I think we've got enough power in the forwards to accommodate Lance on the bench, and we could do with him there for the reasons you mention. If I were KC I'd be looking to get an extra 5 minutes per-stint out of Mose, since he's demonstrated at Wakey that he's up to it. That would help to make up for not having a fourth forward on the bench.

Up until the wakey game I don't think mose earned his spot and Id have dropped him.

I noticed KC comment " mose has now started to step up to the plate" so his lack lustre performances haven't gone unoticed pre Wakey.

I love our pack and seeing Amor back in for this one is a big plus; alongside Roby of course.

I think they still don't know what their best back line is so if we can get on top of Hill and Simms then we can try to put GOB and wheeler/Bridge under pressure. They lack a long kicking game so field position could be crucial.

I'm not sure whether I would move Makinson or Swift to FB as we lose a lot on the wing by playing Dawson. I'd stick with Wellens as there is no other option

You know, I think I'd go for the big bench and play Hohaia #1. It doesn't seem such a wild idea, but yet quite an unlikely choice for KC.

When did Lance last play FB??? 24 months ago in a friendly?

I'm really not convinced by Lance as a full back. The last time I saw him play there for us he was abysmal. Wellens or Makinson would be better options, IMO.

Dawson and Savelio to miss out for me.

I can't actually remember a single game him playing there for us. Perhaps its my curiosity influencing my selection.

I'd like Makin to stay on the wing. I think he's perfecting his game there very well and is coming up with some great plays in defence to match his trademark finish. I'd like to say Swift would be a better bet at full back as he's a more dangerous runner (and generally safe under kicks) but he's just got that 1 (or 2) silly, random mistakes per game that hold him back.

I agree, I wouldn't play Lance fullback. I'd go wirh tommy and wello before lance but my first choice would be Tommy.

Tmak isn't a like for like with lomax but he gives us pace on the edges, he's safe on kicks but more importantly his defence is top class.

If Tommy could just learn to beat a man he'd be a excellent fullback.

This is the tricky thing. Makinson is so effective a finisher on the wing it would be a shame to lose that. I think you're right that Swift would be a better option as a long-term replacement for Lomax (if one were needed) - he'd be more of an elusive presence in the back division and we'd be losing less by moving him away from the wing than we would by shifting Tommy. The only thing is I reckon it would take him a while to grow into the postition, whereas Makinson could slot in tomorrow without a second thought.

Which is probably why Wellens will be fullback. Tommy maybe a better choice at fullback, but when you look at the options, its either.

1. Wellens, Makinson & SWift
2. Dawson, Makinson & Swift
3. Makinson, Dawson & Swift
4. Swift, Makinson & Dawson

Of all those line ups. Number 1 still looks the strongest

Saddend will NEVER agree to option 1

It's not really Wellens being a good option , more Dawson being bad

That doesn't mean it's not the right way to go.