Re: Nathan Brown on Lance Hohaia : Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:05 am  

Hohaia never made anywhere close to the number of mistakes he is right now in the NRL. To me he looks like he's still struggling to come to terms with the position, his teammates and the gameplan. That will all come - in time. But demanding that he be an effective and consistent primary playmaker is pure fantasyland. Hohaia is an attacking counterpoint and works best as such.

He isn't a natural scrum half but that's where I'd play him (it's noticeable that Brown mentioned that role in the lead up) with Gaskell at six and Roby and Lomax alternating out of the dummy half (Roby shunting to LF when Lomax drops into nine).

This combination would give us the attacking flexibility to really break up the defence. And looking at the way Huddersfield set their attacking pivots I wouldn't be the least surprised if Brown runs with something similar.

For now we're just going to have to be patient with Hohaia. He's too good of a player to let this bad form carry on for long. But Rush and Co. have to give him something to work with. Lance can't take full responsibility for a team he has yet to get to grips with. And since Lomax isn't the most tactically minded player this means Gaskell has to play.

Re: Nathan Brown on Lance Hohaia : Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:52 am  

Lance never gets the credit for some of the passes he throws and his tackling of players above his weight puts some of our forwards to shame. If Roby stopped trying to win every game on his own maybe other players may see some of the ball.

Re: Nathan Brown on Lance Hohaia : Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:57 am  

roader wrote:

Lance never gets the credit for some of the passes he throws and his tackling of players above his weight puts some of our forwards to shame.

That's a good point. Was it 63 tackles he put in against Hull? That's a phenomenal amount of work. Which certainly puts to rest any claims he's here for an easy paycheck.

Re: Nathan Brown on Lance Hohaia : Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:58 am  

Hohaia is a good player, but I think he's taking time to adjust to the way we play and his position. He's already played 3 positions for us and has only just strung a few games together at 6. I think he'll turn out to be a good signing in the long run, we'll just have to be patient with him.

That doesn't hide the fact that I think we made a big blunder in releasing Leon Pryce, a naturally classy number 6 who hasn't picked up an injury this year.

Re: Nathan Brown on Lance Hohaia : Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:00 am  

Mugwump wrote:

That's a good point. Was it 63 tackles he put in against Hull? That's a phenomenal amount of work. Which certainly puts to rest any claims he's here for an easy paycheck.

To be fair, I don't think anyone has suggested he's come for a easy paycheck as he's certainly putting the effort in.

Re: Nathan Brown on Lance Hohaia : Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:13 am  

Mugwump wrote:

Hohaia never made anywhere close to the number of mistakes he is right now in the NRL. To me he looks like he's still struggling to come to terms with the position, his teammates and the gameplan. That will all come - in time. But demanding that he be an effective and consistent primary playmaker is pure fantasyland. Hohaia is an attacking counterpoint and works best as such.

He isn't a natural scrum half but that's where I'd play him (it's noticeable that Brown mentioned that role in the lead up) with Gaskell at six and Roby and Lomax alternating out of the dummy half (Roby shunting to LF when Lomax drops into nine).

This combination would give us the attacking flexibility to really break up the defence. And looking at the way Huddersfield set their attacking pivots I wouldn't be the least surprised if Brown runs with something similar.

For now we're just going to have to be patient with Hohaia. He's too good of a player to let this bad form carry on for long. But Rush and Co. have to give him something to work with. Lance can't take full responsibility for a team he has yet to get to grips with. And since Lomax isn't the most tactically minded player this means Gaskell has to play.

He did, hence his nickname "Howler"

Re: Nathan Brown on Lance Hohaia : Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:29 am  

Mugwump wrote:

Hohaia never made anywhere close to the number of mistakes he is right now in the NRL. To me he looks like he's still struggling to come to terms with the position, his teammates and the gameplan. That will all come - in time. But demanding that he be an effective and consistent primary playmaker is pure fantasyland. Hohaia is an attacking counterpoint and works best as such.

He isn't a natural scrum half but that's where I'd play him (it's noticeable that Brown mentioned that role in the lead up) with Gaskell at six and Roby and Lomax alternating out of the dummy half (Roby shunting to LF when Lomax drops into nine).

This combination would give us the attacking flexibility to really break up the defence. And looking at the way Huddersfield set their attacking pivots I wouldn't be the least surprised if Brown runs with something similar.

For now we're just going to have to be patient with Hohaia. He's too good of a player to let this bad form carry on for long. But Rush and Co. have to give him something to work with. Lance can't take full responsibility for a team he has yet to get to grips with. And since Lomax isn't the most tactically minded player this means Gaskell has to play.

He did make mistakes but usually waited till he was on his own line in a big game, Meli style.

The last few week has proved IMO that Gaskell's future at Saints is in doubt and for me he is highly over rated.

Re: Nathan Brown on Lance Hohaia : Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:42 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

He did, hence his nickname "Howler"

I said he didn't make this number of mistakes - not that he didn't make any mistakes.

Re: Nathan Brown on Lance Hohaia : Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:43 am  

Blobbynator wrote:

That doesn't hide the fact that I think we made a big blunder in releasing Leon Pryce, a naturally classy number 6 who hasn't picked up an injury this year.

It's only a blunder in hindsight. Let us not forget Pryce's form was hardly stellar when we let him go.

Re: Nathan Brown on Lance Hohaia : Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:45 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

However, I don't think Lance is poor. I just think he needs time to adjust to the position, which he hasn't played in a few years, to being over here and to playing for Saints. He's already had to deal with a change in coach, which is probably something he wasn't anticipating.

Well said.

Yesterday what he did well was the subtle and little-noticed plays - the unselfish stuff. Yes, he got bagged a few times trying to work a play, but I can live with that on the odd occassion.

Royce never got anything like a performance out of Hohaia, probably a combination of Hohaia being new to the club & having to get used to gameplays/players, and Royce not having an effective gameplan (and the team lacking cohesion & confidence as a result)

In the games since Rush/KC have had the reigns, Hohaia - playing at 6 - has put in a stormer against Leeds, a very good performance against Wire, been isolated against wi*an when Lomax went off early, and had one of those games against Widnes where the very visible stuff didn't come off (like many players in the second half, likely trying to do the showboating thing as Widnes had looked like conceding every time we got into their half in the 20-40 minutes period)

He's therefore played 4 games at stand off for Saints (since Royce left) and I think it's ridiculous to write him off as a stand off in that time - especially when he's put in two great performances against two of the best teams in the competition in those four games.

I'd rather wait another 10-12 games before I judge whether he's going to be a good enough No6 or not.

But, having watched Saints since 1984/5, I know how fond my fellow Saints fans are of piling into a player and creating a bogeyman out of them - something that seems to gather a momentum of its own and, over the years, has led to players losing all confidence and never reaching the heights they're capable of.