Re: Luke Walsh : Tue May 07, 2013 1:15 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

At Saints he will have Lomax from 1 and Lance at 6 so has little to no need to run at all. Just organise and kick.

Saints fans aren't usually ones for allowing the scrum half to not take on the line. I expect him to be booed off after two games if he doesn't. It would be a bit hypocrticial if he were not.

This signing has big warning signs all over it. If it turns out to be a shocking signing, the club can't say they weren't warned. On the kicking game, if you read the press about him in Australia, it seems the only kicking he can do is the short kicking game, specifically lofted kicks to the corner and grubbers. Andrew Johns amongst others has been very critical of his positional kicking. I read one comment somewhere saying that crickets all across Australia were delighted by the news he was leaving, as they tended to bear the brunt of his passing game.

They need to get this right.

Re: Luke Walsh : Tue May 07, 2013 1:33 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Saints fans aren't usually ones for allowing the scrum half to not take on the line. I expect him to be booed off after two games if he doesn't. It would be a bit hypocrticial if he were not.

This signing has big warning signs all over it. If it turns out to be a shocking signing, the club can't say they weren't warned. On the kicking game, if you read the press about him in Australia, it seems the only kicking he can do is the short kicking game, specifically lofted kicks to the corner and grubbers. Andrew Johns amongst others has been very critical of his positional kicking. I read one comment somewhere saying that crickets all across Australia were delighted by the news he was leaving, as they tended to bear the brunt of his passing game.

They need to get this right.

YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME LAUGH...

we have to sign a 7 - because its obvious we need one (and we do) but the club identify an option and lo and behold he isn't good enough. Quite who would be I don't really know - I'm sure that if we had signed a Thurston / Cronk half back pairing it wouldn't be good enough because Thurston is too old and Cronk isn't fast enough!

I struggle to see who is good enough. would somebody please enlighten me.

Re: Luke Walsh : Tue May 07, 2013 1:59 pm  

Gaskell isn't good enough for the #7 job, we don't have anyone else on the books up to it either, and there simply isn't anyone else around we could realistically be signing any better instead. He may or may not be brilliant and may or may not work out for us, but he's the best possible available option we have and so his signing will do fine for me.

I look forward to all the posts next year by all the usual suspect numpties bemoaning Saints' continued decline and lack of ambition because he's not as good as Longy or Goulding were in their prime and wouldn't have made a '96, '00 or '06 team and so isn't good enough for us now, or isn't a 17 year old kid from Thatto Heath. Idiots.

Re: Luke Walsh : Tue May 07, 2013 2:28 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

At Saints he will have Lomax from 1 and Lance at 6 so has little to no need to run at all. Just organise and kick.

That's what I'm clinging onto really.

Re: Luke Walsh : Tue May 07, 2013 2:36 pm  

steve wrote:

YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME LAUGH...

we have to sign a 7 - because its obvious we need one (and we do) but the club identify an option and lo and behold he isn't good enough.

Where have I said he isn't good enough? I've not seen enough of him to comment on that and I've not. All I've put is that the volume and specifics of the criticism of his ability and performances are a concern. You can't sign any player just because you need one, and lets face it, if we've persuaded him to give up his Panthers deal and outbid Hull, he certainly won't be cheap.

Re: Luke Walsh : Tue May 07, 2013 2:42 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Saints fans aren't usually ones for allowing the scrum half to not take on the line. I expect him to be booed off after two games if he doesn't. It would be a bit hypocrticial if he were not.

This signing has big warning signs all over it. If it turns out to be a shocking signing, the club can't say they weren't warned. On the kicking game, if you read the press about him in Australia, it seems the only kicking he can do is the short kicking game, specifically lofted kicks to the corner and grubbers. Andrew Johns amongst others has been very critical of his positional kicking. I read one comment somewhere saying that crickets all across Australia were delighted by the news he was leaving, as they tended to bear the brunt of his passing game.

They need to get this right.

Goulding wasn't exactly prolific in taking on the line; more of a passing, kicking & organising No7. And yet he never seemed to struggle winning the fans over...

Re: Luke Walsh : Tue May 07, 2013 2:45 pm  

Northampton_Saint wrote:

Gaskell isn't good enough for the #7 job, we don't have anyone else on the books up to it either, and there simply isn't anyone else around we could realistically be signing any better instead. He may or may not be brilliant and may or may not work out for us, but he's the best possible available option we have and so his signing will do fine for me.

I look forward to all the posts next year by all the usual suspect numpties bemoaning Saints' continued decline and lack of ambition because he's not as good as Longy or Goulding were in their prime and wouldn't have made a '96, '00 or '06 team and so isn't good enough for us now, or isn't a 17 year old kid from Thatto Heath. Idiots.

I agree entirely. It would be far better to make a den by putting a sheet over the kitchen table and sit there pretending everything is great.

Re: Luke Walsh : Tue May 07, 2013 4:14 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

I agree entirely. It would be far better to make a den by putting a sheet over the kitchen table and sit there pretending everything is great.

I'm under there now.

Re: Luke Walsh : Tue May 07, 2013 4:18 pm  

Northampton_Saint wrote:

Gaskell isn't good enough for the #7 job, we don't have anyone else on the books up to it either, and there simply isn't anyone else around we could realistically be signing any better instead. He may or may not be brilliant and may or may not work out for us, but he's the best possible available option we have and so his signing will do fine for me.

I look forward to all the posts next year by all the usual suspect numpties bemoaning Saints' continued decline and lack of ambition because he's not as good as Longy or Goulding were in their prime and wouldn't have made a '96, '00 or '06 team and so isn't good enough for us now, or isn't a 17 year old kid from Thatto Heath. Idiots.

You mean you expect us to be worse next year, because if we improve significantly no one will have anything to moan about.

Re: Luke Walsh : Tue May 07, 2013 4:44 pm  

If Walsh does the kicking and organising, and Lance and Lomax do the running, I think we'll go alright.

I still think Laffranchi could do a good job at second row for us, but he's done nowhere near to deserve his extra year.