Re: Shannon McDonnell : Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:14 am  

With a question mark over our ability to keep Lomax fit, Swift should definitely be deputising at full back.
Strong and elusive runner, played #1 whenever he's been on dual reg, good under the high ball. It possible he may even be a better fullback than a winger as it removes his weak spot.
He's young, englesh and from our academy. The most sensible option in my mind. He's certainly do a lot of damage in the free role that #1 has these days.

Gardner or Dawson to come in on the wing.

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:16 am  

St pete wrote:

I would pick wello, lance, lomax, swift and tommy before Sharon McDonnell. He's poor on kicks, his defence is average at best, offers nothing on kick returns but does support very well.

You got that from the 2 games he actually played for us (and we won convincingly)?

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:20 am  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

You got that from the 2 games he actually played for us (and we won convincingly)?

No I got that from all the times I seen him play at hull and saints.

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:42 am  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

You got that from the 2 games he actually played for us (and we won convincingly)?

He's a poor version of Danny Maguire IMO

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:22 am  

Seen nothing to suggest he is any better than Wello to me if Wello is 3rd choice behind Lomax and Lance, then any 4th option should come from the academy.

Whether Wello plays or not next year, even at 3rd choice FB. It's a luxury we don't need.

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:23 am  

Swift is ready made for the FB role. Would love to see him given a go there.

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:42 am  

Carlos Alberto wrote:

Swift is ready made for the FB role. Would love to see him given a go there.

Whilst Lomax is a better all round player, ball in hand Swift if a terrific attacking player.

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:45 am  

He would have less defensive worries, however it's a case of too many for one slot.

You play swift at FB, what does Lomax do that week?

What does Lance and Wello do if they are both playing?

Would swift be able to organise the defense infront of him like Lomax and Wello do? I'm sure his speed and elusive running would make him an attractive FB in terms of attacking flair, but in terms of being a pivot and defensive organizer I'm just not sure.

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:22 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

He would have less defensive worries, however it's a case of too many for one slot.

You play swift at FB, what does Lomax do that week?

Lomax to #1, Swift back to the wing. Just like when, say, Darren Albert would fill in there.

What does Lance and Wello do if they are both playing?

Lance - rotation hooker and back up half. Wello - crossword.

Would swift be able to organise the defense infront of him like Lomax and Wello do? I'm sure his speed and elusive running would make him an attractive FB in terms of attacking flair, but in terms of being a pivot and defensive organizer I'm just not sure.

He won't if we don't give him chance.

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:35 pm  

Personally I think both Swift and Lomax have the potential/ are great fullbacks, they're just very different.

Switching play from one type to another is very difficult however, as Warrington proved. Hodgson was a link and ball player in much the same way Lomax is for us, where as Swift would be a lot like matty Russell at fullback, strong, good kick returns but not the link. It took Warrington half a season to get used to the switch, God knows how long it'd take us if Lomax was injured.

It's still better to have options than no options however!