Re: O'Brien : Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:39 pm  

I would only thank Warrington and O'Brien for assisting our team. And if you look at it objectively he looked a far better player on the night against Salford than Lee Gaskell did. The fundamental difference is one lad says he still has a lot to learn whilst the other is of the mindset I will show Saints just what they are missing. Yes on the night against us he really did. Wello sidestepped him and left him for dead try scored, Gaskell arms flapping about in the aftermath I don't think he made a tackle all the game. Kicking if you give him time he is quite good, put a spotter on him and then you see a difference, talk about one eye on the man. I maintain he is the only player of whom I have heard senior players break ranks and talk about his inability to stick to any sort of structure and lack of preparation. Let him get his big money deal I will just be shocked if Leeds or Wigan will sign a turnstile. Let us hope our scrum half for next season works and Wheeler can finally get fit. Yes I know the last comment is hardly credible but we all know that lad is the real deal.

Re: O'Brien : Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:43 pm  

The thing is, he was terrible last night, but he was not that bad in recent weeks. So is it a case of us pulling him down to our level...

I'm not suggesting he was a permanent signing, but a lot were considering keeping him till season end.

I would not get rid over one game, and lets face it he is still our only half. Not our best half, but our only half.

Apart from him we have 3 fullbacks, 1 hooker and 1 2nd rower and a sicknote. None of which can really play halfback.


This is where Brown shoots himself in the foot. We all accept he has issues with player power, the old guard and injuries until recently. But when we got O'Brien. Why did we drop Wilkin from 7.

Wilkin was steady away at 7. Not spectacular. But rather than slot O'Brien at 6 we moved a whole selection of people about.

It's a bit like shuffling deckchairs on the titanic. But you can have a better view on the way down.

Lomax at 1 works.
Makinson and Meli on the wing work
Percival and Turner at centre works
Wilkin at 7
O'brien at 6
TP
Roby
Clough
Manu
Laffranchi
LMS

Walmsley
Greenwood
Thompson
Hand or Lance or Jones.

Gives us a hell of a lot more bulk. It ain't going to win SL, but it makes more sense than what we put out last night.

Re: O'Brien : Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:59 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

The thing is, he was terrible last night, but he was not that bad in recent weeks. So is it a case of us pulling him down to our level...

I'm not suggesting he was a permanent signing, but a lot were considering keeping him till season end.

I would not get rid over one game, and lets face it he is still our only half. Not our best half, but our only half.

Apart from him we have 3 fullbacks, 1 hooker and 1 2nd rower and a sicknote. None of which can really play halfback.


This is where Brown shoots himself in the foot. We all accept he has issues with player power, the old guard and injuries until recently. But when we got O'Brien. Why did we drop Wilkin from 7.

Wilkin was steady away at 7. Not spectacular. But rather than slot O'Brien at 6 we moved a whole selection of people about.

It's a bit like shuffling deckchairs on the titanic. But you can have a better view on the way down.

Lomax at 1 works.
Makinson and Meli on the wing work
Percival and Turner at centre works
Wilkin at 7
O'brien at 6
TP
Roby
Clough
Manu
Laffranchi
LMS

Walmsley
Greenwood
Thompson
Hand or Lance or Jones.

Gives us a hell of a lot more bulk. It ain't going to win SL, but it makes more sense than what we put out last night.

O'Brian has been poor in all his games so far. His hands are dreadful for a halfback. He drops the ball and his passes are poor. I think it might be a bit of us being so poor as well but that doesn't excuse dropping the ball and throwing poor passes.

It was a good idea to bring him but its not worked out.

Re: O'Brien : Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:14 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

The thing is, he was terrible last night, but he was not that bad in recent weeks. So is it a case of us pulling him down to our level...

I'm not suggesting he was a permanent signing, but a lot were considering keeping him till season end.

I would not get rid over one game, and lets face it he is still our only half. Not our best half, but our only half.

Apart from him we have 3 fullbacks, 1 hooker and 1 2nd rower and a sicknote. None of which can really play halfback.


This is where Brown shoots himself in the foot. We all accept he has issues with player power, the old guard and injuries until recently. But when we got O'Brien. Why did we drop Wilkin from 7.

Wilkin was steady away at 7. Not spectacular. But rather than slot O'Brien at 6 we moved a whole selection of people about.

