Re: Dixon, and youngsters. : Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:05 pm  

Tony Stark wrote:

Personally if we were to drop Meli from the centres, I would be putting the better defensive centre with the lesser defensive winger and vice versa therefore partnering Shenton with Foster and leaving Wheeler with Tommy.

This would allow us to retain Foster for his outstanding kicking and more natural attack-minded wingplay and allow him to build up his confidence in defensive situations with the support of Shenton's superior positioning and arguably better ability under the high-ball than Meli.

This

Re: Dixon, and youngsters. : Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:14 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

There is no credible argument for putting Wheeler at 6. The kid has good feet and hands - but I've seen no evidence of greater tactical awareness. I mean, Wheeler can make sixty yards with ball in hand. But driving a team sixty yards is something else entirely.

You are so wrong, wrong, wrong.
Remember how good he was against the pies last year at 6 until Tommy L did the very late dirty tackle on him which knackered his shoulder. If that hadn't happened, we would have won the game and he would now be our first choice no 6. The goons were terrified of him.

I can only take the word of my nephew who played with him and most of the other young lads in the brook team and always told me that gary was far better and had more potential than lomax, gaskell or foster - a fact acknoledged by all of them (except jamie!!).

I have said this before and will say it again - he will play for england by the time of the world cup (subject to no serious injuries!) - probably at centre as he will not now be given a half back role unless we get (and I pray that we don't), long term injuries in those positions.

A word about Dicko - he is a friend of my mate's family and was apparently very unhappy about royce last year.
I am told he thought royce just didn't like him and wanted shut. Personally I think royce has had the desired effect on him and he is a whole lot better having lost a bit of bulk and increased his speed and mobility without losing strength. Again, he is known to my nephew who thought he was a skully type player in his teens e.g. running to the line on the arc at speed. like a lot of young guys he then bulked up a bit too much and lost speed; he now seems faster and a better shape than last year.

Re: Dixon, and youngsters. : Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:37 pm  

saint at wire wrote:

You are so wrong, wrong, wrong.
Remember how good he was against the pies last year at 6 until Tommy L did the very late dirty tackle on him which knackered his shoulder. If that hadn't happened, we would have won the game and he would now be our first choice no 6. The goons were terrified of him.

This is nonsense. You're taking, what, fifty minutes of ONE match he played (admittedly well) in and then arguing that that performance is in itself sufficient evidence to prove he is a) a genuine stand off and b) Saints' future stand off.

Let us pretend for a moment he wasn't injured in that game. We win and Royce selects him for the next ten matches at stand off where he performs poorly. Where is your theory then?

It's ridiculous to judge a player off what isn't even a full game. Using the same reasoning I could introduce a whole cavalcade of failures - from John McAtee to Scott Moore - and embarrassingly argue they should have had long-term careers at Saints on the strength of 80 minutes (or less).

I can only take the word of my nephew who played with him and most of the other young lads in the brook team and always told me that gary was far better and had more potential than lomax, gaskell or foster - a fact acknoledged by all of them (except jamie!!).

Potential and actuality are two different things entirely. A player with enormous potential does not mean a player with enormous ability (and vice versa). Saints fans shouldn't need to be reminded of this.

I have said this before and will say it again - he will play for england by the time of the world cup (subject to no serious injuries!) - probably at centre as he will not now be given a half back role unless we get (and I pray that we don't), long term injuries in those positions.

I hope Wheeler does play for England. Why wouldn't I? But he'll never win an England shirt simply because I hope or believe he will. Gary has to do that all on his own - which means delivering the goods consistently at a high level. Something he has struggled, so far (for all manner of reasons - many of which can be attributed to bad luck), to achieve.

Re: Dixon, and youngsters. : Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:44 am  

Mugwump wrote:

This is nonsense. You're taking, what, fifty minutes of ONE match he played (admittedly well) in and then arguing that that performance is in itself sufficient evidence to prove he is a) a genuine stand off and b) Saints' future stand off.

Let us pretend for a moment he wasn't injured in that game. We win and Royce selects him for the next ten matches at stand off where he performs poorly. Where is your theory then?

Sorry, but he has also played in that position for parts of other games and has done well. It's fine pretending but why are you using a silly non-example - if he (or anyone) played poorly at stand off for 10 matches, why on earth would Royce still select him and why on earth would I still be advocating him to still be selected in that team? If he was playing poorly he would obviously be dropped?

