According to the Swift interview in the last article Saints put out last week, preseason starts in the next 2 weeks. Whilst I don't have every teams schedule, it doesn't seem later than anyone else ...

I'm pretty sure I read on Twitter that every other club is already back in pre-season bar Saints and Leeds, whose season only finished two weeks ago.

That's not right mate. Wakefield start back tomorrow for example.

All the new youngsters and new signings start tomorrow (9th). The rest come in a week later on the 16th.

I don't what it to happen, I expect it to happen

Very difficult to pick a side at the moment with so many possibilities up in the air. I expect one or more of the youngsters who emerged in the pack last season to really kick on - which could cause some welcome selection headaches. No idea where Fages is likely to play. No idea whether either of our fullbacks will recover sufficiently. So aside from the definites (Roby, Walmsley, Walsh, Percival etc.) I'm really in the dark insofar as the starting 17.

Would be nice if we didn't pick up any season-ending injuries early this season, tho.

If all declared fit for the first game.

What I want -
Lomax, Swift, Percival, Turner, Makinson
Fages, Walsh
Walmsley, ROby, Amor
Greenwood, Vea
Wilkin

Tasi, Savelio, LMS/Thompson, Burns
(I'd actually consider dropping Walsh for Wilkin and cementing THompsn in the 17, but hopefully he'll start the season back to somewhere near his old self)

What I think KC will go with
Owens
Swift, Percival, Peuroux, Makinson
Fages, Walsh
Walmsley, ROby, Amor
Wilkin, LMS
Turner

Vea, Tasi, Greenwood, Richards

Owens is a shoe in for obvious reasons and there's no way that KC would leave Savelio out of a bench spot.

What's going to happen with Burns?

And Walsh if he doesn't improve? Could we end up with SMD, Lomax, Burns and Walsh all outside the 17? Enough cap spend there to sign a proper player.

What obvious reasons?

Lomax and SMD being injured for the start of the season?

Fair enough, if that's the case. I thought it sounded like something more cloak and dagger was being suggested.

I like cloak and dagger, a bit of mystery and controversy. I'll work on a rumour

How would that free up cap space ? they all still need to be paid.

Injuries will play large part in how our season goes. We've seemed to have gone for depth over quality in our recruitment but I really fear for us if big Alex or Robes get injured.

I think having Vea injury free this year will definitely improve our pack. He's been very good in the games he's played. I'd play LMS in the other 2nd row with Wilkin at 13.

I think if you start with Tasi and Amor, then you have to be looking at the second row to provide that punch.
Vea gives us this in spades and LMS can do it too.

We'll see as the season goes on, but I think the pack is more than capable

Tasi Roby Amor
Vea LMS
Wilkin

With Walmsley, Savelio, Greenwood and (another forward or Fages) on the bench.
That is a large pack.
Also as we seem to be insistant on running with a large bench and no one to cover Roby, then I would be looking to rest Roby 5 mins either half of half time, push Wilkin up to dummy half.
He can tackle, he can pass a ball. I think he played hooker earlier in his career and it would be similar to what Leeds did on occasions with Sinfield.

As for the backs assuming they are all fit

Lomax Makinson Turner Pervical Swift (Burns/Fages) Walsh

Not if we don't register them.

I'd like Roby to play the same role as England. ive always thought two quality hookers was the best tactic for any team.

I agree. When we had Cunningham starting and Robes off the bench we looked a great side. Cunningham was awesome for his defence in the opening exchanges and Robes came on then and caused havoc with his pace and awareness

SMD did the full training with the Marines last week abseiled down a cliff and you think he's not fit?

Not fit enough for saddeneds standards

I posted that weeks ago. Plus the question mark in that context means I'm offering a possible explanation not making a definitive statement.

Having said that, if SMD is fit now it makes the Owens signing even more mysterious.

Being fit wasn't going to be a problem for SMD but it's what pace he's lost and how he recovers from a terrible injury.

Jack Owens is here because SMD will be gone after this year. Saints only wanted him until the end of last season to cover lomax by he would only come on a longer deal and we had our other option at the time