Re: Shannon McDonnell : Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:36 pm  

The is a reason why nobody else went for him....













...... He's crap!

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Tue Oct 07, 2014 1:38 pm  

I find Lomax is over rated. There are better fullbacks in SL than Lomax. However, he's young and had a few injuries so this time next year lets see. If he's injured again or not progressed what should Saints do?

I say we should give SMC 1 year see what happens after that

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:55 pm  

theblondebomber wrote:

I find Lomax is over rated. There are better fullbacks in SL than Lomax. However, he's young and had a few injuries so this time next year lets see. If he's injured again or not progressed what should Saints do?

I say we should give SMC 1 year see what happens after that

I think he is over rated defensively in that he struggles to read the game which means he arrives in a late position for the tackle.
In attack he is as good as Wellens in his prime and links up very well, it seems to be a long time since we,ve last seen him play, I just hope he doesn,t become injury prone (as per Wheeler) we need him for a full season next year if we are going to seriously challenge the comp.

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Tue Oct 07, 2014 3:03 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

I think he is over rated defensively in that he struggles to read the game which means he arrives in a late position for the tackle.
In attack he is as good as Wellens in his prime and links up very well, it seems to be a long time since we,ve last seen him play, I just hope he doesn,t become injury prone (as per Wheeler) we need him for a full season next year if we are going to seriously challenge the comp.

I think he's a gem. His all round attacking ability his really good as he's a little more creative for others than other star fullbacks imo. I also think he's better with kicks than other superstars.

Negativity has crept into our view because of two things, he's played and looked injured quite a bit and then he's missed swathes of games. Because of this (as I've stated), I would get Swift learning the ropes so that its not such a problem when he's missing.

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Tue Oct 07, 2014 5:26 pm  

Lomax over rated. Nah, under rated for me.

For someone in his first year as a fullback, his organizing of the defensive line was solid and his linking into the line second to none.

Lets not forget how devastating he was against other sides making and scoring tries, even when Walsh was not playing. At times we were totally reliant on his attacking play as Turner was having a mare, the other centre was not settled.

I think memories are very short.

He's not a rock at the back in terms of when a break is on you are not as certain as you were with Wellens, but he has time for that and I did not think he was a liability.

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:20 pm  

Lomax isn't great. He's looked completely out of condition for the last 2 years, has no real pace and really hasn't developed.

McDonnell isn't great either, but he is considerably better than Wello. We aren't going to use the spare overseas spots so I don't see why we shouldn't sign him, it's not like we have a young fullback on the verge of coming through.

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:23 am  

Saddened! wrote:

Lomax isn't great. He's looked completely out of condition for the last 2 years, has no real pace and really hasn't developed.

When Lomax first moved to fullback, he was a revelation. Was it 7 tries and 7 assists in 3 big, consecutive games?
Ignoring the standard Saddened exaggeration factor, Lomax has had the same problem as many of our players - consistency. We know he can deliver, but its not everyweek that we're seeing it. With Lomax, that's because of his condition. Half the games he's played in the last 18 months, he's looked jaded, getting up slow form the play the ball and receiving treatment throughout and that's when he's not sat in the stands.

Conditioning has to be looked at. We're de to change our coach and this appears to be a massive floor in the current set up. Whether is hiring a head coach with a proven trackrecord in that area, or headhunting a new head of strength & conditioning.

Maybe if we sorted that area, we wouldn't need to be signing a 4th choice full back

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:32 am  

Offside Monkey wrote:

When Lomax first moved to fullback, he was a revelation. Was it 7 tries and 7 assists in 3 big, consecutive games?
Ignoring the standard Saddened exaggeration factor, Lomax has had the same problem as many of our players - consistency. We know he can deliver, but its not everyweek that we're seeing it. With Lomax, that's because of his condition. Half the games he's played in the last 18 months, he's looked jaded, getting up slow form the play the ball and receiving treatment throughout and that's when he's not sat in the stands.

Conditioning has to be looked at. We're de to change our coach and this appears to be a massive floor in the current set up. Whether is hiring a head coach with a proven trackrecord in that area, or headhunting a new head of strength & conditioning.

Maybe if we sorted that area, we wouldn't need to be signing a 4th choice full back

To me Lomaxs play the balls look more psychological than fitness, didn't he tear a leg muscle in 2012/3? He's not seemed comfortable on it since.

That said his inability to go a season without picking up a season ending injury is enough cause for concern.

As for the wider conditioning team question, we have a surreal mix of players. If our conditioning team were as bad as some imply on here, there's no way we could have players like Jones and LMS who string 50-60 games together, but we also have the opposite end of the spectrum *cough* wheeler *cough* - maybe our conditioning regime is "riskier" than others, and just doesn't suit some of our players, but it's benefits outweigh losing a few on the way?

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:29 am  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

As for the wider conditioning team question, we have a surreal mix of players. If our conditioning team were as bad as some imply on here, there's no way we could have players like Jones and LMS who string 50-60 games together, but we also have the opposite end of the spectrum *cough* wheeler *cough* - maybe our conditioning regime is "riskier" than others, and just doesn't suit some of our players, but it's benefits outweigh losing a few on the way?

For me this the worst conditioned Saints team I,ve ever known in the Superleague Era which is attributing to the inability to play for the full 80 mins. We don,t even look fit when we do the warm up routines.
I hope the next coaching team see this problem as a priority, otherwise its the same again a soft underbelly and being bullied by the teams with better physical presence.

Re: Shannon McDonnell : Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:31 am  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

To me Lomaxs play the balls look more psychological than fitness, didn't he tear a leg muscle in 2012/3? He's not seemed comfortable on it since.

That said his inability to go a season without picking up a season ending injury is enough cause for concern.

As for the wider conditioning team question, we have a surreal mix of players. If our conditioning team were as bad as some imply on here, there's no way we could have players like Jones and LMS who string 50-60 games together, but we also have the opposite end of the spectrum *cough* wheeler *cough* - maybe our conditioning regime is "riskier" than others, and just doesn't suit some of our players, but it's benefits outweigh losing a few on the way?

Aside from injuries, do we look like a fit team? Do we look explosive and powerful? Obviously we do to a degree, we've just finished top, but our line speed is slow and we're not great wrestlers.

All things considered, I think there's probably a big room for improvement in this area. We all seem to mention Apollo's reign with fondness and we may have been a bit luckier with injuries, but I vividly remember the visable change in the players from one season to the next (maybe 2005 to 2006). The RFL announced new guidelines for refereeing the ruck that we're going to spped up the play the ball. Because of this, Anderson made sure the squad we're leaner and more mobile. You couldn't tell with Roby, but the difference in Cunningham's physique was massive (I may have been remembering that backwards, we may have beefed up when the PTB was slowed).