Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 1:55 pm  

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.

Long was perhaps the best 7 in the league at the time, your comparison is poor. Gaskell wasn't a proven good player, never mind great player, and still isn't. If Gaskell was providing what was needed then he'd still be here, contract signing or not. The fact of the matter is that he wasn't, so he was shipped out at a time when we desperately needed a hooker due to Roby's long term injury.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:03 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.

Charnock is three years younger than O'Brien with less first team experience. Maybe Charnock isn't ready for consistent first team action yet?

Thompson played last week, hardly a case at this point of being binned off. I take it you know how he was performing in training? If we're still saying this in three or four weeks, then you may have a case. At this stage it's too early.

Expecting these kids to play week in week out at this stage of development is the way that they get injured.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:43 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

Charnock is three years younger than O'Brien with less first team experience. Maybe Charnock isn't ready for consistent first team action yet?

Thompson played last week, hardly a case at this point of being binned off. I take it you know how he was performing in training? If we're still saying this in three or four weeks, then you may have a case. At this stage it's too early.

Expecting these kids to play week in week out at this stage of development is the way that they get injured.

Wheeler is the prime example of this. He was playing in the senior academy at 16 years of age. He may have been good enough but was physically not ready and it is likely to be the cause of his fitness problems since.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:00 pm  

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.

Billinge_Lump wrote:

Long was perhaps the best 7 in the league at the time, your comparison is poor. Gaskell wasn't a proven good player, never mind great player, and still isn't. If Gaskell was providing what was needed then he'd still be here, contract signing or not. The fact of the matter is that he wasn't, so he was shipped out at a time when we desperately needed a hooker due to Roby's long term injury.

SF doesn't say Gaskell was a proven good player.

I do not accept that if Gaskell was proving he was what was needed that would equal Saints keeping him. We don't really know whether he was capable or not. His hat trick from full back against a dire London team may hint at some SL capability.
Matty Smith also wasn't good enough for us apparently.

It doesn't matter who you are; if your fact doesn't fit then you will be shipped out, its always been that way. What we don't know if why his face didn't fit - it appears to be more to do with the Geschäftsführer - Rush.

Same in business, it doesn't matter how good you are, if the boss doesn't like you or you are not a bum licker then you have no future with that company.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:45 pm  

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.

You simply don't get it so I'll make it more simple for you. Sean Long was a proven match winning scrum half and a Saints great, being that good buy's you some special treatment at times, right or wrong that is a fact of life.

Gaskell is a nobody (in Rugby terms) who has done sod all (so far), he was obviously binned off for some off the field incident or incidents but when you are unproven you are dispensable as Longy found out at Wigan.

Brown binned off Lunt for Moore but that was a like for like positionally with both players having differing styles. You are also forgetting Moore was very good for Hudds on loan previously (getting an international call up).

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:57 pm  

saint at wire wrote:

SF doesn't say Gaskell was a proven good player.

No she didn't, my mistake.

I do not accept that if Gaskell was proving he was what was needed that would equal Saints keeping him. We don't really know whether he was capable or not. His hat trick from full back against a dire London team may hint at some SL capability.

Had he been performing, I find it hard to believe he wouldn't have been kept given our situation, off field issues or not, given the reported off field issues are not of a major incident such as drugs or something.

Matty Smith also wasn't good enough for us apparently.

At the time that decision was understandable, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

It doesn't matter who you are; if your fact doesn't fit then you will be shipped out, its always been that way. What we don't know if why his face didn't fit - it appears to be more to do with the Geschäftsführer - Rush.

So Brown now doesn't have the final say on who stays in his squad mid season? If he doesn't have the final say on that, how is he expected to be at fault for our problems this year?

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 6:34 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

Long was perhaps the best 7 in the league at the time, your comparison is poor.

No it isn't because I wasn't comparing ability; I was comparing attitude of the club towards them bearing in mind neither is/was easy to handle.

And if you are suggesting that the club would tolerate bad behaviour from a player just because he is very good but would not tolerate it in a player yet to prove himself then there is still something wrong with the club!

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:04 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

No it isn't because I wasn't comparing ability; I was comparing attitude of the club towards them bearing in mind neither is/was easy to handle.

And if you are suggesting that the club would tolerate bad behaviour from a player just because he is very good but would not tolerate it in a player yet to prove himself then there is still something wrong with the club!

That's exactly what he's saying. It is simply a fact of life that the proven, more talented individuals are given a lot more leeway than young squad players. This does not mean that there is anything wrong with the club, because all clubs would do the same.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:09 pm  

Top Saint wrote:

That's exactly what he's saying. It is simply a fact of life that the proven, more talented individuals are given a lot more leeway than young squad players. This does not mean that there is anything wrong with the club, because all clubs would do the same.

Clearly not though because Wigan binned off Hock (and of course they also binned off Longy didn't they?) and that is just one example of the reverse of what you are suggesting. So clearly there IS something wrong at our club.

Oh, and 'more talented' isn't the opposite of 'young'. You can have an extremely talented young player and a totally crap older player. Indeed, we have a few of the latter and yet all of them play regardless of how crap their performances are. That's another thing that is wrong with our club.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:12 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Clearly not though because Wigan binned off Hock (and of course they also binned off Longy didn't they?) and that is just one example of the reverse of what you are suggesting. So clearly there IS something wrong at our club.

Oh, and 'more talented' isn't the opposite of 'young'. You can have an extremely talented young player and a totally crap older player. Indeed, we have a few of the latter and yet all of them play regardless of how crap their performances are. That's another thing that is wrong with our club.

Hock told Wane he didnt want to play for Wigan.

Longy was a nobody when Wigan binned him. In fact Wigan give him many chances before they actually binned him. The last one being a pretty bad one to be honest.