Up until THursday I thought Gelling was too error prone for play off rugby.

However, I thought he thoroughly outplayed Thornley. Made less errors, got his winger away and generally looked more secure. Other than that pass off the floor which was only saved by Josh's great hands, I thought he showed good signs of maturing.

Doubt it'll be enough to keep his place next week though, I know Wane likes Thornley. Personally I'd stick with Gellz, with Goulding on the other side.

Thoughts?

That was Thronleys worst game in ages and gellings best. Overall I'm still in favour of Goulding & Thornley but Gelling had a good game.

I like them both tbh

Thornely is much more orthodox than Gelling but they are pretty effective when playing well.

Goulding is a starting centre, but having the other two in rotation or reserve is a big bonus.

I see great potential in both.

I don't. Both distinctly average but, then again, where are the good specialist centres these days?

They are 21 and 22.......

How about Gelling off the bench? He could cover the back row and the amount of times Goulding goes off it could be handy to have him ready to come on

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.