Re: Gaskells contract : Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:06 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

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.

It was indeed early on. As I said, it was when we first realised we would be without Pryce and Eastmond. And as I also said, I think, the article in the St Helens Star quoted Simmons as saying that McManus had asked him for names, he had provided them - including Hohaia, who he thought could do a job. But Simmons also said there 'wasn't much out there', which we know to be true subsequently. Seen any new Aussie/Kiwi halfbacks signed up lately? Wigan would have jumped at one if there was one to be had, surely? Instead, they nick one from Hull KR and partner him with Matty Smith - not on anyone's radar a few years back if memory serves.

I got the impression from the article in the local rag that Simmons did what was asked of him but as always the signings are down to McManus. McManus said as much himself at a fans forum I went to last season when he also admitted to getting the release of Gilmour wrong.

Josh Perry was signed during Potter's reign at the club. That was a big mistake IMO. I'm quite sure Potter was asked for names of props by McManus too and suggested Perry as one who could do a job. As it turns out he's been a bum signing but he could just as easily have been brilliant.

Gaskell and Lomax played throughout the 2011 season, and Simmons favoured them even when Eastmond and Pryce were available, although I am quite sure Simmons came under pressure to play Eastmond for even longer than he did given that Eastmond was supposed to be the bees knees. However, I don't think we have missed him at all but last season we did miss Lomax and Gaskell as a partnership because IMO they are a proper halfback partnership, and complement each other well (which is after all what a successful partnership does).

Has anyone read Brown's interview in League Weekly this week? It's well worth a read. Based on what he has said in it Gaskell is the dogs whatsits, and his partnership with Lomax the top dog's whatsists.

Re: Gaskells contract : Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:26 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

It was indeed early on. As I said, it was when we first realised we would be without Pryce and Eastmond. And as I also said, I think, the article in the St Helens Star quoted Simmons as saying that McManus had asked him for names, he had provided them - including Hohaia, who he thought could do a job. But Simmons also said there 'wasn't much out there', which we know to be true subsequently. Seen any new Aussie/Kiwi halfbacks signed up lately? Wigan would have jumped at one if there was one to be had, surely? Instead, they nick one from Hull KR and partner him with Matty Smith - not on anyone's radar a few years back if memory serves.

I got the impression from the article in the local rag that Simmons did what was asked of him but as always the signings are down to McManus. McManus said as much himself at a fans forum I went to last season when he also admitted to getting the release of Gilmour wrong.

Josh Perry was signed during Potter's reign at the club. That was a big mistake IMO. I'm quite sure Potter was asked for names of props by McManus too and suggested Perry as one who could do a job. As it turns out he's been a bum signing but he could just as easily have been brilliant.

Gaskell and Lomax played throughout the 2011 season, and Simmons favoured them even when Eastmond and Pryce were available, although I am quite sure Simmons came under pressure to play Eastmond for even longer than he did given that Eastmond was supposed to be the bees knees. However, I don't think we have missed him at all but last season we did miss Lomax and Gaskell as a partnership because IMO they are a proper halfback partnership, and complement each other well (which is after all what a successful partnership does).

Has anyone read Brown's interview in League Weekly this week? It's well worth a read. Based on what he has said in it Gaskell is the dogs whatsits, and his partnership with Lomax the top dog's whatsists.

Yeah I read that article in rugby weekly not a bad write up

Re: Gaskells contract : Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:05 am  

Top Saint wrote:

We all know that you are not a big Wheeler fan, but even you cannot doubt his ability. It is only his injury record which lets him down. Sort that out and he is our best future option at 6.

I honestly have no idea how good a player Gary Wheeler is. I've seen him look relatively promising for half an hour against Wigan once, before getting injured. At centre he was largely anonymous and was playing when Saints were in pretty shocking form. He seemed to have a nice step on him, but did very little to cement his place in the side.

I don't have anything against him on a personal level, but the fact that I've no idea how good he is or what his best position is says it all when he's been in and around the first team for 5 years now.

