Both have huge potential IMO but both have a lot of work to do. They both lack one major attribute each and if you could merge the skills of the pair of them you'd have a centre like Kevin Iro.

Thornley lacks confidence and Gelling lacks concentration. Give them both time though and they could develop in to terrific players.

The attack seems to stop when it gets to Thornley a lot of the time. As someone said in another thread, he draws the winger but then instead of passing to Pat, he cuts inside himself and gets tackled. I agree that he does seem to lack confidence in himself at times. Sometimes he seems to dwell on his mistakes, which cause him to make more.

Gelling on the other hand is always looking to pass to the winger, even when he shouldn't. His mistakes come from trying to do too much, but I reckon he probably carried the ball more than Thornley, as he seems to go looking for work to help the forwards.

Correct. As a back, time is running out to show your potential. If they were forwards I would hold a different view.

Wane said Thornley was in hospital and on a drip last Sunday so I expect he wasn't 100% fit anyway. Having said that he did seem to play his normal game.
I'm happy to have both in the squad.
Thornley had only played three SL matches before this season and following Carmont was an impossible task.
I do think Wane should continue with Goulding and Thornley as starting centres with Gelling as back up. Goulding does seem to be suffering at the moment.
Next season all three will get plenty game time.
Quality centres are in short supply and Saints still haven't replaced Willie Talau who left them years ago.

I've always preferred Gelling, I just think he's more of a threat in attack because his passing, strength, speed, footwork and defense are all superior. All he needs to cut out those couple of errors which he can be prone to. Thornley's not bad mind I just think he's a bit more of a steady Eddie

absolute b0llocks

Agreed.

You only need to look at the development over the years of a player like Matty Smith to see that's the case or Darrell Goulding is another.

There isn't a magic number where a backs development suddenly stops and you may as well throw them on the scrap heap.

A suggestion that time is running out for either is pure nonsense. They both have less then 30 first team rugby league games under their belts and I wouldn't mind, both have shown good signs at points but are inconsistant.

Yeah fully agree with that. Thornley reminds me a bit of Liam Colbon - steady, but you don't expect him to do anything out of the ordinary (better player than Colbon though). He needs to work on his hand off IMO.

I think Gelling has the attributes and the potential to be one of the best centres in SL, I suppose time will tell.

No need to be so rude, though, is there? Another keyboard tough guy......

There are younger better prospects currently in SL plus history has shown many examples of backs coming through at a younger age, Sam Tomkins included. Therefore, the clock is ticking for a 22 yr old "prospect". Conversely, 22 year old props have time on their hands. I hope that this is plain enough for you to understand. Given the quality of your effort, I thought a simple explanation was needed. Or would you rather I just said b0llocks to you too?

Gelling is head and shoulders above Thornley as far as centres go. If anything I would say Thornley is the one more likely to make a decent second row in the future.

Gelling just needs a bit more experience and he has what it takes to become a great player for us for many years. He has the size, handling skills and decent footwork.

Thornley is the safe option at the minute as he comes across as a more mature player and a bit more reliable in defence.

To Bill Sonny, this is how our argue your point. To respond, I never mentioned any scrap heap. My opinion is that neither looks likely to be a star, as Goulding isn't. I think I used the phrase "distinctly average". Could I ask how long you give backs to develop as opposed to forwards? That was the point I was making. Look at Crooks and Lineham for younger better backs, never mind Kallum Watkins. If gelling in particular has less than 30 games, isn't there the possibility that this is because he isn't good enough?

Edit: Thornley is 22, Gelling 23 next month.

Was Carmont a star at 22 or was he a late developer?

Your ridiculous post didn't deserve anything other than what I typed.