Id like to see Hadley make a claim for 13. Think he could be the ideal replacement for Ellis if/when he retires next year.

We have a very good squad, Frank going actually gives chance for some of the others to step up and hopefully with Radford rotating the forwards a bit more more game time for the younger members and indeed more regular games for the likes of Thompson should hopefully mean we finish the back end of the season a bit better.
I still don't think we have any salary cap left of note for a mid season signing and the signing/quota spot of Michaels most certainly isn't wasted IMO, we wouldn't be able to get anyone better for what I imagine isn't a shed load.
Why do people think we have a lot of cap space left even if Michaels wasn't re-signed to get someone who would fill a quote spot and was more influential in the side as people seem to be alluding to such as another pivot player? Think Kelly is it with respect to signings.

I'd also rather Michaels was a starter, he can play either wing or centre so hope Radford sticks with the Fonua/Michaels combo but equally happy with Carlos/Michaels on the left Carlos/Talanoa, Griffin/Talanoa, I'd just rather not drop Michaels who is very reliable and is an excellent tackler as well as bringing the ball up well/generally very safe under the high ball.
We shall see after the pre-season and friendlies I guess as to what's happening.

Get the sense we'll go with Kelly-Carlos-Fonua at first. Excellent combination to put Kelly in today.

agree, thought carlos looked good today, the bloke gets a unfair rap sometimes imo,

Baring injuries, the starting backs today will start against Wakey, thought Carlos looked better and needs to do it more consistently.

I think playing Fonua on the wing, could be a cleaver plan, particularly if he plays centre at times like he did for his first try. Finally got some class,pace and skill in the backs.

Also thought Green went well and is pushing for a bench spot, first game I'd go with 4 forwards on the bench

At a guess:
Green
Bowden
Hadley
Washbrook

That's my bench, think the 17 picks itself, shame we haven't had a chance to see Connor.

Thought Thompson was poor again, had 3 games to stake his place and has failed to take it.

Think Thompson will become surplus to requirements after this season. If we get the chance to offload him I would and replace him for a prop.

I think our standard has improved and he isn't quite good enough, I expect Masi and Turgut to overtake him, agree surprised if he is here next season.

If fit then Connor has to be on the bench for me.

Can seamlessly cover most positions in the backs and change things around a bit if we are struggling to break teams down.

I think Connor will perhaps replace, Hadley on the bench. Although he has the 11 shirt I don't think Radders has even give him a run out at back row yet has he? With Washy and Connor we can cover pretty much every position barring prop.

I think he played a chunk of the second half in the back row didn't he?

I think Bowden and Green are nailed on for the bench, then it's two out of Hadley, Washbrook and Connor. But I expect Radford to rotate the pack quite a bit. If I had to guess how we will go against Wakey (injuries permitting) I would say it'll be Washy and Connor, but let's see how Connor goes against Salford (if he's fit).

Michaels is the safe option. He doesn't do very much wrong at all, and he's got a bit more pace than Fonua. However he isn't the game breaker that Fonua is either. You know that Fonua is likely make at least one brain fart pretty much every game, but you also know he'll do something very special too. Yesterday was him in a nut shell, brilliance for Kelly's try, showed his strength for his first try (Michaels just couldn't score those), made some crunching hits, but also threw two passes into touch. I think what was apparent yesterday is that Fonua is more comfortable defending on the wing. He made some really good reads to cut out promising attacks in the first half, in the second he got done a couple of times. The back line that started yesterday would be my preferred option every time, but Michaels is a good one to have in reserve (as is Naughton actually).

Totally agree, except I would say that Fonua is faster than Michaels, a couple of times Fonua went the full length, I don't think Michaels is quick enough to do that.

Not sure tbh. I would definitely fancy Michaels in a foot race. We've never really seen him with a chance to go 80 metres, but he always looks quick chasing back when teams have broken against us. The only real long range try I remember Fonua scoring last year was the intercept against Catalans, and even Richard Whiting would have fancied that one given the head start and the players chasing.

Think Michaels is quick over 20 yards but that's all IMO. You only have to look at curries try at Wembley he left him behind. Saying that he never let's us down tackles well and runs the ball out well

Like the try he scored at Wakefield a few years ago.

Currie also left Jamie Shaul for dead.That said Currie is exceptionly fast for his size

Poor ball retention though. Shame that.

Fonua on the wing with micheals inside, offers us the solid tackling and security of SM and the wing play we saw of MF in the NRL.
micheals puts his body on the line like no other backline player does, he NEVER shirks and tackles well above his weight as well as being good in the air and running the ball out.
He can also pass better than most of the backline (Watch his Brisbane/Gold coast highights on YT) he can also interchange on any side of the field at wing or centre without any noticeable difference to his level of play.

Yup, he's not the quickest (I think he lost a little pace since his NRL days), he's not the most explosive but I'd have him in the first 13 all day long

Naughty girl!!

Fonua ain't slow. That try you mention. If you watch it escare chases so Fonua puts the gas on and leaves him in a 20 metre spell. Then wind's down. Only a few years ago in the nrl he dusted Barba

I dont wanna be harsh on michaels cos I like him... but. He's a 110%er. We all love a player like that. But that's for steady or struggling teams. Teams that want to win comps need X factor players and x factor plays. Kelly carlos and Mahe have that. Michaels would never have set the play away for that try yesterday. He'd of done what was asked and we'd of playet the ball on our 10. Instead because of mahes instinct and carlos's footwork hands and awareness kelly gets to put the ball down at the other end.
Michaels is steady as a rock. But can't just shoehorn him in the centre because of it when weve centre options already. The seasons long, and it's a squad game these days. So he'll play his part and play it well without doubt
Hull by all acounts been training a kelly carlos mahe combo. Based on yesterdays brief but electric and exciting peak I can't see anything other than that combo come wakey

I think you're being more than harsh saying he's only good for a starting place in a "steady" or "struggling" team.
Yeaman didn't have the X-factor for years and was 'steady' amongst many other centres/wingers we've had but retained his place because he was steady and didn't make too many mistakes.
The last exciting centre we had (before MF) with the X factor was Crooks junior, just in a completely different way.
Out of the two on last seasons performances SM was way ahead of CT.

We won't find out if Michaels would do just as well if he doesn't get the same amount of opportunity in pre season.
I'm happy to go with Carlos if that's who we're going with and it's going well. Just don't want to lose an experienced centre that can offer us a lot.
it's all well and good having X factor in attack if in defence you're a bag of and MF quite frankly is an awful defender at times and moving him to the wing was the best move all round. Was surprised RAdford didn't switch him and SM last season tbh

We'll just have to see what happens, can only hope for more tries and if Kelly does manage to fire like we know he can we could be in for a shed load.
I'm certainly not worried about those saying we lack a prop, couple of big lads in there and some mobility/endurance to balance things.
Oh and no I@@@@@@s!