Re: Lomax - what has happened to him? : Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:47 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

These three need stability, good coaching and opportunity. Until they get that then I will continue to defend them and will happily berate anyone who writes them off based on three performances, one of which was so dire by the whole team that fans should have been offered a refund plus a free pie and a pint just for lasting as long as they did in the freezing cold.

These three who you defend at all costs have racked up over 150 appearances between them, I ,ll give them 3 more appearances then I expect your excuses to wear thin. Hope they prove me wrong though as we can,t afford to lose games and be consistently inept,

Re: Lomax - what has happened to him? : Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:51 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

These three who you defend at all costs have racked up over 150 appearances between them, I ,ll give them 3 more appearances then I expect your excuses to wear thin. Hope they prove me wrong though as we can,t afford to lose games and be consistently inept,

Only 150 appearances between them? That's not much at all, especially when you consider Gaskell played only about eight or nine games all season in 2012.

If you don't want us to be consistently inept then start looking at the experienced players, in particular our forwards, as I think you will find that is where the ineptness lies.

Meanwhile, I couldn't care less whether you or fans like you are proven wrong or not, or indeed what you think on the subject as all you are displaying is your crass ignorance, not least of development.

Re: Lomax - what has happened to him? : Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:47 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

These three who you defend at all costs have racked up over 150 appearances between them, I ,ll give them 3 more appearances then I expect your excuses to wear thin. Hope they prove me wrong though as we can,t afford to lose games and be consistently inept,

Most of them are lomax he played twice as much as the other in the first team

Re: Lomax - what has happened to him? : Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:22 pm  

As a Rugby league player, Jonny has a great deal of ability, and I feel as though their are other positions that would a better fit for him. Physically, their is a huge difference between the Jonny Lomax we saw in 2011 to the one we have now, and his game on a whole has suffered from that IMO. In all honesty, I would rather see someone else at scrum half who can naturally play their, than completely ruining the confidence of a lad who has the ability to become a top player, whether at #6, #1, or even #13.

As I said, great player, but a poor scrum half.

Re: Lomax - what has happened to him? : Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:46 am  

Tez the Saint wrote:

As a Rugby league player, Jonny has a great deal of ability, and I feel as though their are other positions that would a better fit for him. Physically, their is a huge difference between the Jonny Lomax we saw in 2011 to the one we have now, and his game on a whole has suffered from that IMO. In all honesty, I would rather see someone else at scrum half who can naturally play their, than completely ruining the confidence of a lad who has the ability to become a top player, whether at #6, #1, or even #13.

As I said, great player, but a poor scrum half.

I Agree

Re: Lomax - what has happened to him? : Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:45 am  

I'm not blinkered and if they are not good enough then they have to go, or be played in a new role.

However we already know what others such as Wilkin and Lance bring to halfback and that is not going to change given their experience and skill set.

Gaskell Lomax et al can offer more going forwards. We only need to look at the interest from other clubs that they can see the value in these players, we just seam very poor at allowing our players to develop in the first team.

Even after the 1st game we already had people calling for the heads of these players. It's a no win situation for them if after 1 game fans are wanting changes. Interestingly Warmsley made 2 errors, yet is seen as a work in progress, but he was playing at a higher level than Gaskell last season.

I still feel that it's a case of the right players in the wrong positions. The problem is we have so many who could excel at one position FB.

Wellens/Lance/Lomax/Makinson

This has been caused by others than the players.

Coaches should have seen Wellens slowing up and trained him for a new role, just as happened with Robbie Paul at the Bulls. He stayed captain but moved into a new role later on in his career, he did not stay as a half.

Lance should never have been signed, good player but wrong position offered and quite frankly we had no need for another FB.

If those two thing had occured, then you would have had Lomax / Makinson, being drip fed into the FB role over the last 2 years and would be ready to take it on Fulltime now.

As it is it did not happen, given what we have now, I'm more than happy to give it 4-5 more games before calling for heads. It's far too early to be getting on the players backs. Warlmsley with a few more games will get fitter, Gaskell with a few more games will be up to SL speed when creating for others.

Lomax is an issue but that is down to the coach. He does not need to play FB every week, but either he or Makinson should start getting some game time there to allow for when Wellens does step down from the FB role.

Re: Lomax - what has happened to him? : Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:16 am  

I wouldn't say we are getting on the players backs, we do that when they display a lack if effort, and none of these kids lack effort. Most people agree that Lomax has the potential to be a good player, but hasn't developed as we hoped into a half back. Makinson is doing a reasonable job on the wing, but Fridays game called into question his ability at full back. Gaskell has yet to show he has the ability at super league level.

Re: Lomax - what has happened to him? : Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:47 am  

SomersetSaint wrote:

I wouldn't say we are getting on the players backs, we do that when they display a lack if effort, and none of these kids lack effort. Most people agree that Lomax has the potential to be a good player, but hasn't developed as we hoped into a half back. Makinson is doing a reasonable job on the wing, but Fridays game called into question his ability at full back. Gaskell has yet to show he has the ability at super league level.

Exactly, we are not questioning there efforts but there natural ability no matter what stage of development they are in.

Lomax has we already know is playing out of position and has the footwork when put into open play.

Biggest concern is Makinson who I originally thought would turn into a centre but is turning into a "one trick pony" with his scoring feats close the line, similarly Lomax is not a Scrum Half, Makinson is not a Full Back.

Gaskell is the one who we should give more time, he needs to be involved in the game more and also needs to be more assertive at the moment he has too many quiet spells during those 80 mins.

These 3 need to put in better performances in the next 3 weeks before the "Lance Factor" comes into play.

The efforts of the pack is a different issue and the players are already know the supporters are on there backs.

Re: Lomax - what has happened to him? : Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:55 am  

SomersetSaint wrote:

Makinson is doing a reasonable job on the wing, but Fridays game called into question his ability at full back.

You see, this is a completely stupid argument. He didn't even play a full game there. How on earth do you know he is any good there? He hasn't played at fullback since at least Easter last year (apparently he played for a bit in one game then when Wello went off). Throwing a young player in a position without any preparation or time to develop his game is not developing a player and it certainly is no indication of whether he is good in that position.

If we use your premise as an indicator of whether anyone is any good in any position then the whole team should have been fired after the Huddersfield game. That is how stupid the rationale you posit is.

Re: Lomax - what has happened to him? : Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:05 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

You see, this is a completely stupid argument. He didn't even play a full game there. How on earth do you know he is any good there? He hasn't played at fullback since at least Easter last year (apparently he played for a bit in one game then when Wello went off). Throwing a young player in a position without any preparation or time to develop his game is not developing a player and it certainly is no indication of whether he is good in that position.

If we use your premise as an indicator of whether anyone is any good in any position then the whole team should have been fired after the Huddersfield game. That is how stupid the rationale you posit is.

His overall skill set suggests to me that he is better suited to the wing. Lomax is a far more natural #1 for me, and I hope Saints will play him their once Wello retires.