I had Gaskell at 6 lomax at 1 but that ain't going to happen

Nope. It would be the most sensible option though.

It wouldnt shock me if lomax defended at FB attacked at 6 to be quite honest, it could work well defensively with wello stiffening up one side of defence

I think that would defeat the object of lomax playing fullback. We don't want lomax playing as a 6, he's causing damage drifting in and out the line and popping up in postions in space. He's to predictable at halfback, he steps inside eveytime.

Put him fullback and keep him there and don't mess him about.

Why wont that happen?

I find it amazing that merely because Gaskell hasnt been played in a few games, he has been written off by a section of the fan base.
No doubt they will be doing the same re Makinson or other players if they miss out on a few games.

Nathan Brown looks to me like a coach who rotates players to keep players fresh and also to keep opposition coaches guessing as to what team and therefore tactics the Saints will be playing.

Just because Wilkin and Lance have played a few games in the halves now, doesnt mean that its Nathans aim for those two to be the first choice halves come the business end of the season. They may end up being first choice, but as of now i think we are seeing tinkering/player development.
For example the aim of playing Wilkin in the halves maybe to help develop his all round game, so that come the playoffs and cup campaign, saints have an additional play maker in the side, alongside the fullback, two halves and hooker.

Brown has already said that Wilkin will be no.7 for the rest of the season and he indicated prior to the Salford match - and presumably the 'incident' referred to in the article on Saints website - that he didn't want to split up his halfbacks. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that Brown wants Wilkin and Hohaia in the halves. Ergo, no space for Gaskell. So it is quite natural for fans to assume that Gaskell is out of favour and won't be chosen.

I hate to break it to you, but coaches do talk porkies sometimes.

Now Nathan may not be telling fibs re above, but then again maybe he is.

A good coach will give the fans and media what they want to hear and read about, not what they are actually intending to do.

I've already gathered that, as my comments in other threads have indicated (for which duly ridiculed, obviously). I don't believe a word Brown says. However, I was simply outlining why it isn't as outrageous as you were suggesting that fans could conclude Gaskell is out of favour, that's all.

I'd personally be tempted to name Lomax at 6 but play him as a full back when we're defending and have Wello in the main defensive line where the stand off defends.

I think it'd be a risk playing Charnock and Speakman/Ashe against Wigan, as they will target them defensively. Gaskell is clearly shot for confidence so it'd be a bit of a risk bringing him back now aswell.

I really hope Wellens doesn't play at 1. This would be a massive backstep after Lomax's performances there.

Wigan's kicking game has improved 100% with Smith and Green rather than Tommy and Finch.
It was only their kicking and turning Watkins around that kept the score down at Leeds. The previous week Catalans had Millard at FB who is slow and Wigan kicked him to death. They could hardly get out of their half but for penalties. Wigan tackled hard and fast thus rattling up a big score to nil.
Not suggesting Saints will be nilled but a slow fb and you could be in trouble.
As has been said O'Loughlin and McIlorum sustained knocks. At the press conf S Wane said he was ready to put them both back on but the score meant he need not take the risk.
It's only xrays that will detail the extent of Lockers rib injury. MicMac's was a shoulder problem.
Saints pack is very experienced now compared to Wigan's but the younger players are certainly putting in the effort.
The Saints pack will have to win their battle well to prevent the Wigan halves and backs from running the show and taking over the game.