: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:14 am  

Lomax exceeded my expectations. Yes, he made a few mistakes (a couple of wayward passes from the dummy half and a dropped ball), but there were far more positives.

His kick returns yielded plenty of yards. This was because he a) positioned himself well, b) caught / picked up the ball early and confidently and c) ran elusively. When he needed to be brave he was and made at least one break because of it. During the first half he played it safe and concentrated mainly on defensive duties. But throughout the second he was up and around the attacking play like a bluebottle near a neon light. Whenever he did inject himself into the line he gave the defence a torrid time. With a bit more luck he could easily have had two tries.

Look, it's very early days. His diminutive frame raises questions about his ability to field high kicks (especially in wet conditions and under heavy pressure) and whether he can tackle big guys. Full back may not be his best position.

Out of the current crop of Saints kids he seems to have the most self-confidence (not that any appear lacking in this department). At times it looked like he'd been a regular for a decade.

: Sun Mar 29, 2009 1:59 am  

Mugwump wrote:

Look, it's very early days. His diminutive frame raises questions about his ability to field high kicks (especially in wet conditions and under heavy pressure) and whether he can tackle big guys. Full back may not be his best position.

He is roughly same size and weight as Darren Lockyer, Billy Slater and Matty Bowen, who are quite a bit better than Paul Wellens at fullback.

The modern day fullback is not there to act as a shot stopper, he is there to be the leading edge of the attack.

We need to look more at what he offers in offence, rather than playing a big solid lad at the back.

The way Lomax attacked the ball when kicked to him was more in common with the Australian approach, of trying to take the ball at pace.
He fluffed it on occasion but considering his inexperience at fullback thats understandable.

Its also worth noting that at 18 he has plenty of opportunity to get faster and stronger as he matures.

: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:50 am  

The Chair Maker wrote:

He is roughly same size and weight as Darren Lockyer, Billy Slater and Matty Bowen, who are quite a bit better than Paul Wellens at fullback.

They're also not great because they are small.

The modern day fullback is not there to act as a shot stopper, he is there to be the leading edge of the attack.

That's garbage. No one's suggesting he should be Andy Platt in defence. Or Garry Jack leaping for a high ball. But if he's a liability in both areas it won't matter if he can slice silk as a "leading edge". He won't get in and nor should he.

: Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:11 am  

personally i think the modern day full back needs solid 1 on 1 tackling and good positioning, a bit of pace and being able to catch a high ball. Lomax seems to have at least three and can practice under the bomb. His goalkicking ability is an important addition that we badly need as well.

: Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:56 am  

JWP wrote:

Maybe so. you lot probably see far more of him for the reserves etc. It's just, as a neutral, your looking for something, not a polished performance as you know there'll be nerves etc, but something raw like, and he just looked a bit laboured to me, that's all. He worked hard enough, ran in the ball in full of zest etc, was probably a bit unlucky not to score, he just seemed to lack a bit of class, genuine burst of pace etc, y'know what I mean ?

We're dealing with potential here, not the finished product (and indeed, is a professional ever actually 'the finished product' or are they always learning and adapting?). I think he was full of zest. But he was not irresponsible. He worked as part of the team. The team were more cautious in the first half, it was a difficult game in the circumstances, and more expansive in the second (in part because Wakey let them, not being on the ball themselves given the circumstances). He made some smart moves and while one spotted break turned into a knock-on, the fact that he spotted it and had the balls to run towards the ball in the hope of converting the break into a try shows, to me, that he has the potential to make a good RL player. Apparently he has only started playing fullback in the reserves this season, presumably because the staff knew about Paul Wellens and his knee problem, so this was not only his debut but probably about his fourth game ever in that position. I'd say he did extremely well, especially given the big boots he had to fill. I hope he can kick on from here and just grow, both defensively and in attack. Time will tell and I sincerely hope Saints fans give him and the other young players the time they need. I suspect they won't have much choice, given that our injury list is ever growing.

: Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:17 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

personally i think the modern day full back needs solid 1 on 1 tackling and good positioning, a bit of pace and being able to catch a high ball. Lomax seems to have at least three and can practice under the bomb. His goalkicking ability is an important addition that we badly need as well.

Yeah, his ability to boot the ball down the field stood out! He definitely can kick, that's for sure.

: Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:37 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Yeah, his ability to boot the ball down the field stood out! He definitely can kick, that's for sure.

If he can kick a ball down field well he'll be on £500000 playing union in a matter of weeks!

: Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:26 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

If he can kick a ball down field well he'll be on £500000 playing union in a matter of weeks!

Shhhhh! You might give the lad ideas!

: Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:49 am  

JWP wrote:

Really ? I thought he looked pretty poor. I know it's naughty making judgements based on one outing on SKY, but I thought he was the weakest of your 'kids'. Even thing like pace etc, I thought he looked slow, when he made a half break in the second half etc.

I think that's really harsh. He did make one or two mistakes, but I htough he looked pretty good throughout. Seemed to have threat when returning kicks, ran good lines when we were in attack making a few half breaks and as for pace - he was tearing yards off brough (who's quick) following his interception.

: Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:59 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

They're also not great because they are small.



That's garbage. No one's suggesting he should be Andy Platt in defence. Or Garry Jack leaping for a high ball. But if he's a liability in both areas it won't matter if he can slice silk as a "leading edge". He won't get in and nor should he.

You can coach a player how to catch bombs, and tackle, but you cant coach them to run 100 metres in under 11 seconds.
Considering he has only played a handfull of games at fullback he handled most kicks to him well. Certainly with more practise he should improve in that area.
He is also regarded as an enthusiastic tackler, and wasnt shown up on friday when making tackles.