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.

Except, of course, the club has form when it comes to dropping young players, especially Gaskell. So I don't think the question is at all unreasonable.

And while Gardner may offer some go forward in kick returns, some of the tries Makinson has scored Gardner wouldn't have come near to scoring. And Gardner doesn't have half Makinson's pace.

Meli won't be dropped no matter what a load of balls he plays because unfortunately, when it comes to senior players, they get to play regardless of their form, their abilities or their attitude.

Gardner performed better on Saturday than Makinson has done so far this season (and scored a try). No point in Makinson having pace if he never uses it. He never beats the man on the outside, never comes in field looking for work and doesn't provide much go forward from kick returns. Its a toss up between Meli and Makinson for me, Gardner is fairly consistent.

You need to look at the whole package, an in form Gardner is a much better option, the only thing against him his age. Makinson is very frustrating, he,s a one trick pony at the moment, i,m expecting better things from him but he doesn,t seem to be able to go up another level.

I disagree.

Thats because you protect your 2 boys at all costs, something we might agree on.