Re: Gaskells contract : Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:31 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Gaskell and Lomax played throughout the 2011 season, and Simmons favoured them even when Eastmond and Pryce were available, although I am quite sure Simmons came under pressure to play Eastmond for even longer than he did given that Eastmond was supposed to be the bees knees. However, I don't think we have missed him at all but last season we did miss Lomax and Gaskell as a partnership because IMO they are a proper halfback partnership, and complement each other well (which is after all what a successful partnership does).

Has anyone read Brown's interview in League Weekly this week? It's well worth a read. Based on what he has said in it Gaskell is the dogs whatsits, and his partnership with Lomax the top dog's whatsists.

I'm not sure. Aside from his many injuries, Eastmond was very much in the bad books after messing us about before declaring his his union move and then being banned for gesturing to the crowd. He did have a couple of games at full back, where I wondered if he was going to give us a good run to end his contract, but Wello was re-instated when he was fit again.
Obviously, having a working partnership of Lomax and Gaskell made it easier for us to be firm with Eastmond.

I just remeber Pryce being injured for 90% of that season. He made his comeback against Catalans, when he set up a try for Shenton and then, according to the heritage site, played the following 6 games at standoff, including that infurating CC semi against Wigan, before dropping out of the squad again, presumebly injured.

Re: Gaskells contract : Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:33 am  

Offside Monkey wrote:

I'm not sure. Aside from his many injuries, Eastmond was very much in the bad books after messing us about before declaring his his union move and then being banned for gesturing to the crowd.

the bit that really did my nut in with eastmond going was the timing, it wasnt to long after we let matty smith (a great player IMO) that all the union talk started to come out, besides the not giving back to the club and all that and EVERYTHING else that has been said about the lad THAT messed us around if he said a bit earlier we could have kept Matty and had a quality 7 at the club ready to go

Re: Gaskells contract : Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:44 pm  

feilds of knowsleyRD wrote:

the bit that really did my nut in with eastmond going was the timing, it wasnt to long after we let matty smith (a great player IMO) that all the union talk started to come out, besides the not giving back to the club and all that and EVERYTHING else that has been said about the lad THAT messed us around if he said a bit earlier we could have kept Matty and had a quality 7 at the club ready to go

I agree except that to me that is where the club started it's faults at halfback. Not only did we let smith go, we let Long go and then tried to negotiate with Eastmond.

I'm sorry but in an industry were the talent is key, giving the talent all the cards, then you have nothing to negotiate with. If we still had not told Smith and Long to take a running jump, then When Eastmond was negotiating we could have tried harder to seal him to a longer term deal, had he stuck to 2 years, then we could have offered Smith or Long something to reduce the impact.

Re: Gaskells contract : Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:20 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

I agree except that to me that is where the club started it's faults at halfback. Not only did we let smith go, we let Long go and then tried to negotiate with Eastmond.

I'm sorry but in an industry were the talent is key, giving the talent all the cards, then you have nothing to negotiate with. If we still had not told Smith and Long to take a running jump, then When Eastmond was negotiating we could have tried harder to seal him to a longer term deal, had he stuck to 2 years, then we could have offered Smith or Long something to reduce the impact.

Yup, Eastmond was streets ahead of Smith and the obvious choice to hold on to, but allowing Smith to leave when we didn't have Eastmond tied down was poor form. I'm not sure whether that was a simple bad decision or that we were out manouvered by Eastmond's agent.

Re: Gaskells contract : Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:33 pm  

We have at least two half backs better than Smith.

Re: Gaskells contract : Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:10 pm  

McClennan wrote:

We have at least two half backs better than Smith.

I'm not going to debate that as I think it's too early to say that at the moment, but even if we all agreed on that, it does not change the shambles at halfback for the last 3 years.

Re: Gaskells contract : Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:55 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Has anyone read Brown's interview in League Weekly this week? It's well worth a read. Based on what he has said in it Gaskell is the dogs whatsits, and his partnership with Lomax the top dog's whatsists.

This is the same Nathan Brown who said that Greg Eden was the next Billy Slater.