It's a bit like shuffling deckchairs on the titanic. But you can have a better view on the way down.

Lomax at 1 works.
Makinson and Meli on the wing work
Percival and Turner at centre works
Wilkin at 7
O'brien at 6
TP
Roby
Clough
Manu
Laffranchi
LMS

Walmsley
Greenwood
Thompson
Hand or Lance or Jones.

Gives us a hell of a lot more bulk. It ain't going to win SL, but it makes more sense than what we put out last night.

I wonder why we didn't leave Wilkin at half back.

Re: O'Brien : Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:56 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

I wonder why we didn't leave Wilkin at half back.

I would have, I'd put him there now and keep him there for the remainder of the year.

Re: O'Brien : Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:00 pm  

St pete wrote:

I would have, I'd put him there now and keep him there for the remainder of the year.

That's what Brown said he was going to do.

But then again, whenever Brown says something, the opposite usually occurs.

Re: O'Brien : Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:50 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Ironic, really, when you think we once tolerated the likes of Longy, who is a long way from being an angel or easy to manage!

Exactly, exactly, EXACTLY!

That is what I was saying. Whoever made the call to get rid was stupid beyond words.

I sometimes forget how little you know about Rugby and how short a time you've been watching it. Sean Long was world class, one of the best players to ever play for Saints , probably the second best scrumhalf to pull on that 7 shirt. We kept him, flaws and all because as we have found out to our cost he was pretty much irreplaceable ,Gaskell is a young bloke who had half a good season nearly 2 years ago and has done nothing since. Wonderful comparison.

In an ideal world we would have kept Gaskell at least until the end of the season given our shortage of halfbacks but he's clearly done something we are not aware of that has forced the coaches and or McManus's hand and it must have been pretty bad because although I'm not certain on Browns ability or judgement ditching your only fit halfback for no reason would be insane

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:28 am  

No1 Saint wrote:

I sometimes forget how little you know about Rugby and how short a time you've been watching it. Sean Long was world class, one of the best players to ever play for Saints , probably the second best scrumhalf to pull on that 7 shirt. We kept him, flaws and all because as we have found out to our cost he was pretty much irreplaceable ,Gaskell is a young bloke who had half a good season nearly 2 years ago and has done nothing since. Wonderful comparison.

Indeed it was because if the Internet rumours are true and Gaskell was proving to be an awkward customer then that would have put him in the realms of Longy, who was of course much more than just an awkward customer, getting himself a massive ban. That Saints kept a proven good player regardless of his behaviour and happily binned an unproven one is a fact that does not require rugby knowledge or stating, and your reference to it makes you look a fool. However, my point is valid and accepted by those who are engaging their brain rather than in childish playground digs. Only an idiot would deprive the team of what it needed; either an idiot or an incompetent, someone who doesn't have the management skills necessary to get the best out of a difficult player.

it must have been pretty bad because although I'm not certain on Browns ability or judgement ditching your only fit halfback for no reason would be insane

I don't see the connection. Brown binned off Lunt to facilitate his beloved Moore. He's clearly capable of making stupid decisions about players.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:54 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Indeed it was because if the Internet rumours are true and Gaskell was proving to be an awkward customer then that would have put him in the realms of Longy, who was of course much more than just an awkward customer, getting himself a massive ban. That Saints kept a proven good player regardless of his behaviour and happily binned an unproven one is a fact that does not require rugby knowledge or stating, and your reference to it makes you look a fool. However, my point is valid and accepted by those who are engaging their brain rather than in childish playground digs. Only an idiot would deprive the team of what it needed; either an idiot or an incompetent, someone who doesn't have the management skills necessary to get the best out of a difficult player.

I don't see the connection. Brown binned off Lunt to facilitate his beloved Moore. He's clearly capable of making stupid decisions about players.

Similar to binning off Thompson to facilitate Howarth and binning the opportunity to use Charnock to facilitate O,Brien, we no longer have an injury crisis so why use on loan players that don,t have much impact on a game.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:53 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

Similar to binning off Thompson to facilitate Howarth and binning the opportunity to use Charnock to facilitate O,Brien, we no longer have an injury crisis so why use on loan players that don,t have much impact on a game.

Exactly.