the end of the season,having allready made his mind up before the season starts according to the rumour posted.If he was staying,then yes play him.As for the others you mentioned,lyon,cunningham etc,well they were all regular first team players who could not be replaced by anyone better,and never once did they say before the season started they were going to Wigan at the end of it.
My reply is really to the poster who says that Gaskell has told his family hes leaving.If true,Gaskells attitude needs questioning,If the rumour is false,the poster needs questioning

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Gaskell should be playing centre. For me Wheeler should be given game time at 6 ( fitness allowing of course ).

Wheeler should have been released by now, he's a farce. He isn't a person we can rely on, so he can't ever be given a regular place in the team. It is amazing that he's still at Saints.

I think it was two games. Gaskell started at 6 and hohaia on the bench.

At what point in 2011, however, did we announce the Hohaia signing?

I seem to recall it being quite early on and there's an article on the BBC website from 12th April. Now, the first time "Lomaskell" caught our eye was the victory over Leeds on 19th March.

Given that signings don't happen over night, one would suspect that we were already well into negotiations with Hohaia at the time of this match. Therefore, it is quite possible that, even if Royce preferred Gaskell at #6 by the time of the 2012, it was his advice to the board that identified Hohaia as a potential replacement for the unsettled Eastmond and Pryce.

Signing Lance as a half back was a boner, but one that we could have (or could still) recover from well, given his utility value. However, continuing to play him as a halfback was an even bigger mistake and leaving out the only player in the squad with a proper kicking game in order to leave lance at #6 (which imo also marginalised Wilkin's forward game and devastated Lomax's scrum half game) was damn right ridiculous.