This really winds me up, I hope your not fishing with this statement?

I wouldn't be surprised if gaskell back next week but I also wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't play again this season

Plenty of interesting comments:

Always thought Wilkin had a place in the side as even when he isn't that creative or gives a penalty or skews a kick, he is usually doing the tackling for one of our lazy props. Props......perhaps another reason why our young halves aren't always devasting too.

Noted a comment about the three (Gaskell, lomax and Makinson) making over 150 appearances: Aren't most of Gaskells a twelve minute spell in a desperate and late attempt by the coach to salvage a match? Hardly representative of what he may produce inthe next ten years.

And all this clamour for Lomax to be Full Back: fine if you are one of those who sees a full back that likes to be more of an attacking than defensvie player....the current vogue. I still maintain that your full back is ostensibly a defensive player......just ask the Australian team in November 2013 when they've peppered Tomkins with high (and subsequently dropped) balls or run over him from eight yards out or grounded the ball about four yards to his left (or right) just in time for him to slide in with his knees....still, he'll come into the line two or three times and score a try.

All three discussed are of good quality and may well become of much better than that......and its interesting that us plumbers, firemen, accountants, school crossing patrols, IT bods, PPI salesmen and such, believe we are better suited to Rugby League than those who have much more experience at it.

Come On You Saints

What you just explained is Gaskell as a proper 6 with Wilkin playing first receiver i.e a traditional 7 role. I wouldnt have thought Wilkin was a long term option in the halves like yourself but Sinfield has converted to a half from 13 so maybe thats the plan for Wilkin .. ???

McDonnell at Hull looks a good fulll back too, and Kearney's got 6 tries already for Bradford.

Correct.

Whilst I'm not quite as strong in my criticism for Wellens that you are, I've been of the opinion for 2 years that Lomax is the perfect candidate for this role and we should've been looking to play him there more regularly for a while now.

I'd back johnny under the high ball though. I know we haven't seen much of him there, but we should really stay away from the mindset that if someone's good in attack, they will be poor in defence.

I say if he not playing come may he would of signed for someone else

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.