Re: Lomax : Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:23 am  

St pete wrote:

I honestly think the modern day players are so lean and muscular that it does play a part in ligament damage etc

Seems much more these days in the pro game than the was years ago

Didn,t they do a sports injury report a few years back that fatty tissue around muscle, ligaments, tendons etc provided some form of shock absorbtion.
Todays players are athletes and with very little body fat something is going to give in such a high impact game. I think it was Wilkin who also mentioned that the torsion effect on joints during the modern tackling techniques could shorten a players career.
Its not good for the game when clubs are only able to play there first choice 13 on the pitch for around a third of the season or worse.

Re: Lomax : Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:54 am  

Roy Haggerty wrote:

The problem with the number 9 option is that, while its possible to make it as a 9 if you're as small as Lomax (Higham, Aiton, Monaghan), your defence needs to be the best in the side, at or near the top of the tackle count every week.

But not only does Lomax seem a little fragile, but defence has not yet shown itself as one of his strong points.

I think we have to differentiate the Lomax who played in the halves (still very much a rookie) and the Lomax who seemed to have matured during his early successes at full back. I do agree that he was vulnerable early in his career - particularly to players who managed to get on his outside. I'm less certain that he was ever weak as a frontal defender (which is where he's likely be tested at nine).

The one thing he has in his favour is boundless enthusiasm (and, if fit, energy) - which is precisely the kind of attribute all good hookers need from the beginning. Whether his body is up to the job - I guess we'll just have to wait and see the size of the bite those two operations have taken out of his abilities.

Tragic really because he's a nice kid. Weird how these kinds of plagues rarely appear to afflict Rugby League's villains.

Re: Lomax : Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:39 am  

Does anyone know the exact extent of his injury. Has his ligaments snapped, torn,or badly sprained. Is it the anterior or cruciate that is affected?
Is it any worse than Walsh's injury?

Re: Lomax : Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:46 am  

saint at wire wrote:

Does anyone know the exact extent of his injury. Has his ligaments snapped, torn,or badly sprained. Is it the anterior or cruciate that is affected?
Is it any worse than Walsh's injury?

Ligaments are more or less always worse than a break. Walsh was a bad one as he did ankle ligaments also but 9 times out of 10 you get over a break but ligaments can end you, especially if your in the latter stage of career.

I've just come back from a broken ankle which was bad but they told me im luvky it wasn't ankle ligaments Id done.


So basically in the long term Id take walsh injury over lomax but I bet walsh hurt more at the time

Re: Lomax : Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:50 am  

Mugwump wrote:

I think we have to differentiate the Lomax who played in the halves (still very much a rookie) and the Lomax who seemed to have matured during his early successes at full back. I do agree that he was vulnerable early in his career - particularly to players who managed to get on his outside. I'm less certain that he was ever weak as a frontal defender (which is where he's likely be tested at nine).

The one thing he has in his favour is boundless enthusiasm (and, if fit, energy) - which is precisely the kind of attribute all good hookers need from the beginning. Whether his body is up to the job - I guess we'll just have to wait and see the size of the bite those two operations have taken out of his abilities.

Tragic really because he's a nice kid. Weird how these kinds of plagues rarely appear to afflict Rugby League's villains.

Like you said, he was a rookie then, and I wonder with increased experience and ability to read a game whether he could move back into the halves in the future?

Re: Lomax : Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:02 am  

Twentyman wrote:

Like you said, he was a rookie then, and I wonder with increased experience and ability to read a game whether he could move back into the halves in the future?

I think if he played with a real scrumhalf like walsh then he'd be a great stand off, he's more of a runner and likes to take the line on but can also act as a pivot.

If you look at his halfback partners since he's been at saints, he's never played with a out and out 7 and at 18yrs that was a tough ask.

Maybe he could take the lance role of utility player If we bring in a good fullback. He can certainly play fullback and in the halves and see no reason why he couidnt cover centre and hooker.

Re: Lomax : Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:41 am  

St pete wrote:

Ligaments are more or less always worse than a break. Walsh was a bad one as he did ankle ligaments also but 9 times out of 10 you get over a break but ligaments can end you, especially if your in the latter stage of career.

I've just come back from a broken ankle which was bad but they told me im luvky it wasn't ankle ligaments Id done.


So basically in the long term Id take walsh injury over lomax but I bet walsh hurt more at the time

I broke my leg, dislocated my ankle and ruptured ligaments all in one tackle and it is the ankle that has proven to be more troublesome since I've started playing again.

As you say, breaks are easier to deal with/heal and 9 times out of 10 there's no recurring problem. Ligaments on the other hand are much more vulnerable to go again though.

Re: Lomax : Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:55 am  

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

I broke my leg, dislocated my ankle and ruptured ligaments all in one tackle and it is the ankle that has proven to be more troublesome since I've started playing again.

As you say, breaks are easier to deal with/heal and 9 times out of 10 there's no recurring problem. Ligaments on the other hand are much more vulnerable to go again though.

This is not strictly true. ACL grafts are usually more robust than the original tissue. It's the elasticity which is lost (or, sans improvements in the field of surgical grafts, used to be). Unfortunately, by strengthening the ligament you take away the "safety" mechanism of rupture when the joint is overloaded. This shock is then transferred to the surrounding structures in the knee and damage can occur at any or all these points.

Re: Lomax : Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:00 am  

Mugwump wrote:

This is not strictly true. ACL grafts are usually more robust than the original tissue. It's the elasticity which is lost (or, sans improvements in the field of surgical grafts, used to be). Unfortunately, by strengthening the ligament you take away the "safety" mechanism of rupture when the joint is overloaded. This shock is then transferred to the surrounding structures in the knee and damage can occur at any or all these points.

I don't know what all that means but I'm guessing you don't agree.

Re: Lomax : Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:05 am  

Would Lewis Tierney not be an option on loan (or permanent). He is behind Bowen and Hampshire at present for the fullback position and behind Manfredi, Burgess and Charnley for wing. He has pace, and a good step. My only reservation with him is when running the ball out he tends to go sideways, a bit like Ash Golding at Leeds.

He played very well on the wing at Salford on Easter Monday.