It's ridiculous to judge a player off what isn't even a full game. Using the same reasoning I could introduce a whole cavalcade of failures - from John McAtee to Scott Moore - and embarrassingly argue they should have had long-term careers at Saints on the strength of 80 minutes (or less).

Potential and actuality are two different things entirely. A player with enormous potential does not mean a player with enormous ability (and vice versa). Saints fans shouldn't need to be reminded of this.

I am not judging him off that game alone. I am exposing a theory that a player who has played in that position for most of his youth and at U18's and U21's MAY actually be quite good at it. I'm also saying that if he hadn't got injured in that game (and also not been injury prone generally) then there is a good chance IMO he would have retained the no 6 (gaskell had some doubters at the time and was not a stitched on first choice no 6 then). I am confident that if that had happened he would have made a very good fist of it and quite possibly made the position his own.

As we all know, it didn't happen and gaskell is the no 1 choice, so gary has to make a case for building his career in a position which was not his natural position. In all honesty he will just be so pleased and proud to be in the team playing anywhere he is put.
I'm sorry you don't agree with my opinion and speculation but I won't hold it against you.

I hope Wheeler does play for England. Why wouldn't I? But he'll never win an England shirt simply because I hope or believe he will. Gary has to do that all on his own - which means delivering the goods consistently at a high level. Something he has struggled, so far (for all manner of reasons - many of which can be attributed to bad luck), to achieve.

No arguement with that. I am confident he will deliver the goods consistantly at a high level if he can avoid lengthy spells on injury.

I think the difference between us is you are looking at what you see and I'm also adding that to what I've been told by people who have known him from his earliest playing years.
Time will tell eh?

Re: Dixon, and youngsters. : Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:44 am  

Ok I have to address this, the Wigan game at the DW last year was not a one man show. Wheeler actually played 30 mins according to the official report and he had an influential position to play within that match. But he did not do it alone. Lomax and Wilkin where also playing. We scored more points after he went off than when he was on. We missed him as it meant we where a sub down as well as his skills down.

Memory is a poor decision maker, we always remember things different to the way they were. ie 50 mins rather than 30.

Also I think people miss the point. Lets say Wheeler is a better half back than gaskell. Lets rate him 1% point above gaskell.

My point is the % difference with having Wheeler at centre over meli is greater than having Wheeler over Gaskell at half back.

You gain a 1% in the halfbacks if you accept the hypothesis that Wheeler is the better man, but lose a greater % in the centre position.

So over all the team loses % effectiveness.

That is only if you accept Wheeler is a better Halfback from 30 mins of play.

In the end it's one we can debate, I have no particular favourite, I just prefer to go with what I see. I see that we only beat Wigan with Lomax and Gaskell at halfback. I see Gaskell having the best kicking game at halfback. I see Wheeler being taken out as having many impacts on the Wigan game, but the same would have happened had it been Lyon Pryce, Kyle Eastmond, Lee Gaskell or Wilkin taken out. In the end you are down to 1 half back for 50 mins, you are a sub down and you have to shuffle the team around putting people out of position. But we still scored more in the second half.

I'm not a wheeler hater, far from it, but I don't see the logic that some propose to move players playing well, yet keep players that have known flaws.

Re: Dixon, and youngsters. : Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:36 am  

saint at wire wrote:

Sorry, but he has also played in that position for parts of other games and has done well. It's fine pretending but why are you using a silly non-example - if he (or anyone) played poorly at stand off for 10 matches, why on earth would Royce still select him and why on earth would I still be advocating him to still be selected in that team? If he was playing poorly he would obviously be dropped?

A player doesn't have to miss eight tackles, drop three try-scoring passes and generally stink the place out to be judged ineffective. Indeed, he might make few - if any mistakes - but still be considered inferior to other options. As for why Simmons might select him at stand-off? The same reason a coach might select any promising player: to see how he adapts. Only an utterly stupid coach would judge the absolute worth of someone based on one game, or bits of games (as you seem to be doing). Far better to give him several games (ideally consecutive) and then make an assessment.

So, Simmons could well have given Wheeler 5-10 games even if he demonstrated limited or sketchy form. Especially in an injury situation, which might possibly force his hand anyhow.

