Re: Gaskell : Thu May 24, 2012 9:59 am  

Gaskell is already better than Lance Hohaia. Lance's continued presence in the side pains me greatly. Especially when you throw in Wello continuing at fullback.

Re: Gaskell : Thu May 24, 2012 11:33 am  

(Saint) wrote:

Not much to add to the thread really except to say that I'd be disgusted if we allowed Gaskell to sign for one of our rivals.

A long term deal for a mediocre, out of position Kiwi approaching 30 is bad enough without losing a player who has the potential to be your 6 for the next decade because of it.

Fortunately I don't think Saints are stupid enough to let the lad go and I think they recognise his long-term potential.

We've got a good record in letting kids go who aren't going to make it, there aren't really any who have gone on to prove us wrong, some are gOing on to carve out a reasonable career, without setting the world alight. The word seems to be that brown wants to bring in a new half for next season, so gaskells future looks pretty bleak, we can't keep him to play in the reserves forever, if he really doesn't figure in tge clubs long term plans, he should be allowed to go and try elsewhere, if he turns into a star then he is one who got away. We will have to live with that.

Re: Gaskell : Thu May 24, 2012 11:42 am  

SomersetSaint wrote:

We've got a good record in letting kids go who aren't going to make it, there aren't really any who have gone on to prove us wrong, some are gOing on to carve out a reasonable career, without setting the world alight. The word seems to be that brown wants to bring in a new half for next season, so gaskells future looks pretty bleak, we can't keep him to play in the reserves forever, if he really doesn't figure in tge clubs long term plans, he should be allowed to go and try elsewhere, if he turns into a star then he is one who got away. We will have to live with that.

Gaskell will be another Lee Briers if he's allowed to leave.

And for anyone who says we made the right decision releasing Briers, there are still people clamouring on 'rumours' threads for us to sign him aged 34 because he has rare qualities and that's how I see Gaskell, too, given a chance.

Losing Gaskell to accommodate Lance Hohaia would be right up there with the Pie Eaters getting rid of Sean Long to sign Lee Hansen.

Re: Gaskell : Thu May 24, 2012 11:47 am  

(Saint) wrote:

Gaskell will be another Lee Briers if he's allowed to leave.

And for anyone who says we made the right decision releasing Briers, there are still people clamouring on 'rumours' threads for us to sign him aged 34 because he has rare qualities and that's how I see Gaskell, too, given a chance.

Losing Gaskell to accommodate Lance Hohaia would be right up there with the Pie Eaters getting rid of Sean Long to sign Lee Hansen.

So you'd have kept briers instead of long, or Martyn or goulding or pryce? I wouldn't. He'd have been third choice for years, never getting a game. Or if we had kept him, we wouldn't have signed long, and we'd have had many mediocre seasons, just like Warrington.

Re: Gaskell : Thu May 24, 2012 11:59 am  

Is Lance just not playing to his potential yet??
If this is pretty much what we have signed theres no way he will be staying for his full contract.

Re: Gaskell : Thu May 24, 2012 12:58 pm  

The rumours I'm hearing of Gaskell being given permission to talk to Wigan and Hull are worrying. He's a good player, better than anything we have at the club.

I'm prepared to give Brown a chance though, he's shown a decent abililty in squad building at the Giants, so we can't really complain. There is also the possibility that he's after signing a halfback because he's shifting Lomax to fullback and Hohaia to the bench or the NRL?

Re: Gaskell : Thu May 24, 2012 1:05 pm  

SomersetSaint wrote:

We've got a good record in letting kids go who aren't going to make it,

That doesn't mean we are infallible. If we can make as big a mistake as appointing Royce Simmons as our coach then it's not difficult to envision another mistake being made elsewhere on personnel. Saints is after all run by humans and we can get things wrong.

Re: Gaskell : Thu May 24, 2012 3:09 pm  

(Saint) wrote:

Gaskell will be another Lee Briers if he's allowed to leave.

And for anyone who says we made the right decision releasing Briers, there are still people clamouring on 'rumours' threads for us to sign him aged 34 because he has rare qualities and that's how I see Gaskell, too, given a chance.

Losing Gaskell to accommodate Lance Hohaia would be right up there with the Pie Eaters getting rid of Sean Long to sign Lee Hansen.

As said above, letting Briers go and signing Sean Long was one of the deals of SL imo...Long was a far better half back than Briers and Briers wouldnt have got into a Saints team in front of Long, Martyn, Hooper or Pryce for me so wasnt really a great loss

I believe Gaskell has the potential to be a brilliant half back, but as shown at the start of the season, the pressure of running a top SL team alongside a fellow rookie in Lomax was too much for him to cope with just yet. Since Hohaia has moved to 6, a lot of the organising has been done for Lomax and that is why we are starting to see more of his best imo and therefore Gaskell would maybe benefit with going out on a short term loan to gain more experience with a lower club (like O'Brien @ Warrington & Mellor @ Wigan did). this would further his first team experience and come back challenging to get in and make the 6 spot his own...I would have no problems with Gaskell playing at 6 if he is ready, but I think he needs just a bit more work to be our first choice stand off

Re: Gaskell : Thu May 24, 2012 3:21 pm  

Ok I'm going to go against the grain here, but I don't see Long and Briers as mutually exclusive. I don't think Breirs was asking for silly money at the time. As for Hooper and Pryce, if you gave me the option of briers over those 2, then yes I'd bite your hand off. Briers for Martyn is a more tricky swap though and it's true that Briers , Long and MArtyn don't all fit in the team together. Although it would be interesting to know how many games Long and Martyn played together as both has injury periods.

Scully had to cover for long periods at halfback. It's more likely that Wellens would be the one to be excluded at the price of having Martyn, Long, Briers in the team together. But then none of those 3 where renound for tackling.

In the end the way it went is the way it went and we benefited and Briers to my mind lost out. Although he is reaping the rewards of his patience now.

Re: Gaskell : Thu May 24, 2012 3:52 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

I don't think Breirs was asking for silly money at the time.....

Indeed - according to the man himself (overheard down Thatto Heath clubhouse after a few beers many a time apparently) Saints refused to give him a pay rise above his youth team money at all which is why he left in the first place. Whatever the reason, he would have been surplus to requirements at Saints until about 3 or 4 years ago and so we made absolutely the right choice at the time.

The fact is that Briers being such a top class SL player now is a sad sign of the times. 10 years ago we had better halves than him in the team, and there were a fair few other halves knocking about in SL better as well. Now that those other players are all gone though he just stands head and shoulders above most of the younger talent in the league that just isn't of the same calibre.