Just on attacking vs defensive fullbacks, the Aussies tend to produce players who are exciting on attack and yet solid in defence. Slater has the odd brain explosion, but is generally rock solid in defence and under the high ball.

Why should an 'attacking' fullback be unable to tackle or catch a kick? It seems a peculiarly British view to accept a player with only half the required skills (a bit like some people being seemingly happy with strong running centres who can't pass such as Yeaman).

It's the mind set that winds me up, I've said elsewhere, this kind of comment always comes up when one player is out for another player. So far we have seen the end of Perry, Lance, Makinson, Gaskell, Wellens, Ade etc at Saints and we are only 4 games in.

We have a squad of 30, and to be a top side you need depth in that squad. The season has started and we have the squad we have. So they should all be playing at some point in the season.

Still believe that although Tomkins is a great player, he isn't a full back and will let a side down regulary however, it wasn't meant to be about him, but about the acceptance of an attacking style full back in favour of losing some (in my belief) essential defensive qualities. Tomkins was meant to be an example....just like Brent Webb. Its a comment on the fashion for attacking full bakcs often to the detriment of their defensive qualities. I've no doubt Lomax can catch a high ball and perhaps all the other defensive stuff....I do know that if he were to be asked to have a go at full back, it would be only fair to allow at least a full season at it, not belly ache over the odd poor or sometimes average performance he (or indeed any player) may give in a short and disrupted period he has (or they have) already had in their current positions.

....oh, and Wellens for England!

??

I'm easily hooked, by comments which suggest the end for a player after one game being out of the team. AKA the threads about Wellens being out, the thread about Gaskell and Makinson on the same page as this one, the threads in the past about Wheeler not getting anymore chances.

Except, of course, the club has form when it comes to dropping young players, especially Gaskell. So I don't think the question is at all unreasonable.

And while Gardner may offer some go forward in kick returns, some of the tries Makinson has scored Gardner wouldn't have come near to scoring. And Gardner doesn't have half Makinson's pace.

Meli won't be dropped no matter what a load of balls he plays because unfortunately, when it comes to senior players, they get to play regardless of their form, their abilities or their attitude.

Gardner performed better on Saturday than Makinson has done so far this season (and scored a try). No point in Makinson having pace if he never uses it. He never beats the man on the outside, never comes in field looking for work and doesn't provide much go forward from kick returns. Its a toss up between Meli and Makinson for me, Gardner is fairly consistent.

You need to look at the whole package, an in form Gardner is a much better option, the only thing against him his age. Makinson is very frustrating, he,s a one trick pony at the moment, i,m expecting better things from him but he doesn,t seem to be able to go up another level.

I disagree.

Thats because you protect your 2 boys at all costs, something we might agree on.

That's a childish thing to say.

I disagree with your point on Gardner because I disagree with it. I believe when looking at the whole package it is Makinson who is the 'much better option'. The only advantage Gardner has over Makinson is in his kick returns. In all other respects he is inferior to Makinson.

Each to their own choice.

However I don't think they are being compared like for like.

Makinson has not had any service. Playing an expansive game Makinson is a finisher with pace to beat people.
Playing a limited game the steady eddy clear you lines approach of Gardner has value.

I want to see Saints play football again and use the backs. Having Gardner on the end of line negates this , he offers no threat in a genuine attacking sense.

Think there is a place for Gardner at right second row. Tackles well is big enough and could still do his trademark scoots or first man plunges in exit sets.

Meli and Gardner provide better go forward than Makinson, but have less pace. I think Meli's guaranteed his place, (don't know why or particularly agree with it but I think that's the way it is), leaving it a choice between Makinson and Gardner for the right wing spot.

And drop him for who, exactly? Or, are you not being serious?

I think we are best off sticking with Soliola, personally.

For the record, I think I prefer Gardner over Makinson atm. Don't see the big fuss over Makinson currently, he's as error prone as Meli IMO.

Now that's a big call to make!

Even against a not so good Bradford outfit Meli still managed to mess up. In the end Makinson just has to bide his time, Meli is due to leave this season and unless we want to spend money on wingers rather than props and Halves (unlikely) next year Makinson is almost garunteed a spot.

Meli has made one more error than Makinson so far this season, so the statement stands if you consider Meli has played one more game!



As you say both Gardner and Meli will probably go at the end of the year, so Makinson is a shoe in next year. Wonder who will be on the other wing

Kyle Eastmond.

Dixon from London

Yes not a joke a serious opinion. SRs don't play 80 minutes anyway. Not an either or choice IMO.

You heard this mate or wishfull thinking ?

He looks a real talent! Bit small though.

He didn't half drop some clangers on Sunday at Wigan. He is very quick though, another Jodie Broughton?

I hope so, he has real pace and potential.

Having looked at the stats on Dixon. His last 11 attempts at tackles have seen him missing 10 of those.

Another Kevin Penny ?