Re: hohaia...just going through the motions. : Mon May 28, 2012 8:39 pm  

St pete wrote: He was due to play there but wello missed the start and makinson couldn't put 3 games together. That fact he was SIGNED as a stand off by Royce Simmons says it all. He might not have played there to start but he was SIGNED as a stand off as both lance and Royce have stated. If he was moved to any other postion is still don't hide the fact he was brought on as a halfback. Fact! He may well have been signed to play half back (I note that it is half back and not stand off in the article you quote, which by my knowledge would mean scrum half in Aus, not stand off), but even when Wellens came back, he was not PLAYED at 6. His selection at 6 has been solely down to the new management team and has nothing to do with Simmons. Simmons never PLAYED him at 6 despite having plenty of opportunity to do so. You still haven't provided any evidence that Simmons preferred him at 6 by actually PLAYING him there. Oh and by the way, here is a direct quote from Potter that Soliola was signed to play centre http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/extra/6601 ... gn-soliola "Sia will add size, speed and athleticism to our back line and will be a great addition to our squad next year," said coach Mick Potter.

St pete wrote: He was due to play there but wello missed the start and makinson couldn't put 3 games together. That fact he was SIGNED as a stand off by Royce Simmons says it all. He might not have played there to start but he was SIGNED as a stand off as both lance and Royce have stated. If he was moved to any other postion is still don't hide the fact he was brought on as a halfback. Fact! He may well have been signed to play half back (I note that it is half back and not stand off in the article you quote, which by my knowledge would mean scrum half in Aus, not stand off), but even when Wellens came back, he was not PLAYED at 6. His selection at 6 has been solely down to the new management team and has nothing to do with Simmons. Simmons never PLAYED him at 6 despite having plenty of opportunity to do so. You still haven't provided any evidence that Simmons preferred him at 6 by actually PLAYING him there. Oh and by the way, here is a direct quote from Potter that Soliola was signed to play centre http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/extra/6601 ... gn-soliola "Sia will add size, speed and athleticism to our back line and will be a great addition to our squad next year," said coach Mick Potter.

Re: hohaia...just going through the motions. : Mon May 28, 2012 8:42 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

It was a poor signing and I don't buy that Royce did not ask for him.

Royce didn't ask for him specifically. Royce said in the press what happened. A halfback was needed due to Eastmond leaving and Royce was asked for suggestions. Royce at the time said there were very few halfbacks around but he suggested Hohaia as the best available. We need to bear in mind that we don't know the financial implications of any choices, what budget was suggested, the quality of halfbacks available, the number of them, whether any quality halfbacks would be interested in playing over here from the NRL or whether any were contractually available over here. Royce simply recommended Hohaia as the best available - not necessarily the best or indeed the only.

Keeping Leon might not have been an option. Remember, Leon said he wanted to stay at Saints but only if the price was right. He may have been asking more than we were willing to pay for what had been a liability through injury for 18 months. I don't think it would have been wise to take that risk.

The mistake has been for Rush to persist in playing Hohaia at six regardless of (a) his performance and (b) the opposition. Gaskell has experience of Wigan, both of beating them and of being pounded by them. He has shown hismelf capable of quick thinking, skill and hard work, and he was building a partnership with Lomax. They should be given another chance now. They should have been given another chance after the last Wigan debacle.

Re: hohaia...just going through the motions. : Mon May 28, 2012 8:50 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Royce didn't ask for him specifically. Royce said in the press what happened. A halfback was needed due to Eastmond leaving and Royce was asked for suggestions. Royce at the time said there were very few halfbacks around but he suggested Hohaia as the best available. We need to bear in mind that we don't know the financial implications of any choices, what budget was suggested, the quality of halfbacks available, the number of them, whether any quality halfbacks would be interested in playing over here from the NRL or whether any were contractually available over here. Royce simply recommended Hohaia as the best available - not necessarily the best or indeed the only.

Keeping Leon might not have been an option. Remember, Leon said he wanted to stay at Saints but only if the price was right. He may have been asking more than we were willing to pay for what had been a liability through injury for 18 months. I don't think it would have been wise to take that risk.

The mistake has been for Rush to persist in playing Hohaia at six regardless of (a) his performance and (b) the opposition. Gaskell has experience of Wigan, both of beating them and of being pounded by them. He has shown hismelf capable of quick thinking, skill and hard work, and he was building a partnership with Lomax. They should be given another chance now. They should have been given another chance after the last Wigan debacle.

Catalan blew us out the water with what they offered pryce and also gave him 3yr deal and we only wanted to give him 2yrs.

Re: hohaia...just going through the motions. : Mon May 28, 2012 8:56 pm  

I'm not sure that Pryce would be a much better option currently. He's performing well at Catalans as he's gone back to what he does best, a runner with an organising half back alongside him.

Re: hohaia...just going through the motions. : Mon May 28, 2012 8:57 pm  

St pete wrote:

Catalan blew us out the water with what they offered pryce and also gave him 3yr deal and we only wanted to give him 2yrs.

On the strength of his performances (or lack thereof) in the eighteen months leading up to his exit I wouldn't have offered him ANY contract. The fact that Pryce has played reasonably well for Catalans shouldn't detract from the situation as we understood it at the time - he was on a big contract and yet we couldn't be certain he'd play half-a-dozen games at anywhere approaching previous form, much less half a season.

