As I said - Charnock's apparently played a lot of fullback & Makinson has played the majority of his senior games on the wing. Sensible option for me, rather than playing Charnock out of position against Dixon.

Going back to the squad as a whole, whilst we're debating a lot about bringling Lomax and Roby back to improve the attack, its worth noting how much muscle is missing from our defence.



Robe's is worth about 40 takles a match and Manu was knocking out 35 before his injury -an these are big strong boys who can dominate in the tackle.

I thought Charnock was a halfback?



My point still stands though about team dynamics. Brown himself commented that the team were adapting to Makinson at fullback just as Makinson was adapting to the fullback position, and he was improving there. Fullback is too important a position to be changed around when there was no need to change it around. We lost an attacking threat by taking Makinson out of that spot.

Wilkin is another one who tackles his backside off.

Six or One equally - only from what people have told me, mind.

I don't agree that it was a 'dumb call' tbh. I think it was sensible, although I'd have thought Hohaia would have moved there.



I'd rather Makinson be on the wing than Charnock.

Why? Would Charnock have been a disaster there or something? I don't know the player, only saw him for his half a game against Salford.

Makinson has played on the wing for the first team before, Charnock hasn't.

Had Charnock played for the first team at fullback before? I thought he played in the halves against Salford?



I'm confused by your reasoning here, is all. Surely it is less disruptive to play an inexperienced (at first team level) winger than an inexperienced fullback?

Fair enough, I take your point there.



Was irrelevant anyway as Ashe/Hohaia failed to use the FB or winger much.

Aye. I read as much in the RL papers this weekend.

Still think all this?