Re: We are killing Lomax at scrum half. : Wed May 30, 2012 9:52 am  

I haven't read much of this thread but I agree with the original poster, Lomax seems to be an awesome runner of the ball very physical and athletic. Would you not consider putting him at 13 he appears to have the size and power combined with his ball running I think he could be really dangerous in that position.

Re: We are killing Lomax at scrum half. : Wed May 30, 2012 10:42 am  

Seems the men in charge dont see potential of players in different positions.

Lomax could be great at 1 or 13.
possibly even 9 with Roby at 13. Roby would be good anywhere to be honest.
Gaskell needs to be back in the team.
Hohia, I cant see where his best position could be, not sure hw would be all that good as a full back.
Wellens, Ive backed him but even I am starting to see that someone like Makinson needs that spot.
Maybe Wellens at 13?
Wheeler looks to have gone backwards and I dont know enough of him to know where his best position is but its not looking like centre, and why jones never kept his spot is beyond me.
If Shenton is injured maybe this is the time for Jones to cement his spot.

Re: We are killing Lomax at scrum half. : Wed May 30, 2012 11:21 am  

Mugwump wrote:

sinp -lomax

I think he'd be a good hooker, I agree. He's also a very robust lad, which sees him bounce off tackles when big guys try to flatten him.
Perhaps I'm being steered by us not really needing a 9 due to Rambo's presence. You could have both of them on the pitch at once, a la Moore and Roby, which seemed to work well. When you talk about him running at big men, its hard to win trophies with scoots alone and whilst we have a top drawer 9 already, shouldn't we try and develop our talent in other areas?
Whilst I do agree he'd go well at the ruck, I think back to previous games when he's had success wider (one of his first big games was against Bradford, didn't we start him at loose forward?). He's also had success right were he is at #7. His kicking is no worse and his passing is better than Long's was at his age, afterall.
I think he could go on and be a great 7 for the club, but, like you worry that without the correct support that he'll sagnate and even go backwards, which could damage his long term potential in that (or any other) position.
I think he would also go well at full back, but, like others, want to see Makinson given a run there.

snip wheeler

A very good question, and one that's becoming harder to answer, given the continuation of Wheeler's career stall.
Given that I also nearly added Wilkin's name to that statement, I'd say the over riding factor is my dissapointment in Hohaia. However, I'm willing to admit, given the positions Lance has found himself in over his career, that he must have a number of strengths we haven't seen.
I guess after watching Lance and Lomax play together, I feel more confident in all of the other #6s mentioned to draw the play away from the midlle affectively. Lance's postioning when he's receiving the ball at 2nd receiver seems all wrong and from there he struggles to make an impact, often even when we have momentum.
I guess he's not helped by the fact that even when we have got momentum, we keep things narrow the marority of teh time. The wakefield game, for instance, we crushed them up front, but insted of giving the ball some air we continues to use short balls around the ruck to the like of Wello in order to get our breaks. With little opportunity during games like this, is it any wonder he can't manage it against Wigan?

Re: We are killing Lomax at scrum half. : Wed May 30, 2012 11:28 am  

saintcj wrote:

Maybe Wellens at 13?

I'm sure he'd get by, but would he be good?
In my humble opinion, Sia aside, our back row is looking pretty pedestrian at the moment.
Flanaghan has some good hard hits in him, but on the whole is a solid toiler.
Wilkin and Flannery, for all their plus points, just seem a little flacid for a top end back row at the moment.
Whilst Manu (if that's still happening) will be a nice addition going forward, I'd love a player like westwood or O'Donnell who seem to enjoy a game more the harder it gets.

Re: We are killing Lomax at scrum half. : Wed May 30, 2012 11:29 am  

Why do people keep advocating Lomax for fullback :S

Re: We are killing Lomax at scrum half. : Wed May 30, 2012 11:35 am  

Saint77777 wrote:

Why do people keep advocating Lomax for fullback :S

I'm wondering that; one of my pals is adamant that Lomax should be our number 1, yet I haven't seen anything to suggest that he is the solution there or would do any better than Wellens atm apart from having more pace on kick returns...

I think Makinson should be our future 1 from what he has shown: confident under the high ball, a good tackler, has good footwork and has good pace.

