Re: Walsh Class : Thu May 15, 2014 10:19 am  

St pete wrote:

Lee Gaskell would complement Walsh pretty well.

Not sure he would have done actually. Walsh needs more of a running half to complement him IMO, and I'm not sure that is what Gaskell would have developed into.

Re: Walsh Class : Thu May 15, 2014 10:20 am  

St pete wrote:

Gaskell has a poor attitude and that's a fact. That is the only reason he's not at saints and has nothing to do with no ability.

So Wheeler has an attitude problem and Gaskell had an attitude problem?

Re: Walsh Class : Thu May 15, 2014 10:35 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Not sure he would have done actually. Walsh needs more of a running half to complement him IMO, and I'm not sure that is what Gaskell would have developed into.

He was a genuine 2nd receiver though. He skill was linking with the backs. Lockyer was the classic player of this mould, Barrett similar IIRC. They're rare, because halves with passing/kicking ability tend to get pushed to play scrum half as opposed stand off.

Re: Walsh Class : Thu May 15, 2014 10:45 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

So Wheeler has an attitude problem and Gaskell had an attitude problem?

I've never said wheeler as a bad attitude.

Gaskell expects to play week in and week out and thinks he beyond being dropped when playing poor.

Re: Walsh Class : Thu May 15, 2014 10:46 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Not sure he would have done actually. Walsh needs more of a running half to complement him IMO, and I'm not sure that is what Gaskell would have developed into.

Gaskell is at his best when he takes the line on. He often made breaks but also had the pressure of leading us round the park as lomax was also a runner.

Re: Walsh Class : Thu May 15, 2014 11:44 am  

I still to this day cannot fathom why we could not shape Gaskell up. Whether it was an arm round the shoulder or a volley of abuse each week. We should have been able to manage him.

I agree that come the end of the year he would maybe had to leave us, but the mid-season dumping when we were in dire straights in the halves was just mind numbing.

If Bradford go down? Would you have him back? I would. As a third half or a 6 he would be far superior in this team than the one he left.

Re: Walsh Class : Thu May 15, 2014 12:23 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

I still to this day cannot fathom why we could not shape Gaskell up. Whether it was an arm round the shoulder or a volley of abuse each week. We should have been able to manage him.

I agree that come the end of the year he would maybe had to leave us, but the mid-season dumping when we were in dire straights in the halves was just mind numbing.

If Bradford go down? Would you have him back? I would. As a third half or a 6 he would be far superior in this team than the one he left.

I'm told Royce Simmons tried every way possible with Gaskell. Arm around him, hair dryer etc but gave up in the end.


I'd have him back for his playing ability, he's English and a halfback so fits the bill but no way he's coming back.

Re: Walsh Class : Thu May 15, 2014 12:27 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

He was a genuine 2nd receiver though. He skill was linking with the backs. Lockyer was the classic player of this mould, Barrett similar IIRC. They're rare, because halves with passing/kicking ability tend to get pushed to play scrum half as opposed stand off.

Good points.

It was a shame we didn't have the chance of watching him develop within a good team, which we now are. I'm still mystified as to why he was let go. 'Attitude' isn't a good enough reason for mine. I'd call that one a failure on the part of the coaching staff.

Re: Walsh Class : Thu May 15, 2014 12:29 pm  

St pete wrote:

I'm told Royce Simmons tried every way possible with Gaskell. Arm around him, hair dryer etc but gave up in the end.

Gaskell was dropped after Simmons was sacked. I rather think Rush decided Gaskell's fate, not Simmons, just as Rush decided Smith's fate (and Rush has admitted in print to that being an error).

Re: Walsh Class : Thu May 15, 2014 12:32 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Good points.

It was a shame we didn't have the chance of watching him develop within a good team, which we now are. I'm still mystified as to why he was let go. 'Attitude' isn't a good enough reason for mine. I'd call that one a failure on the part of the coaching staff.

Look at the facts. Potter, Royce, rush and Brown was all reluctant in the end to play him. Something not right there. He then gets a loan to Salford who then didn't take him on a deal.

He's then off contract and only the bulls take him.