Re: hohaia...just going through the motions. : Mon May 28, 2012 8:59 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

On the strength of his performances (or lack thereof) in the eighteen months leading up to his exit I wouldn't have offered him ANY contract. The fact that Pryce has played reasonably well for Catalans shouldn't detract from the situation as we understood it at the time - he was on a big contract and yet we couldn't be certain he'd play half-a-dozen games at anywhere approaching previous form, much less half a season.

Agreed

Re: hohaia...just going through the motions. : Mon May 28, 2012 9:22 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

If they try tio rectify it someone other than gaskell is going to have to make way. Lance. Wellens. Lomax. Kicking gaskell out seams the easy option to keep the peace as he will have a smaller voice than the other three. That is why bar fans turning on players and forcing the coaches hands it will stay as it is and we will trunddle through the season with our pack and roby doing enough to fend off most teams.

I can't believe Saints have arrived at the point where established names dictate selection (not to mention dubious verbal guarantees of an unchallenged period in the halves - as the story went regarding Hohaia). If this is in any way true we might as well ask the ghost of Eric Ashton to return to the club.

I mean, if Gaskell IS being frozen out purely to accommodate the non-performing "old guard" our problems are only just beginning. If Gaskell isn't re-instated next game (barring injury) serious questions need to be raised. If we were to LOSE Gaskell I'd regard it as the greatest travesty since the boardroom shambles leading up to McManus' arrival.

Re: hohaia...just going through the motions. : Tue May 29, 2012 7:36 am  

Mugwump wrote:

I mean, if Gaskell IS being frozen out purely to accommodate the non-performing "old guard" our problems are only just beginning. If Gaskell isn't re-instated next game (barring injury) serious questions need to be raised. If we were to LOSE Gaskell I'd regard it as the greatest travesty since the boardroom shambles leading up to McManus' arrival.

I couldn't agree wjith you more. We could get 10 years out of the kid who is without doubt the best Stand Off at the club at the moment. It would be a very poor decision indeed and I would be very disheartened!!

Re: hohaia...just going through the motions. : Tue May 29, 2012 7:59 am  

Mugwump wrote:

I can't believe Saints have arrived at the point where established names dictate selection (not to mention dubious verbal guarantees of an unchallenged period in the halves - as the story went regarding Hohaia). If this is in any way true we might as well ask the ghost of Eric Ashton to return to the club.

I mean, if Gaskell IS being frozen out purely to accommodate the non-performing "old guard" our problems are only just beginning. If Gaskell isn't re-instated next game (barring injury) serious questions need to be raised. If we were to LOSE Gaskell I'd regard it as the greatest travesty since the boardroom shambles leading up to McManus' arrival.

I am not advocating this as a policy, but it seams a reasonable assumption, given the fact that Lance is still getting pick despite the coaches having seen enough to remove almost every half back duty from him.

From the coaches point of view it's about stablising what was becoming a dangerous situation for Saints and they have done that. Let us remember only Wigan have beaten us so far since they have come in.

That level of stability compared to the slide down the table that we started with is preferable. These coaches cannot really build a team, to what end can they build, they have what 12 games left and then they can hand over the reigns to the man who will then build a team he wants. If they do anything in the mean time that impacts on that, well they still need a job after these 12 games. I would suggest if Brown has said that x and y is no longer required, then we may see more movement. So lance could drop to FB and allow gaskell in, if the message comes that a Brown wants that for next year.

But as he is the huddersfield coach it will be difficult to pass that message on without breaching his current contract with Huddersfield.

Re: hohaia...just going through the motions. : Tue May 29, 2012 8:21 am  

bewareshadows wrote:

I am not advocating this as a policy, but it seams a reasonable assumption, given the fact that Lance is still getting pick despite the coaches having seen enough to remove almost every half back duty from him.

From the coaches point of view it's about stablising what was becoming a dangerous situation for Saints and they have done that. Let us remember only Wigan have beaten us so far since they have come in.

That level of stability compared to the slide down the table that we started with is preferable. These coaches cannot really build a team, to what end can they build, they have what 12 games left and then they can hand over the reigns to the man who will then build a team he wants. If they do anything in the mean time that impacts on that, well they still need a job after these 12 games. I would suggest if Brown has said that x and y is no longer required, then we may see more movement. So lance could drop to FB and allow gaskell in, if the message comes that a Brown wants that for next year.

But as he is the huddersfield coach it will be difficult to pass that message on without breaching his current contract with Huddersfield.

Brown really shouldn't have ANY input to Saints decision-making for any number of reasons - not least of which is the perfectly reasonable argument that he would be acting against the interests of Huddersfield, gaming the competition etc.

That said, it would be tempting career suicide not intervening if the effects of any decision (such as disenfranchising Gaskell to such an extent that he decides to go) could impact upon his time at Saints.

In many ways he's caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea. And yet he can't afford to take the chance of arriving in a disaster zone next season and so you can bet some exchange of ideas will be taking place. Indeed, who's to say they already aren't and it's Brown's decision to put Gaskell on ice indefinitely? I mean, I think it's unlikely because Gaskell's too big of a talent for any SL club to let slip through their fingers - especially as good backs in this league are hard to find and even harder to grow.