Re: Gaskell : Sun May 27, 2012 7:22 pm  

Longtime wrote:

I no some people wont agree but think gaskell should be given few matches

He should have been having matches for a few weeks now. Granted, he might have needed a couple of weeks out to regain his confidence - if indeed he had a problem in the first place (and I'm not entirely sure he did). But he at least has some clues as to how to play in the halves and do a bit of organising.

Re: Gaskell : Sun May 27, 2012 9:46 pm  

WHAT ON EARTH does this lad have to do to get a game. I'd rather we loose every match for the rest of the season but give some kids especially Gaskell some game time after that debacle.

I wonder what he has done to Rush - something bad because it makes no sense at all.

Lance was pitiful tonight, absolutely pitiful.

Gaskell has more Stand-off game craft in his little finger than Lance does anywhere!

Angry does not fit!

Re: Gaskell : Sun May 27, 2012 9:54 pm  

WidnesExile wrote:

WHAT ON EARTH does this lad have to do to get a game. I'd rather we loose every match for the rest of the season but give some kids especially Gaskell some game time after that debacle.

I wonder what he has done to Rush - something bad because it makes no sense at all.

Lance was pitiful tonight, absolutely pitiful.

Gaskell has more Stand-off game craft in his little finger than Lance does anywhere!

Angry does not fit!

tbh if we have to play him Lance should be used off the bench as a hooker with Roby doing a stint in the back row or at fullback. Gaskell should be in at 6

Re: Gaskell : Sun May 27, 2012 9:57 pm  

No1 Saint wrote:

tbh if we have to play him Lance should be used off the bench as a hooker with Roby doing a stint in the back row or at fullback. Gaskell should be in at 6

IMO if lance don't play fullback then he shouldn't be in the 17. He's a fullback and played fullback most of his career.

Re: Gaskell : Sun May 27, 2012 10:03 pm  

Yep - we are crying out for a FB who would excel in broken play. In Lance, we have someone who has been an international class FB for the bulk of his career and we are persisting with ruining him at 6. It makes absolutely no sense, and I can only attribute it to Rush not having the balls to give him a run over Wellens.

Re: Gaskell : Sun May 27, 2012 10:03 pm  

St pete wrote:

IMO if lance don't play fullback then he shouldn't be in the 17. He's a fullback and played fullback most of his career.

He'd be a better option than Wello

Re: Gaskell : Sun May 27, 2012 10:04 pm  

Oh, and I am not blaming all of this on Wellens. He is still very good in some areas of his game, but if you compare the 2 players, really it should be Lance playing there.

Re: Gaskell : Sun May 27, 2012 10:04 pm  

Brett Finch going back to Australia, Danny Brough coming to Saints with Nathan Brown. Lee Gaskell coming to Wigan.

Re: Gaskell : Sun May 27, 2012 10:07 pm  

centralparkforever wrote:

Brett Finch going back to Australia, Danny Brough coming to Saints with Nathan Brown. Lee Gaskell coming to Wigan.

Really? That's a new one.

Re: Gaskell : Sun May 27, 2012 10:11 pm  

centralparkforever wrote:

Brett Finch going back to Australia, Danny Brough coming to Saints with Nathan Brown. Lee Gaskell coming to Wigan.

Is your second name Parker?

Let's pretend though ... If Brough did comes to Saints that would mean Lomax to 6 , Lance to FB (I'd assume) and it would give us more balance. Not going to happen though.