Is that us for the season then? : Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:14 am  

None of us know whether we'll be able to carry on Sunday's form, but do you think that will be our settled 17 for the season?
One would assume the only guarenteed change will be Soliola to come in, probably at the expense of Magennis.

This leaves the much maligned Foster as well as Gaskell, Dixon and Makinson with a lot of work to do to get back in the frame (assuming it doesn't all go tits up again).

The selection of Flannery to start was an interesting one. Whilst he's no one's favourite he's always been a player who's done the off the ball stuff well and contibuted to the collective in a subtle but positive way. We moaned about the lack of dummy running to distract the defnders, maybe that was the main factor in starting with him?

Re: Is that us for the season then? : Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:23 am  

Flannery adds solidity and the main difference in the lineup was the proper bench for once.

Re: Is that us for the season then? : Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:24 am  

No. Competition for places is the key to success. I daresay one of the reasons that Adey Gaga has played well the past two seasons is because of the rise to prominence of several of our kids.

Re: Is that us for the season then? : Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:31 am  

Personally I see it as more of a traditional set up of a team. Youth being drip fed in along side experienced heads. Same as longy and Kerion where.

Lance and Lomax would be the luckiest players in the world to go a whole season uninjured. When one is Gaskell now has the experience in the bag to slot in and play. Preferably along Lance to get the same chance that Lomax does having Lance run the show, so they can have some weight lifted and express themselves.

As for the other forwards, well knocks are part of the game. Makinson and Foster well Again injuries happen. They maybe looking at 10 - 15 games for the season rather than 20+, but it's no bad thing, Meli will retire as will Wellens and Ade. There are 3 slots we need to fill long term from within. And with CC games and back up games at Easter, and Exiles, you can see where people will get their oppertunties.

Re: Is that us for the season then? : Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:24 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

None of us know whether we'll be able to carry on Sunday's form, but do you think that will be our settled 17 for the season?
One would assume the only guarenteed change will be Soliola to come in, probably at the expense of Magennis.

This leaves the much maligned Foster as well as Gaskell, Dixon and Makinson with a lot of work to do to get back in the frame (assuming it doesn't all go tits up again).

The selection of Flannery to start was an interesting one. Whilst he's no one's favourite he's always been a player who's done the off the ball stuff well and contibuted to the collective in a subtle but positive way. We moaned about the lack of dummy running to distract the defnders, maybe that was the main factor in starting with him?

Whatever happens, Foster and Gaskell need to be kept well away from the team if at all possible until it has established a run of form and they can be reintroduced without having their deficiencies so hopelessly exposed as so far this season and build up their confidence again. A decent run in the U20s before rejoining a winning Saints team would do them both the world of good right now.

Re: Is that us for the season then? : Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:40 pm  

Northampton_Saint wrote:

Whatever happens, Foster and Gaskell need to be kept well away from the team if at all possible until it has established a run of form and they can be reintroduced without having their deficiencies so hopelessly exposed as so far this season and build up their confidence again. A decent run in the U20s before rejoining a winning Saints team would do them both the world of good right now.

I agree.

But I would be sad if Makinson didn't get back into the first choice team, preferably for Meli.

Re: Is that us for the season then? : Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:49 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

I agree.

But I would be sad if Makinson didn't get back into the first choice team, preferably for Meli.

IMO both Meli and Ade should stay in the team until there form suggests otherwise

Re: Is that us for the season then? : Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:03 pm  

St pete wrote:

IMO both Meli and Ade should stay in the team until there form suggests otherwise

Ade, yes, but Meli no. We should be giving Makinson a run out. Remember that line of thought Pete? Amazing how people now want to dispatch with our talented young players, because we lost a few games.

Re: Is that us for the season then? : Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:08 pm  

Whose saying dispatch?

But I would suggest that the new regime will not be as keen on rotating the backs every game. I imagine we'll stick with this team bar Sia until someone has a poor performance. Then by Easter the young lads will probably come in for the quick turn around. Same for CC games and exile back up games. Give no need to replace meli after last night. The injuries and the mistakes will come.

Re: Is that us for the season then? : Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:11 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

Give no need to replace meli after last night.

How fickle. Ever since Meli joined Saints he's had a good game or two and then disappeared to take care of his hair. Usually lets in a try (which he would have done on Sunday had it not been disallowed). Everyone just a few weeks back was saying how Meli had been a revelation at centre and how we should be getting Makinson out there, on the wing or at fullback.

One good game and all that is forgotten?

Oh well. I'm just not fickle enough I guess.