I am not judging him off that game alone. I am exposing a theory that a player who has played in that position for most of his youth and at U18's and U21's MAY actually be quite good at it.

No sh:t, Sherlock!

I'm also saying that if he hadn't got injured in that game (and also not been injury prone generally) then there is a good chance IMO he would have retained the no 6 (gaskell had some doubters at the time and was not a stitched on first choice no 6 then). I am confident that if that had happened he would have made a very good fist of it and quite possibly made the position his own.

I find it hard to believe there were greater doubts about Gaskell than Wheeler (whose luck with injuries has caused more than a few Saints fans to put a black mark against his name). If hype is anything to go by Gaskell deserves as much of your support as Wheeler. I mean, even Rogues Gallery could find time to single him out for praise (whilst, I should add, being considerably more guarded about Wheeler).

As we all know, it didn't happen and gaskell is the no 1 choice, so gary has to make a case for building his career in a position which was not his natural position. In all honesty he will just be so pleased and proud to be in the team playing anywhere he is put.
I'm sorry you don't agree with my opinion and speculation but I won't hold it against you.

I don't agree because I don't see much evidence to support your claim. No matter how much talent he showed in the juniors, no matter how much potential others think he holds, no matter how much belief you or I have in his abilities - none of that is worth squat next to performance at the highest level. Wheeler has been around for longer than Gaskell and yet it is the latter who occupies the stand-off position. Now, we can argue about the cruel injustices of fate until the sun sets but - so far - Gaskell has performed better at six. Yes, he has made mistakes. Plenty of them, in fact. But those are the kinds of mistakes I expect from someone fast-tracked to the first team - possibly before he was ready - and placed in a position with considerable responsibility.

He has all the attributes I expect of a good number six. He hits the line with intelligence. He is tactically aware. He possesses the makings of a devastating kicking game. He's athletic, quick on his feet and knows where the line is. Wheeler also possesses some of these attributes. But from what I've seen he does not have Gaskell's kicking game (especially his range - which has been a problem for Saints for years) and I don't think he's as adept as Gaskell at working with the forwards.

Of course, I could be wrong. In some ways I hope I am as it will mean Saints have enormous strength-in-depth at six. But until Gary takes an opportunity (which I'm sure he'll see many of) and runs with it he'll forever be frozen out of the spot.

I think the difference between us is you are looking at what you see and I'm also adding that to what I've been told by people who have known him from his earliest playing years.

You do realise that sometimes the people closest to a player aren't always the best judges? There's a reason we have the word "objective" in the English language. I'd argue a far better metric for judging a player's worth than the approval of those nearest to him is the grudging respect of opposing players and fans.

Re: Dixon, and youngsters. : Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:09 am  

Mugwump wrote:

A player doesn't have to miss eight tackles, drop three try-scoring passes and generally stink the place out to be judged ineffective. Indeed, he might make few - if any mistakes - but still be considered inferior to other options. As for why Simmons might select him at stand-off? The same reason a coach might select any promising player: to see how he adapts. Only an utterly stupid coach would judge the absolute worth of someone based on one game, or bits of games (as you seem to be doing). Far better to give him several games (ideally consecutive) and then make an assessment.

So, Simmons could well have given Wheeler 5-10 games even if he demonstrated limited or sketchy form. Especially in an injury situation, which might possibly force his hand anyhow.

No sh:t, Sherlock!

I don't agree because I don't see much evidence to support your claim. No matter how much talent he showed in the juniors, no matter how much potential others think he holds, no matter how much belief you or I have in his abilities - none of that is worth squat next to performance at the highest level. Wheeler has been around for longer than Gaskell and yet it is the latter who occupies the stand-off position. Now, we can argue about the cruel injustices of fate until the sun sets but - so far - Gaskell has performed better at six. Yes, he has made mistakes. Plenty of them, in fact. But those are the kinds of mistakes I expect from someone fast-tracked to the first team - possibly before he was ready - and placed in a position with considerable responsibility.

He has all the attributes I expect of a good number six. He hits the line with intelligence. He is tactically aware. He possesses the makings of a devastating kicking game. He's athletic, quick on his feet and knows where the line is. Wheeler also possesses some of these attributes. But from what I've seen he does not have Gaskell's kicking game (especially his range - which has been a problem for Saints for years) and I don't think he's as adept as Gaskell at working with the forwards.

