Not sure I see the 'this stage of his career' argument. What stage were Shaul, Lineham & Crooks at when they became regulars? Having seen Callum develop for a couple of years now I think he's ready.

Shaul debuted at 20. Lineham had 5 appearances at 19 in 2012, became a regular at 20 in 2013. Crooks debuted at 18/19. On balance, Lancaster is a season or so younger, having turned 18 in October. Radford recognises his potential, evidenced by his selection 5 times at 17. Depending on how they're showing up in training, I'd still go with Talanoa and Lineham initially.

to be fair London was a handpicked game for him and widnes were poor on the day as they had cup semi coming up. Tala actually switched sides to accommodate him.
Shaul or naughton - pacy
Lineham - fast as
Sa - powerful n mean
Michaels -fast
Talanoa - incredible strong n hard to handle

For me that's not that bad already. A nice balance of attributes.
Added to the fact we've a decent level of mobility in the pack to.
Callum will get chances anyway. Plenty I'm sure

Apologies if mentioned already, but is Michaels more centre than wing or the other way around?

Would be great to debate this into the season on the back of numerous wing overlaps having been created 40+ yards out by our new halves/backs. Let's hope that we are.

Think pace becomes more important the more that is created from that range. Talanoa can certainly score from 20 yards in even when one on one with a defender. Lancaster is still a young lad who has already shown some potential but lost his place in the recent academy series. He will come through. If we create loads and Talanoa is persistently hauled down when in the clear where Lancaster's pace would have made the difference then Radford will have to think very hard. As it stands Talanoa's all round game at this stage would see him rightly as first choice in game 1.

This was last week

In which case I apologise although I maintain his views on Michaels and Abdull/Pryce are rubbish.

But we should also bear in mind that 2 of those games and 5 of those tries came against 2 of the 4 worst defences in SL (including [ithe[/i worst by a country mile).

Whilst obviously there is merit in what can be seen in the U19s, I personally think it's still shaky ground to push a youngster's first team claims so strongly. The 19s can tell you who is next in line to be given their chance, but not necessarily how ready they are to take it. If the 19s was the yardstick, Tommy Lee, Craig Hall, and Graeme Horne would all be cornerstones of our team.

I was more pointing to the fact that he has more than pace to his game, that he is decent in the air and can make metres. His performance against Warrington, directly up against Monaghan proved he's ready for SL imo.
It's also worth pointing out that Talanoa also played against that opposition, twice!

My three quarter line would be

Talanoa
Michaels
Sa
Lineham

a good combination of pace and strength IMO.

With the inevitable injuries Lancaster and others will get their chance.

Also bear in mind that we are only having this debate because we have such strength in depth in this area, which can only be a positive.

But still, it's a different level of opposition affording players the opportunity to show off their skills. Yes, he might have looked good up against other 19s wingers, but those 3 I mentioned all looked world beaters and couldn't regularly transfer it to the first team. Tommy Lee could carve defences open and kicked well, Graeme Horne looked a handy ball-playing loose forward, but they both struggled to deal with the increased pressure and decreased time on the ball of SL. Lancaster's metre stats initially look great, but they are significantly helped by those 2 games against the poor defences of London and Widnes. Take those out and he actually averages about 5.4 metres, which would make him the lowest of all our 3/4s except Logan (and only Heremaia, Miller and Tyson-Wilson any lower in the entire squad).

Fair enough on the Warrington game, he did well and it's a good sign, but 5 games into a career with only a couple of those against decent opposition is not enough to be putting someone forward as a first choice for me. He needs to prove it over more games and then it's worth looking at properly.

Again, I'll point to the Lineham, Shaul & Crooks comparison. All 3 had a season of only a few appearances then became regulars the next year. I completely understand your reasoning, and don't disagree with what you're saying as such. I just want our back line to be pacey and I personally think Lancaster is ready.

That has to be the line up surely though ive got a feeling Yeaman will be ahead of Michaels