that about sums it up perfectly for me

I cant see makinson taking the FB spot at all this year.He was employed on the wing for most of last year and only got FB in a game that had already begun. Had Wellens been injured before the GF then Eastmond could well have took that spot or even pryce.

Makinson is more than likely to play wing. the inbalance comes from half back. We have two backs who are far too similar at present and play the same roles. As for gaskell not putting people through I'm pretty sure i saw it last year and the match report from widnes mentions he put someone through. Even royce aknowledged that our kicking game was only sorted with thirty minutes to go.

Lance is the obvious choice at FB as he gives his running options in attack and experience at international level in defence.

But I would not nail down any back position just yet. Far too early and nearly every back has quesstions to answer.

You know you'd miss me.

It was quite noticeable last season that Wello was not quite getting there on a number of occasions. There were instances when he missed timed tackles, did not get to the bomb and at times just not where he should have been; a sure sign of a player on the decline. Wellens has been a great fullback, has being the operative word. I think the board or Simmons made a big mistake when promising Lance slot in the halves when he was the ideal replacement foe Wello.

Personally i wouldn't like to see Lance anywhere near fullback. He was having problems against Widnes receiving kick off's he would be a liability under the high ball as he was a few times for NZ. I think he has got great foot work and ball handling so if he is moved away from the halves for any reason I would like to see him at hooker with Roby moving to loose forward. That said though I can't see him being moved away from the halves.

Tough one this, though it's nice to have options.

Hohaia looks as though he'd give us a lot of danger and yardage returning kick offs which neither Wellens or Makinson (so far in his career anyway) can offer. It does indeed remain to be seen how safe he is there defensively and whether the pluses outweigh the minuses.

I [istill [/ithink Lomax might ultimately be our best fit at #1 longer term once Wello is out of the way as it seems the ideal position to maximise his strengths and minimise his weaknesses - I remain to be convinced fully that he's our nailed on #7 for the next decade anyway and I can see Gaskell and Wheeler becoming our eventual regular starting halves. A lot depends on how Hohaia goes and injuries anyway - in practice there's very unlikely to be too many fit senior players unable to make the starting 17 very often after all...

I'd take Makinson and Lance ahead of Wellens at full back. Wellens was too slow two years ago and hasn't gotten any quicker. It's been a constant source of discussion on the boards that the game has change so much that you can no longer go with a full back whose speed is a liability on kick returns. Yes, Wellens is an oustanding defender (when he's in position and not exposed like when Chris Dean outran him last year) but it's not enough anymore. His negatives now outweigh his positives. Whilst Wellens is the best full back I've seen play for us I cannot now rely on sentiment and neither should Saints if we harbour serious pretensions about winning a trophy this year.

The only other cert I have besides this is that Gaskell is now the second name on the sheet for me after Roby.

Its an interesting one -
While some might say you'd be daft to move him from 7 after his season last year, that doesn't mean he couldn't acheive just as much from full back. If we could create space for him as wigan do for ST, he'd be just as devastating imo.
Its clear to me that Gaskell needs to be on the field for us to perform smoothly and to give us the all important long kicking game.
Lance is very possibly dodgy under the high ball.
So for me, there's two solutions, either Lomax at #1 and Lance at #7, or Lomax at #7 and Lance at #14.

Lomax at FB is acceptable to me as well. That makes Wellens number four choice I'm sorry to say.

good idea, has worked wonders for wigan

But, from an England point of veiw, I'd rather Lomax stay at #7. I reckon we'd have been better with J-Lo than we were with Chase last year.

Not many would have predicted the scale of Lomax's success at #7, but combined with the Hohaia signing its caused a real selection problem. Despite it being a well timed signing with Easmond announcing his departure, hindsight would have seen us go for someone else, perhaps.

It'll be an interesting year for Lomax this year, he'll be a marked man after his good performances last year.

A move to full back for him will allow him to still be in a position to control the game, still be in a position to take advantage of broken play but it will allow him to take a step back from the firing line. He's not looked a liability under the high ball and he's a good tackler.

It would be a positive move for me.

Gaskell has to be in at half back due to neither Lomax or Hohaia having a good enough kicking game to pair them at half back.

its not just the kicking game, either. Lomax and Lance are quite frenetic and rombustuous, Gaskell smooths everything thing out for us with Ball in hand, with compliments partnering one of the above.

I'd go with Lomax at FB, regardless of the England situation

As much as I thought lomax played well last year I don't think he's a scrum half, ive no doubt he can play there and he's a very good player but I'm not convinced he's a 7.


Saying that, we don't know if lance can make a job of it at 7 either.

I just couldn't pick my back line at the moment, I change my mind every 5 mins.

me too!

That's a good position to be in though!

It certainly is but im sure injuries will decide which players play where if our luck is same as last two years.

I honestly cant choose what backs I'd pick this moment in time if all are fit.

I think apart from Shenton everyone else is playing for a position. Hopefully the coach feels the same.

Hopefully the coach won't feel under pressure in to picking lomax at 7 due to his brilliant season las year and lance at 6 due to his salary because lee Gaskell is a must as well as shenton.

I'd be inclined to agree but I do like gaskell so I have to be aware that one game does not really test the lomax and lance combination fully nor is it enough to say they have not developed a kicking game that works. So i'm cautious to say gaskell is a must in the same way shenton or say roby is.

I think we'd have to get very very lucky for two non hakfbacks with no natural kicking game to work but it's not impossible.

For me gaskell is a must you dont get a good kicking game over night it takes years to learn and if lance and lomax aint got it now they never will plus gaskell brings a lot more then a kicking game

What does Gaskell have to offer except kicking that Lomax and Hohaia don't?

I'd say that's a pretty important when you don't really have a natural field kicker in the team.

Gaskell to me is the most natural half of the three. His passing is better, he runs the more natural lines and I think he's a good organiser that will improve given more maturity. Mid way through last year I thought a loan spell would benefit him, but he's come on massively and the Play Offs & Grand Final were big games which he handled pretty well. If I was picking the side he'd be the 1st half I'd pick alongside Hohaia or Lomax.

It's nice to have options for a change, unlike last year.