If he was a star in the under19s (his try scoring ratio was very high, I remeber) then they probably moved him where they'd get the most use. He definitely wasn't a winger, though.

Percival just brought a touch of class and shows what we need on the other side too.

Makinson had a great game. I had my doubts about him being full back but he's showed a glimpse last night that he can do well in that position.

Yes, he said he had never played on the wing before doing so at first grade. I think the job he has made of it shows he has both talent and application, which is also why I think he should be left at fullback to grow into the role. He is showing very good signs there.

I must say I was very against moving Makinson to fullback initially, but he has impressed me and is showing real signs of being able to fully adopt and grow in the role. He is a truly talented player.

I wouldn't at this point move him back even after Wellens is fit.

Maybe we've moved T-Mak to FB because we know Lomax is done? Perhaps KC feels Tommy can learn his trade at FB in the next few months before the real part of the season kicks in?

I'm sure your right. There is no way that Saints will sign a Fullback at this stage of the season. It gives Tommy the chance to settle in and perhaps then we can look at a big winger that KC was on about for next season.

We have tried to bring a fullback in this year.

Tommy was a centre originally. I like Tommy and called for him to play fullback when Lomax got injured but for me he's a great player to cover fullback but Imo isn't a fullback.

His defence At fullback is top class and was unsung hero in the grand final for that game saving tackle he made wbich Imo was worldclass. He's safe under the high ball and his work ethic and attitude is second to none but I don't think he's good enough on kick returns at the moment and hasn't the natural ability to to chime into the line like a top fullback.

Maybe a extended run might improve this part of his game but I've always thought his kick returns isn't crash hot at fullback.

So for me, I'm happy to have him as cover but I prefer tommy on the wing where he's a deadly finisher. Take them one handed tries away last year and we might have finished a little lower in the league.

I really can't think of a better kick return than to score a try with one. But hey-ho, I suppose some people are never happy!

Some people didn't see it because they are on holiday and one run doesnt mean your good at kick returns, even Leon Felton made a break once but hey-ho, if one run makes you happy that's cool.

His kick returns is equally likely to be exposed as a winger as opposed a fullback, and not a reason to keep him in one position over the other.

His ability to chime into the line is relatively weak, but that comes with time and practice as with any pivot. An extended run can see it as a viable option.

If we brought in (for example) Lineham from Hull, taking pressure off Makinson in kick returns and early drives in sets, would it not be a workable solution?

He was moved to fullback because there was no one else.

If you watch Sam tomkins in his last season in super league, it was very rare he'd do a kick return, he was using Charnley and Richards when possible and ive noticed a lot of NRL teams also have their fullback pass to their big wingers when possible for kick returns, so yes if we brought Lineham on manu from NZ warriors for another example then that would work.

However, the will be times when these type of wingers won't be available and Tommy is usually dead with the ball on kick returns.

Imo Tommy has become a good super league winger. His finishing is something Imo we need on the wing so I'm not convinced Tommy is the fullback solution long term but 100% the best option we have at the moment.

I know saints have searched the planet for a big fast strong winger so Id imagine both Brown and KC have the similar thought to me that our kick returns ain't good enough from the back three.

Are we in for Lineham? He looks like he could be a monster given time.

*Thud*, (just fell off my chair)

I'm not sure I entirely get the fascination with big wingers. Sure, if I had a choice between two equally skilled players of differing heights I'd probably go for the bigger one.

But I'm much more interested in my wingers being technically competent first and foremost - which is a tough enough proposition before adding "big" to the list of adjectives.

I mean, Francis Meli was "big" - but serious limitations in his defence meant that you could never feel even vaguely confident whenever fifth tackle arrived defending the line.

As long as my numbers 2 & 5 can catch high balls, finish chances, tackle effectively and have a bit of pace (without necessarily being "express"icon_wink.gif I'm happy. If they are big as well it's a Brucie Bonus.

I'm far more interested in maxing out the talent at centre than wing.