What utter tosh.



It is because stupid Rush dropped Gaskell last year that Gaskell is now having to play catch up. Had Gaskell continued his development from 2011, as he should have been allowed to do, we might now have been looking at a settled, working partnership with the possibility of two halves who were shaping up to control a game, even in a crisis. As it is the lad has to start all over again. Rush deserves to be slagged off. And the most galling thing about it all was that we ended up getting even less out of the season than we did when we had the sacked coach in place and a whole bunch of young players playing, not just Gaskell and Lomax. So he was just wrong on every front.



We have played all of three matches and it's just ridiculous to be writing off our halfbacks.

You should have been a tabloid journalist as you have re-written that story!



He didn't say he HAD to sit Lomax down at his home and explain it to him. He said that he and Lomax had a chat at his home about being a scrum half. Lomax also said that he asked Simmons not to drop him if he didn't do well straight away but to have faith in him and stick with him, which is precisely what Simmons did. Interestingly, Lomax looked good in 2011 and won young player of the year. Gaskell looked good too.



Never know, it could have been down to Simmons that they looked that good.

I admire your loyalties to Lomax, Gaskell and Makinson as you defend them at all costs. But you really need to take the blinkers off, all three don,t have the creative abilties to help us succeed. Yes all 3 are playing out of postion to a certain extent but they really are not good enough in there natural skill set, whoever is coach at the time.

He's not had Tommy Martyn like Sean long did, and he's not had sean long like Matty Smith did.

We could really do with an older 7 here to guide him and then perhaps he may develop.

Personally i dont think he's going to make it as a top level 7. As a centre/ FB possibly

How long do with give lomax and gaskell surely we should judge them after Easter we would of played all the big teams by then and they would of had about ten games together

I don't wear blinkers. But I do support young players and think there are far too many Saints fans who still think we are in the era of Longy and Cunningham in their pomp. We are not. The guys you mentioned there have probably just hit 22 (Makinson may be younger). All three have had disrupted careers so far, on their third coach in 18 months, two of them played together and then didn't, with Lomax having to partner with someone who hadn't a clue at halfback (but was older and more experienced and so should have been good for him, but clearly wasn't). Gaskell had to endure the ignominy of being dropped having played in a grand final and doing stuff like rescuing a win at Widnes last season on one of the rare occasions Rush deigned to let him play.



These three need stability, good coaching and opportunity. Until they get that then I will continue to defend them and will happily berate anyone who writes them off based on three performances, one of which was so dire by the whole team that fans should have been offered a refund plus a free pie and a pint just for lasting as long as they did in the freezing cold.

These three who you defend at all costs have racked up over 150 appearances between them, I ,ll give them 3 more appearances then I expect your excuses to wear thin. Hope they prove me wrong though as we can,t afford to lose games and be consistently inept,

Only 150 appearances between them? That's not much at all, especially when you consider Gaskell played only about eight or nine games all season in 2012.



If you don't want us to be consistently inept then start looking at the experienced players, in particular our forwards, as I think you will find that is where the ineptness lies.



Meanwhile, I couldn't care less whether you or fans like you are proven wrong or not, or indeed what you think on the subject as all you are displaying is your crass ignorance, not least of development.

Most of them are lomax he played twice as much as the other in the first team

As a Rugby league player, Jonny has a great deal of ability, and I feel as though their are other positions that would a better fit for him. Physically, their is a huge difference between the Jonny Lomax we saw in 2011 to the one we have now, and his game on a whole has suffered from that IMO. In all honesty, I would rather see someone else at scrum half who can naturally play their, than completely ruining the confidence of a lad who has the ability to become a top player, whether at #6, #1, or even #13.



As I said, great player, but a poor scrum half.

I Agree

I'm not blinkered and if they are not good enough then they have to go, or be played in a new role.



However we already know what others such as Wilkin and Lance bring to halfback and that is not going to change given their experience and skill set.



Gaskell Lomax et al can offer more going forwards. We only need to look at the interest from other clubs that they can see the value in these players, we just seam very poor at allowing our players to develop in the first team.



Even after the 1st game we already had people calling for the heads of these players. It's a no win situation for them if after 1 game fans are wanting changes. Interestingly Warmsley made 2 errors, yet is seen as a work in progress, but he was playing at a higher level than Gaskell last season.



I still feel that it's a case of the right players in the wrong positions. The problem is we have so many who could excel at one position FB.



Wellens/Lance/Lomax/Makinson



This has been caused by others than the players.



Coaches should have seen Wellens slowing up and trained him for a new role, just as happened with Robbie Paul at the Bulls. He stayed captain but moved into a new role later on in his career, he did not stay as a half.



Lance should never have been signed, good player but wrong position offered and quite frankly we had no need for another FB.



If those two thing had occured, then you would have had Lomax / Makinson, being drip fed into the FB role over the last 2 years and would be ready to take it on Fulltime now.



As it is it did not happen, given what we have now, I'm more than happy to give it 4-5 more games before calling for heads. It's far too early to be getting on the players backs. Warlmsley with a few more games will get fitter, Gaskell with a few more games will be up to SL speed when creating for others.



Lomax is an issue but that is down to the coach. He does not need to play FB every week, but either he or Makinson should start getting some game time there to allow for when Wellens does step down from the FB role.