Re: Gaskell : Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:00 pm  

bewareshadows wrote: Sorry got to take you up on that one. Makinson did Naff all??? I thought he was most improved since his spell out. He really ran the ball in hard just in the style that Ade has been doing. Also unlike Ade he is much more solid and dependable with the ball coming down. I've no doubt Ade will get more games this year, but I thought there was a marked improvement in Makinson's returning of the ball. Also the stats don't bear out your view on Makinson either.. Almost the same number of carries Similar average gain Same number of tackles less missed tackles etc as Backrow says Stats are the predator of the common troll, I'd say they are also the predator of the throw away remark. viewtopic.php?f=18&t=546605&tsmp=1363631946 I did think that Makinson was more improved before I saw either this thread or the stats thread. viewtopic.php?f=18&t=546453&tsmp=1363632264&start=40 So his stats show he was steady and basically the same as Gardner. Not exactly going out and making a point is it. Naff all maybe harsh but he certainly never stood out.

bewareshadows wrote: Sorry got to take you up on that one. Makinson did Naff all??? I thought he was most improved since his spell out. He really ran the ball in hard just in the style that Ade has been doing. Also unlike Ade he is much more solid and dependable with the ball coming down. I've no doubt Ade will get more games this year, but I thought there was a marked improvement in Makinson's returning of the ball. Also the stats don't bear out your view on Makinson either.. Almost the same number of carries Similar average gain Same number of tackles less missed tackles etc as Backrow says Stats are the predator of the common troll, I'd say they are also the predator of the throw away remark. viewtopic.php?f=18&t=546605&tsmp=1363631946 I did think that Makinson was more improved before I saw either this thread or the stats thread. viewtopic.php?f=18&t=546453&tsmp=1363632264&start=40 So his stats show he was steady and basically the same as Gardner. Not exactly going out and making a point is it. Naff all maybe harsh but he certainly never stood out.

Re: Gaskell : Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:02 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

One eyed's dig at a Saints player should really bring a caution from the mods IMO because that is bringing a player's reputation into disrepute.

Are you being serious ?

Grow up, what a horrible individual you must be.

Re: Gaskell : Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:04 pm  

One eyed monster wrote:

Are you being serious ?
Grow up, what a horrible individual you must be.

I think you must be talking about yourself because it wasn't me who implied things about Gaskell and alcohol intake, etc. That was you. Therefore, it would be you who must be the horrible individual.

Re: Gaskell : Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:05 pm  

[quote="One eyed monster"]So his stats show he was steady and basically the same as Gardner. Not exactly going out and making a point is it. Naff all maybe harsh but he certainly never stood out.[/quote
Well, when he scored his try he certainly stood out.

Re: Gaskell : Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:13 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

At Saints the senior players are never dropped. Never. Not since Simmons dropped Perry anyway. And we know how that worked out. There is nothing internet message board gossip about that: it's as plain as the nose on your face.

I assume you think Wello (as captain and a senior player) will be straight back in at full back then? Or do you think someone has made a compelling argument to take that spot?

That's what we need from Gaskell - a compelling argument. He hasn't provided one. I've said a million times I hope he does, but he doesn't seem to have it in him.

SaintsFan wrote:

Well, when he (Makinson) scored his try he certainly stood out.

Lance has 2 tries in 2 games since he returned to the halves - does the same argument apply, or should he be dropped for Gaskell to return?

Re: Gaskell : Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:14 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

I think you must be talking about yourself because it wasn't me who implied things about Gaskell and alcohol intake, etc. That was you. Therefore, it would be you who must be the horrible individual.

I never mentioned anything at all regarding Lee Gaskells alcohol intake, you really do have a poblem dont you ?

Everybody is on the same train here, we all want our players be the best and win everything. I have no problem with Gaskell playing if he performs. You seem obsessed with the lad and paranoid with anyone else that doesent believe he is geat (including the club).

If you wanna discuss Saints then fine, however dont write back being catty or trying to cause a argument because i simply will not entertain it!

Back on topic, I actually think he will play on Friday.

Re: Gaskell : Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:16 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

I can tell when I've made a point with you as you always resort to either insults or sarcasm.

Hohaia was brought over here to play at 6. It is very easy to make a young bloke a scapegoat or even just drop him rather than face the challenge of dropping from the position the Kiwi your boss paid a fortune to bring over for four years, even though he really isn't a good 6.

At Saints the senior players are never dropped. Never. Not since Simmons dropped Perry anyway. And we know how that worked out. There is nothing internet message board gossip about that: it's as plain as the nose on your face.

Surely you can't be happy with Gaskells performances this year?

Re: Gaskell : Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:18 pm  

One eyed monster wrote:

Back on topic, I actually think he will play on Friday.

Hope so, we shouldn't entertain moving Lomax out of full back or Turner out of the centres IMO. I'd like to see Gaskell alongside Wilkin and Lance to 9.

Re: Gaskell : Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:19 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

That is naive, frankly.

And yourcontinued insistence that Gaskell is not picked for a reason other than his playing ability and contribution to the team is ridiculous, frankly.

Lance was signed two coaches ago. The idea that Brown plays him for any other reason than what he can do on the field is strange. Gaskell got the nod in the matches at he beginning of the year and now brown has decided to try something different - with marked improvement.

I'd play Gaskell, but the fact Nathan Brown disagrees with me doesn't lead me to the conclusion that there's a conspiracy afoot. This, combined with things like your exaggerated pro Makinson/anti Meli stance, confirms that you, in fact, are as guilty as anyone of placing favouritism of certain players ahead of reason based around on-the-pitch evidence.

Brown's having a good tinker and it's all starting to go in the right direction.

Re: Gaskell : Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:21 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

Hope so, we shouldn't entertain moving Lomax out of full back or Turner out of the centres IMO. I'd like to see Gaskell alongside Wilkin and Lance to 9.

I doubt that'll happen, NB can see how much better we are with J-Lo at fb. I'd be astounded if welli goes straight back there!