Re: 17 for wire : Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:58 am  

FearTheVee wrote:

St. Rughead wrote:

Saint Simon wrote:

I think he got his world cup winners medal there, defending against the Aussies, so he's clearly worth a shot there

Totally agree, not been given a chance in his world cup winning position.

Question is though, who is the better half back between him and Lomax? I'd be tempted to say Lance offers more control in the halves and leave Lomax to cause havoc from full back

Neither of them are half backs, this much is clear!

Re: 17 for wire : Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:18 am  

FearTheVee wrote:

Question is though, who is the better half back between him and Lomax? I'd be tempted to say Lance offers more control in the halves and leave Lomax to cause havoc from full back

If NB is going to continue with Wilkin at #7, then it's got to be Lomax - would complement each other far better than Lance and Wilkin would.

Re: 17 for wire : Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:36 am  

Lomax has been poor for a season and a half at 7, he'd been worked out. Since his move to full back he's rediscovered some of his mojo and looked dangerous again and has made the team look more dangerous. Leave him there.

Re: 17 for wire : Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:47 am  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

Lomax has been poor for a season and a half at 7, he'd been worked out. Since his move to full back he's rediscovered some of his mojo and looked dangerous again and has made the team look more dangerous. Leave him there.

Spot on - Lomax is a dangerous runner with the ball - we've spent 18 months trying to get him to put others thru gaps . We did the same with Eastmond for a while.

Give Lomax space and he will cause problems - from FB he gets that space. He could play in the halves if we had a creative 6 or 13 - as Mcguire does at Leeds or Pryce was when we had Long/Scully.

Re: 17 for wire : Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:43 pm  

If we had an experienced, crafty and consistent organiser to play alongside him then Lomax could be a very good half - alongside Lance, Gaskell (at this stage of his career at least) or Wilkin he just isn't. We need to leave Lomax at #1 or move him to #4 where his skill set is maximised in impact and try and beat whoever else we can find and stuff into the #6 and #7 shirts into some level of effectiveness. Moving Lomax back into the halves until we have a suitable partner for him would be an enormous mistake.

Re: 17 for wire : Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:53 pm  

1 Lomax
2 Gardner
3 Percival
4 Turner
5 Meli
6 Hohaia
7 Wilkin
8 Walmsley
9 Roby
10 Puletua
11 Laffranchi
12 Manu
13 Flannagan

14 LMS
15 Soliola
16 Clough
17 Jones

As balanced a team I could think of with what we have . having said that ~I expect Sia to start instead of Walmsley and our bench to be weak again

Re: 17 for wire : Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:15 pm  

quick question.
Jones vs Turner for centre?

Re: 17 for wire : Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:42 pm  

saintcj wrote:

quick question.
Jones vs Turner for centre?

If Percival continues to be an option at centre, then I think Turner could really offer us something on the wing. Couple this with the fact I like Meli in the centre, I definitely think Turner should be an option on the wing.

Re: 17 for wire : Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:44 pm  

saintcj wrote:

quick question.
Jones vs Turner for centre?

My heart says Jones, but Turner did score a peach of a centres try against Hull. I was impressed.

Re: 17 for wire : Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:45 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

If Percival continues to be an option at centre, then I think Turner could really offer us something on the wing. Couple this with the fact I like Meli in the centre, I definitely think Turner should be an option on the wing.

I'd like to think Turner would use his size on the wing close to the line, much like Meli does. Good shout there.