As for Lomax I am completely undecided whether he is a scrum-half; we will just have to wait until next season to see how Brown sees him.

Re: We are killing Lomax at scrum half. : Wed May 30, 2012 11:38 am  

Albion wrote:

I'm wondering that; one of my pals is adamant that Lomax should be our number 1, yet I haven't seen anything to suggest that he is the solution there or would do any better than Wellens atm apart from having more pace on kick returns...

Do you not think that our attack stutters when the ball gets to Wellens in the 2nd pivot position? I do. Wellens is slow joining the line and his hands aren't slick enough to execute those type of moves as effecively as good attacking full backs.

Re: We are killing Lomax at scrum half. : Wed May 30, 2012 1:17 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

I think he'd be a good hooker, I agree. He's also a very robust lad, which sees him bounce off tackles when big guys try to flatten him.
Perhaps I'm being steered by us not really needing a 9 due to Rambo's presence. You could have both of them on the pitch at once, a la Moore and Roby, which seemed to work well. When you talk about him running at big men, its hard to win trophies with scoots alone and whilst we have a top drawer 9 already, shouldn't we try and develop our talent in other areas?

I think combining Roby and Lomax (or someone else) at nine is the only way we're likely to see Roby reach thirty in a Saints shirt. Unlike, say, James Lowes who kept himself clear of the bulk of heavy traffic by employing guile and subtlety around the ruck, Roby is putting A LOT of miles on his clock early in his career. Yes, he may be lucky and stay clear of injury - but I wouldn't say that's the likely outcome. All fans of league are impressed by his ability to play 80 minutes whilst putting in some barnstorming displays. But playing well IN eighty minutes and playing well FOR 80 minutes are two different things. Over the last few weeks (as well as last season) I've noticed periods when he just seems to fall away from the game. Yes, he's still playing well overall. But his influence is being exerted in bursts with quiet periods in between. It's cool to think of Roby as superhuman but we have to realise there are limits even to his constitution. If we keep flogging him for 80 minutes his body will break down just like any other.

Add to this the fact that fielding one hooker for the entire game makes us very predictable - as Wigan are only too sure. By combining Lomax at nine we allow Roby to throw everything at the opposition for, say, forty minutes and when they are out on their feet we inject Jonny. Yes, we're swapping a running hooker for a running hooker - but Lomax also has the skills to bring some much-needed clever play around the ruck (his experience at half-back would be invaluable here). Roby and Lomax together would make us far less predictable (I wouldn't like to chase down Roby playing 100% for forty minutes and then face a fresh hooker who can kill you either on foot or with clever distribution) and provide a flexible platform on which to build attacking play. With twenty minutes to go I'd look to bring Roby back onto the field but this time at loose forward, a position which he could fit into seamlessly (not to mention do well in). This means that at the business end of the match we have ALL our aces on the field at once (Gaskell, Lomax, Roby & Hohaia - provided he finds some form).

I can understand fans wanting both Lomax & Roby on the field at the same time for eighty minutes. It's perfectly rational. But this doesn't automatically mean we're making the best use of our resources - for now and for the future.

Re: We are killing Lomax at scrum half. : Wed May 30, 2012 1:41 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

snip

All sensible points.
If you did move Lomax to rotation hooker, who would you play at #7, Lance?
To be fair, I could see a Lance - Gaskell partnership working, with lance playing at 1st receiver.

However, if we we went down this road, my personal preference would be to use Lance in the hooking role. I just have faith that Lomax could really work out at #7 for us following his showings last season.

Saving Roby's body is a good call, but regarding our predictability with him on for 80, can this also be at least partially put down to our inability at #6 onwards to test the defence, meaning a Roby carry is not only the best option, but since we're lacking instruction from wide it has also become the automatic selection?

Swain was a good 80 minute hooker and Warrinton always look a lot worse for it when Monaghan goes off.

Re: We are killing Lomax at scrum half. : Wed May 30, 2012 2:22 pm  

Saint77777 wrote:

Why do people keep advocating Lomax for fullback :S

He's good defensively, brilliant at taking bombs and is a great runner from anywhere in the line. Or, in layman's terms, a great bet for a modern #1.