You need to look up the meaning of 'sic' mate! I know it wasn't being claimed they were the best and I explained earlier in this thread (prior to the Leeds loss) why I used the phrase. For the record, it wasn't said when they were in form as it was after defeats from both Wigan and Widnes and on the back of a couple scratchy performances prior to that. The phrase that was used was 'shortly have...etc.' At the time of writing the back 5 looks a long way from being comparable with the best in Superleague. As it stands, I can't see any being in contention for international honours for example (Lomax, your current best is way behind Tomkins and Hardaker at the very least) and when you consider Leeds, Wigan, Huddersfield and Catalans have current internationals and Warrington and a couple others count recent internationals among their backs it seemed rather a bold claim. My take on it is that you have a combination of a couple of good backs who COULD go on to be something, Makinson and Lomax who are already good, and Turner who is..well, see the rest of this thread! Not exactly the makeup of a backline 'shortly to be among the best in Superleague' ( again, for the record...sic!). Just my opinion of course...

Funny how after the Leeds league game there was a thread on vt asking hardaker vs lomax and lomax won by a long way. Many "neutrals" were suggesting tomkins should be moved to 6 in the England setup and lomax (or hardaker) should be 1. Shockingly when saints won, lomax was the preferred option, now Leeds won, hardaker is the preferred option.

Lomax, makinson, Percival, Jones, Swift as a back 5 has an average age of 21.2 - and all of them still have huge amouts of (the dangerous word) potential. There's no reason why if they all fulfil it, it couldn't be the best back line ... In fact it would take a truly exceptional back line to trump it. But the key bit is fulfilling it.

Also, who in warringtons back line is worrying the selectors???

Lomax, makinson and jones played for the knights last year, so they're not that far off. That also puts them ahead of the Wigan counter parts that you mentioned. They're a way off being individually the best in their positions, but there are many ways around that. Watkins is by far and away the best British centre at the moment. But that doesn't mean the second centre spot isn't up for grabs, nor that Percival couldn't be the player to grab for it in 2/3 years - it depends on what you mean by short.

True. I didn't take 'shortly' to mean 2/3 years in the context of the thread though as it was about the current deficiencies not perceived ones in 2 to 3 seasons time. If you're talking 2/3 years time I think you're assertion that they are currently ahead of the Wigan pair becomes less relevant. Hampshire is the best young talent I've seen at Wigan since Tomkins and Burgess has all the attributes to be an international winger in 2/3 years time. He has exactly the necessary size and speed that, for example, Makinson lacks. Re: the Knights meaning they're 'not a long way off'. Again I would beg to differ. Many, even most, Knights players don't make full internationals in the first place and, as you're no doubt aware, I could name many other knights players who have played in recent seasons and others who will play in the coming 2 to 3 seasons. It's no more certain that Lomax, Makinson or Jones are going to go on to full honours than any of the others. As it stands Tomkins looks to be the probable full back for the foreseeable, Hall one winger with the other contested firstly by Charnley and Briscoe with maybe a couple of youngsters forcing themselves into the picture in the coming seasons. There is more depth at centre than we've had in a long, long time so Percival will have to put in some major improvement, particularly in defence, to force himself into that particular picture. Like you say, it's not unfeasible of course, however, as I keep pointing out my posts are not about what MIGHT happen in a few years time but about the here and now.

BTW I'm not knocking your young lads. As I have made plain several times there is undoubtably ability and potential there. I'm sure some will go on to have excellent careers. It's just the level of expectation I have issues with. I thought the Leeds backs (and, it has to be said, the Wigan backs on Good Friday) showed how far they need to improve to justify the claims being made by some.

For a saints team id have lomax over Hardaker. Lomax suits saints. Hardaker suits Leeds because they don't need that sort of player at FB with all their pivots.

Whoever gets picked for England will be whoever is flavour of the month.

But Tomkins is superior to both so will obviously play. Lomax gives cover in the halves (something we lack) so I'd go for him over Hardaker from an England POV.

I totally and utterly agree on that. I said the same thing at the match on Saturday when people was comparing them.

Hardaker's strengths are in his running game. Does England need that IF Tomkins is moved to 6? It would just mean we would be predictable. So lomax would be my choice and he would give good ball to Watkins and Reed (or whoever).

Just have to look at how Leeds underutilise Watkins. It's because Hardaker is a running player who will always look to take the line on first. See his first try as a good example of that. He should have passed. He scored but he made it much harder than if should have been!

I don't disagree with much of that although I would take issue with not having cover in the halves from an England POV. Assuming he sticks with his preferred option of Sinfield and Chase with Gareth Widdop as first choice back up and Tomkins as an option from within the team why would he choose another fullback who can fill in at 6 at a push? I'm not sure I follow the logic of that. If Lomax is to challenge he needs to do it from his preferred position. If, as at present, that's fullback, then I would say he needs to displace the current 2nd choice fullback on merit as a fullback, rather than as a makeshift half.

Broke his foot 5 minutes in according to Twitter, looks like you won't have to drop him.

Chase won't play for England. Tomkins stays in his natural position regardless, so we go into the tournament with just 2 HBs. Super.

And in terms of Turner I won't be losing much sleep

I thought Turner was terrible against Leeds, after seeing he had a broken foot for almost the entire match I can see why.

Great effort from him to carry on with that and he should be applauded.

Assuming you are right re: Chase, are you suggesting we should go into games against Australia or New Zealand with a makeshift half who has played fullback all season rather than a specialist half back? Really?

Sure it's not his hands he's broke. Could explain his misses in defence.


Seriously, if it's a broken foot, he can be slightly excused for diabolical performance against Leeds but not his dire performance against the pies.