scott moore : Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:35 pm  

im a friend of scotts, and it seems he has broken his hand in training this morning! gutted for the fella, as if im correct he would most likely have a role with eastmond out.

still not 100% whether hell miss the final or not, but he isnt happy about it.

Re: scott moore : Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:43 pm  

Who did it? I bet it was Meli!

Re: scott moore : Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:45 pm  

not a clue, im guessing it was just an accident!

just fyi, im not trolling, for once i want saints to win something, due to having a few friends on the team. just thought i would share some info.

Re: scott moore : Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:31 pm  

He hasnt played in the last 2 games anyway. No doubting he's a miss, but we should have adequate cover.

Re: scott moore : Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:39 pm  

I think Mr Potter has proven over the past few weeks, that a full strength Saints seventeen does not include Scott Moore. With Kyle out, I would have thought Lomax would have played instead if fit - the only way Moore would get into the side is if Lomax were to fail to be fit in time.

On that note, is there any word on Lomax? Is he a definate omission next week? Or was he just left out on Friday for as a precautionary measure?

Re: scott moore : Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:14 am  

rammsteinbloke wrote:

I think Mr Potter has proven over the past few weeks, that a full strength Saints seventeen does not include Scott Moore. With Kyle out, I would have thought Lomax would have played instead if fit - the only way Moore would get into the side is if Lomax were to fail to be fit in time.

On that note, is there any word on Lomax? Is he a definate omission next week? Or was he just left out on Friday for as a precautionary measure?

yeah i agree that mick is a little bit surplus to requirements when your squad is fully fit, my assumption was that lomax was still injured. sorry about that! his disgruntled nature yesterday sort of said that he was in contention for the squad on saturday!

Re: scott moore : Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:16 am  

on which note... just seen the interview with potter and he said kyle is very doubtful, and lomax is a little more of a chance!

Re: scott moore : Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:21 am  

seanm89 wrote:

on which note... just seen the interview with potter and he said kyle is very doubtful, and lomax is a little more of a chance!

Kyle should be nowhere near the pitch on Saturday. If Potter takes that risk again he is an idiot. He was an idiot for taking it on Friday and it was only Cunningham who saved us from defeat.

Lomax should only play if he is properly fit, ie not like Kyle but able to play and play well for a full 80 minutes.

Otherwise, we should just go with what we had against Warrington and see what we can do. I don't hold out a lot of hope but if we manage to maintain the fighting spirit and everyone plays at the top of their game then a win is possible.

Re: scott moore : Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:59 am  

If its a choice between a half fit Eastmond and a half fit Lomax, I'd go with Lomax, seeing as a half fit Eastmond last week was tantamount to playing with 12 men.

Re: scott moore : Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:37 am  

rammsteinbloke wrote:

If its a choice between a half fit Eastmond and a half fit Lomax, I'd go with Lomax, seeing as a half fit Eastmond last week was tantamount to playing with 12 men.

I agree with both of the above posts! And I feel that last week the commentators hit the nail on the head saying kyle was nowhere near the game! He stayed away as much as he could! And for me! I'd much rather have a player like scott or indeed jonny, who would be more fit and more willing to get involved! Kyle when injured seems to be a liability! And he showed that with his swinging arm! Looked horrible! Even though he missed!