Players will move on and positions will become available. Even though Roby has signed a long deal I think Australian clubs will come calling again in the near future.

You have got to be kidding. If he gets it right 1 in 4 or 5 I'd be surprised. His decision making is woeful, end of.

Either that or the kind of skill needed in the halves creates very good centres, fullbacks and hookers (Robes played in the halves at one point I believe).

So you're saying the guy who pretty much ran our attack for much of last season - a season in which we defied all expectation and ended up being one game away from the SL title - had a success rate of ONE in FIVE?

Or is this just wishful thinking?

Seriously, I'm not sure even you can believe that, it's a Stevo type stat just pulled from thin air because it suits, but has no bearing on reality.

I think that's true. Very often the best player in a youth team gets played in the halves as it means he get his hands on the ball a lot - at that level it doesn't matter so much if he isn't a particularly natural ball player, but it usually stands out once they move up. Jason Robinson is another example that springs to mind.

Personally I think that what's 'killing' Lomax isn't so much playing in the halves but playing there effectively on his own. With a good ball-playing half back partner I think he'd make a good job of it. He does pick out some really nice passes close to the defensive line, but his main weakness seems to me to be that he tends to crumble on the last tackle. That's something that should improve with experience, and some help from a cooler headed partner, though. I'm not entirely averse to the idea of playing him at hooker, but I think I'd prefer him to be on the pitch for 80 mins.

As it stands the best candidate for the other half back spot is quite clearly Gaskell. I can't say I agree with Top Saint about him - he looks like proper creative stand off in the making to me. Of course he takes the wrong option now and then, but he's a young kid and is bound to do that when the pressure is on. It's not the ideal partnership yet, but it's certainly preferable to what we're going with at the moment.

What we could really do with is bringing in an experienced half back with leadership qualities, but unfortunately our iffy recruitment means that we probably won't be able to do that without alienating a very promising young player. It's a tricky situation.

I agree. He's far from the complete package in that shirt, infact, he may never convince people that that's his best suited position, but he can do a very effective job. His ability to handle the ball at the line is one that not many british lads have. The problem is that at the moment, the opposition defence does not percive us to have any threat wide of the 1st reciver position so numbers up in that area, the compounding factor is that they're right, so Lomax, at the moment, is all to often taking a well stacked defensive line on by himself.

He may not be a scrum half, but he played very well in that position last year. Better than he's playing this year even in the many games we've won.
The two biggest changes since now and then are Royce leaving and Gaskell not playing #6. I know which I think is the cause.

What frustrates me is that % play is the core of our game, with us having the top completion rate in the league (least it was t'other week), but yet we seem happy to take the field without our only qulaity long range kicker. Jeez, even Oldham were better than us in that department.

In my mind, Hohaia is currently behind both Wheeler and Gaskell for the #6 shirt.

True. But I think there's another issue. Lomax is most dangerous running at tired forwards where he can use his agility, step and speed off the mark to greatest effect. Taking the ball at first or second receiver the space between him and the defence is greater than it would be if he were launching himself out of the dummy half attacking the ruck. In the case of the former defenders have just that little more time to re-adjust - in addition to the fact that he may be taking on quicker men whose speed negates the effectiveness of his own. At nine the thinking time is cut significantly. Any mistake by the defender and Lomax would be away. Furthermore, at dummy half he's far more likely to be taking on slower guys. This is why I feel if ever Jonny was made for a position it is hooker.

I should also point out that whilst Lomax's edge defence can be susceptible (usually he comes a cropper against raw speed or situations where the attack has overloaded his thinking with multiple dummy runners) his front-on tackling certainly is not. Finally, his workrate is prodigious - which is an essential requirement for any hooking candidate.

I'm not convinced by arguments in favour of him assuming the full back slot. For a start Makinson is better under the high ball, quicker and a superior tackler. I agree that Jonny would more than likely improve upon Wellens' abysmal kick returns. But I just don't think we'd be putting him in a role to which his pretty unique skills are best suited. As previously stated, Jonny needs to be [irunning at big, slow men[/i against whom his speed and power can wreak enormous damage (especially after they've just spent thirty minutes or so having their lungs turned inside out chasing Roby down). Putting him up against quicker guys in the backs just seems like a waste.



I'd put Hohaia clearly behind Gaskell. But I'm a bit mystified by Wheeler's position above him. After all, what has he DONE? Yes, we can point to the odd good game here and there. But there's certainly no demonstrable form on a consistent basis and especially at stand-off. Moreover, we can't say he's not had opportunities. It's worth noting that in one season Gaskell has proved twice the player Wheeler has been in the best part of three.

Hohaia too is a player who has done most of his work away from the halves. And yes, his form has been pretty sketchy. But at least with him we can point to the honest part of a decade in the world's premier competition. On the strength of Wheeler's contributions to Saints since his arrival I doubt he would have amassed ten first team games in the NRL.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 [ilikely outcome[/i. 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.

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.

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.

Well, I'd prefer a genuine scrum half but since we can't even field a reserve Hohaia is the only realistic possibility (unless you're thinking of a shot-in-the-dark such as Swift). Provided Lance concentrates on moving the ball quickly and accurately to his play-maker and doesn't entertain any delusions of grandeur I think we should be ok. It's better to keep him in the defensive line where his defensive workrate will be most useful rather than playing him at full-back where it would be irrelevant.



I don't have a problem with using Lance at hooker. I just don't think he has the ability to outshine Lomax in that role. At best he'll be another running hooker (if he decides to run - something he's done very little of so far) too close to Roby to cause defences to change their patterns.



Having no width certainly doesn't help Roby. After all, it's hard to bluff your way through the ruck area if you don't have any cards. However, whilst Roby is an extremely damaging runner - [ithat's kind of all he is[/i. Defences are only too aware that they need to shut him down at the point of origin because once he gets out of the ruck the damage is done. They also know he's very unlikely to split them apart in any other way (say with subtle hands and trickery) and so whilst dealing with him is [idifficult[/i - it's not [icomplicated[/i. If you know what I mean.

We need to add some complexity to the dummy half position. That way the opposition is always forced into making split second decisions when adjusting their defensive pattern. And more decisions equals more mistakes.

Thats a few pages of reason... Quick email them to Saints!!

You don't need to. Mike Appleton has been reading RLFans this morning so he'll be well aware of the 'few pages of reason'!

Yeh but he'll also see my pic of herman munster, so that will level out the maturity question.

He has indeed. Seems he's a big fan of my work

Should mike appleton be worried he has Saints fan and Saddened peaking through his window to see what is on his PC. Or should we all be worried that Saddened and Saints Fan are on and the same person. talk about split personality!!!

seems only like last month that we where all shouting the praises of lomaxskell,but seeing Gaskell might be on his way J-Lo seems to be wilting as a scrum half.But as folk say he is not one,tho didn't do a bad job with Gaskell around. Lets try & keep hold of Gaskell.On another slant surely Saints ought to keep all their players apart from them that have announced they are going home,Brown might want to keep Gaskell,Foster etc.etc.As Rush is only this season coach he should not have any input in saying who is going or who is staying for next seaon.Come to that he has not said a great deal anyhow.The season is over for us for silver ware,top 6 or 5 is the best & maybe shock people by going to O.T. C.O.Y.S.