Re: Tony Puletua : Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:11 am  

St pete wrote:

Roby, whheler and lance are defo out of Good Friday game and looks like TP will be.

I thought the reference to Hohaia on the Saints website was interesting. They didn't mention an injury but instead said 'an incident'. Bit baffling, that.

Re: Tony Puletua : Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:04 pm  

St pete wrote:

We are really struggling with injuries at the moment.

Roby, whheler and lance are defo out of Good Friday game and looks like TP will be.

Lomax is defo back.

Lms and perry also got knocks last night.

Laffranchi will come in for tp lomax will play 6 for lance then same team as last night charnock to drop out

Re: Tony Puletua : Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:31 pm  

Saints4eva2013 wrote:

Laffranchi will come in for tp lomax will play 6 for lance then same team as last night charnock to drop out

Lomax should play fullback.

Last night Salford killed us by merely kicking the ball deep and forcing Wellens to slowly turn and bring the ball back.

His lack of pace meant on two or three occassions we were trapped in goal, and at other times having to bring the ball out from under our own sticks.
If Lomax had been at fullback i dont think we would have dropped out once.

Put simply if Lance is out then we play Gaskell or someone else at stand off. Possibly Swift if he is fit.
Lomax has to play fullback, otherwise Wigan with Matty Smith will merely punt the ball downfield and then tackle us to death close to our line. This wil tire out our pack and Wigan will come away with an easy victory.

Re: Tony Puletua : Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:45 pm  

I had Gaskell at 6 lomax at 1 but that ain't going to happen

Re: Tony Puletua : Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:58 pm  

Saints4eva2013 wrote:

I had Gaskell at 6 lomax at 1 but that ain't going to happen

Nope. It would be the most sensible option though.

Re: Tony Puletua : Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:02 pm  

The Chair Maker wrote:

Lomax should play fullback.

Last night Salford killed us by merely kicking the ball deep and forcing Wellens to slowly turn and bring the ball back.

His lack of pace meant on two or three occassions we were trapped in goal, and at other times having to bring the ball out from under our own sticks.
If Lomax had been at fullback i dont think we would have dropped out once.

Put simply if Lance is out then we play Gaskell or someone else at stand off. Possibly Swift if he is fit.
Lomax has to play fullback, otherwise Wigan with Matty Smith will merely punt the ball downfield and then tackle us to death close to our line. This wil tire out our pack and Wigan will come away with an easy victory.

It wouldnt shock me if lomax defended at FB attacked at 6 to be quite honest, it could work well defensively with wello stiffening up one side of defence

Re: Tony Puletua : Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:25 pm  

southernsaint7 wrote:

It wouldnt shock me if lomax defended at FB attacked at 6 to be quite honest, it could work well defensively with wello stiffening up one side of defence

I think that would defeat the object of lomax playing fullback. We don't want lomax playing as a 6, he's causing damage drifting in and out the line and popping up in postions in space. He's to predictable at halfback, he steps inside eveytime.

Put him fullback and keep him there and don't mess him about.

Re: Tony Puletua : Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:30 pm  

Saints4eva2013 wrote:

I had Gaskell at 6 lomax at 1 but that ain't going to happen

Why wont that happen?

I find it amazing that merely because Gaskell hasnt been played in a few games, he has been written off by a section of the fan base.
No doubt they will be doing the same re Makinson or other players if they miss out on a few games.

Nathan Brown looks to me like a coach who rotates players to keep players fresh and also to keep opposition coaches guessing as to what team and therefore tactics the Saints will be playing.

Just because Wilkin and Lance have played a few games in the halves now, doesnt mean that its Nathans aim for those two to be the first choice halves come the business end of the season. They may end up being first choice, but as of now i think we are seeing tinkering/player development.
For example the aim of playing Wilkin in the halves maybe to help develop his all round game, so that come the playoffs and cup campaign, saints have an additional play maker in the side, alongside the fullback, two halves and hooker.

Re: Tony Puletua : Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:57 pm  

The Chair Maker wrote:

Just because Wilkin and Lance have played a few games in the halves now, doesnt mean that its Nathans aim for those two to be the first choice halves come the business end of the season.

Brown has already said that Wilkin will be no.7 for the rest of the season and he indicated prior to the Salford match - and presumably the 'incident' referred to in the article on Saints website - that he didn't want to split up his halfbacks. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that Brown wants Wilkin and Hohaia in the halves. Ergo, no space for Gaskell. So it is quite natural for fans to assume that Gaskell is out of favour and won't be chosen.

Re: Tony Puletua : Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:24 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Brown has already said that Wilkin will be no.7 for the rest of the season and he indicated prior to the Salford match - and presumably the 'incident' referred to in the article on Saints website - that he didn't want to split up his halfbacks. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that Brown wants Wilkin and Hohaia in the halves. Ergo, no space for Gaskell. So it is quite natural for fans to assume that Gaskell is out of favour and won't be chosen.

I hate to break it to you, but coaches do talk porkies sometimes.

Now Nathan may not be telling fibs re above, but then again maybe he is.

A good coach will give the fans and media what they want to hear and read about, not what they are actually intending to do.