Of course, I could be wrong. In some ways I hope I am as it will mean Saints have enormous strength-in-depth at six. But until Gary takes an opportunity (which I'm sure he'll see many of) and runs with it he'll forever be frozen out of the spot.

You do realise that sometimes the people closest to a player aren't always the best judges? There's a reason we have the word "objective" in the English language. I'd argue a far better metric for judging a player's worth than the approval of those nearest to him is the grudging respect of opposing players and fans.

Wheeler to Wigan shock

Re: Dixon, and youngsters. : Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:41 pm  

These young lads have all done great over the last couple of years. I am sure over the season injuries and suspensions etc will kick in and they will all get their chance. Realistically I think Royce does not really know his best back line yet and there will be a bit of experimentation in the games against the lesser sides.

It is a great position to be in, to have Gaskell, Lomax, Lance, Wheeler all capable of playing in the halves. It was only two years ago that we were having to borrow matty smith back for the playoffs!!. Competition for places is fantastic and it will keep everybody on their toes. For some reason I feel quite confident that we can have a good season this year and I have not felt that way for a few years.

What i would say is, If I was Meli I would be very nervous about my place in the team at the moment!!!

Re: Dixon, and youngsters. : Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:18 pm  

Dixon did have a very good game but did grab a bit when chasing down kicks. He looks like he has picked up his game. Royce said in the match summary on the saints website that he told Dixon to up his game at the end of last year. I can see the Joynt comparisons with Dixon, people forget that Joynt started as a free running second rower and did not have a high work rate early in his career. It is a shame we cannot send Dixon to the Newcastle Knights in the off season to toughen him up.

Regarding Flannerys place in the team, I am sure that if Maggenis, Dixon and even Hale have good years then there will be no need to keep him on for next year. I am sure that if Dixon (and Ashurst) had played better last year then he would have nailed down his spot and Flannery would have been released. On the basis of what he did do letting Flanno go would have been a brave, i.e. foolish, move.

Wheeler did look good in the first half but the tactics resulted in him not getting a lot of ball in the second. It would have been good if he had gone into the centre of the field and looked for work like Gardner does. I would like to see Royce continue his rotation and give Shenton, Wheeler and Meli equal time in the centres assuming they all stay fit.

Makinson is a good goal kicker but is obviously out of practice. Foster needs to work on his defence and getting to balls on the ground. Makinson at the moment is the more complete player. Percivals goal kicking was amazing in the preseason game at Oldham and he already looks good enough to play in the first team. In a year or two he could be putting Foster under some real pressure for his place.

Gaskell had a great second half. Our halfbacks cannot win sometime, Lomax passed most of the time and got accused by Cullen for not taking the ball to the line and Gaskell runs the ball more and gets accused of being greedy.

Re: Dixon, and youngsters. : Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:41 pm  

Noel Cleal wrote:

Dixon did have a very good game but did grab a bit when chasing down kicks. He looks like he has picked up his game. Royce said in the match summary on the saints website that he told Dixon to up his game at the end of last year. I can see the Joynt comparisons with Dixon, people forget that Joynt started as a free running second rower and did not have a high work rate early in his career. It is a shame we cannot send Dixon to the Newcastle Knights in the off season to toughen him up.

Regarding Flannerys place in the team, I am sure that if Maggenis, Dixon and even Hale have good years then there will be no need to keep him on for next year. I am sure that if Dixon (and Ashurst) had played better last year then he would have nailed down his spot and Flannery would have been released. On the basis of what he did do letting Flanno go would have been a brave, i.e. foolish, move.

Wheeler did look good in the first half but the tactics resulted in him not getting a lot of ball in the second. It would have been good if he had gone into the centre of the field and looked for work like Gardner does. I would like to see Royce continue his rotation and give Shenton, Wheeler and Meli equal time in the centres assuming they all stay fit.

Makinson is a good goal kicker but is obviously out of practice. Foster needs to work on his defence and getting to balls on the ground. Makinson at the moment is the more complete player. Percivals goal kicking was amazing in the preseason game at Oldham and he already looks good enough to play in the first team. In a year or two he could be putting Foster under some real pressure for his place.

Gaskell had a great second half. Our halfbacks cannot win sometime, Lomax passed most of the time and got accused by Cullen for not taking the ball to the line and Gaskell runs the ball more and gets accused of being greedy.

^


What he said.