Shaul has some top quality attributes; pace to burn, agility, evasion etc - he's probably the best broken field runner in SL & scores some great tries.

However, there are reasons he didn't get picked for England, despite quite a lot of Hull fans banging the drum for his inclusion, with Bennett going for Ratchford & Lomax, and eventually moving Widdop there.

Reasons being, he doesn't have either the handling ability or timing to chime in down the channels and make a pass, nor the positioning (as he OP mentioned) in defence. He has time on his side though, it can all be learnt.

As for the comment about him becoming the new "scapegoat", thanks for that contribution. We're well within our rights as fans to discuss a players flaws, providing it's fair, constructive and not personal.

not often i agree with you but you are spot on here.
Two poor displays against Wigan and Castleford but he was very good against St George and showed that an off the cuff player with a bit of pace can be very effective against Australian defence systems.
Doesnt help with Connor getting on his back regularly.

He's bounced back after stinkers before, will probably score a screamer or two this week. If not maybe a game at Donny will help him regain some confidence.

Shaul isnt the reason why our attack constantly breaks down. I've been banging on about this for years, but our attack is still too sideways. The way you create overlaps is by running in straight lines. Catch the ball, take a few steps forward to commit a defender. Then pass. We catch the ball, run in the general direction of the cornerflag, then pass. Its too easy to defend, the opposition just has to keep sliding and eventually we have run out of space and have to cut back inside.

As for his defensive positioning. He makes bad reads from time to time like all players do (he wasnt nearly as at fault for the Webster try as Minichiello was for example). But generally his positioning on kicks and his organising of the defensive line seems sound. Although its good to know we have so many experts on the finer details of the full back position.

As good as Shaul is in many facets of full back play, he clearly lacks in the attacking fullback stakes. If he was as good as we all think he is why was he not selected for England?

Yet Ratchford and Lomax were..even though Lomax wasn't first choice at Saints and Ratchford is a mistake machine. Even then they were moved aside for Widdop.

What do these three players have that Shaul does not? He does not create space or tries for the outside backs.

We cannot blame the whole team for this.

try assists 2017 - spot the odd one out:

Hardaker 18

Ratchford 12

Lomax 11

Tomkins 8 (didn't play till June)

Shaul 4

But it is the whole team. When Shaul catches the ball, the opposition either match us man for man or even have an extra man. That’s to do with the structure and what’s happening 1, 2, or 3 passes before. Shaul, I agree, isn’t the most creative of full backs but his job is made a hell of a lot harder by the attack structure.

Some unkind things said about Shaul on this thread. He’s been asked to take the ball up from acting half more this season. His one on one tackle in the second half on the Cas rampaging forward was absolute copy book. When he drops the ball, it’s a glaring mistake because he stands out more. People asking for him to be dropped is ludicrous. IMO.

you are right. Jamie Shaul is working very hard having to compensate for the loss of Houghton by taking a lot more runs from dummy half than he would normally.He had a great game against St George but the thread is about his positioning which does let him down at times.
I have said many times that if Jamie had a bit of Rankin in him with the natural ability to chime into the attacking line and produce the pass then he would no doubt be in the England squad.

Imagine how much stick he'd get if he hadn't scored the winning try in our first ever wembley win

"Chime" must be the most overused stevoism ever. It doesn't even mean anything to non stevo devotees