Wigan wouldnt loan him to saints.

Which part of what I said isn't true?

Whilst it is hard for any kid to excel whilst physically under-developed - I tend to think "ball handling" is something you are born with. You don't need to be fleshed out circa age 22 to have the vision to see a runner in space and put the ball in his hands. Bear in mind that almost all of the best ball-handling scrum halves this country has produced, whilst physically under-developed, wear able to function to some degree even in their teens. Bobbie Goulding is a classic example.

Admittedly, Lomax's opportunities at scrum half were limited. But at no time during his occupancy of the role did I ever get the feeling that he showed signs of being a distributor. From the outset he was a nimble-footed, scooting half.

Each time you attack the line you face an incredibly challenging and mentally complex conundrum. It requires a unique awareness of time and space to "see" not just how the defensive pattern is currently arranged but how best to exploit it in the context of your own players movements. The masters of their craft seem able to conceptualise a four-dimensional model of the motions of players and can plot the optimal route to success - whether it be a set move, a kick or - the toughest of the lot - opportunistic. Such players are always that bit quicker in thought. But they are also patient. The acid test for any distributor is when he's facing an organised and aggressive defence at first receiver whilst trying to pick out the man in space. In most cases the scrum half will get rid of the ball far too early instead of waiting till the absolute last split-second for that one opponent to break ranks and commit himself - thus giving him the opportunity to slip his man through the gap.

The Australian Test scrum half, Brett Kimmorley, was one of the greatest ball handling scrum halves I've seen. Very often he took what seemed like an age to get rid of the ball. And yet the number of times he just slipped the pass to one his teammates running through a gap the size of a bus was amazing.

Lomax never struck me as the above kind of player. Not close. Far too often he panicked, dumped the ball off early for little gain or threw the ball aimlessly into the ground or touch. No, Jonny's agility was physical - not mental.

It's true and it's not true. The cruciate graft ITSELF is stronger and therefore less likely to snap. However, this places greater than normal stresses on the surrounding tissues since prior to repair it would have snapped BEFORE the load is transferred to the rest of the knee.

Im not sure what all that means but I'm guessing you think lomax is no Kimmorley?

I'm saying he's not a play-making distributor.

I have never mentioned a cruciate graft. I think you're putting words in my mouth here and/or going off on one of your silly know-it-all point-scoring exercises.

Pleeeeeease not another willy-waving thread of mutual insults. This thread has been sane and reasonable up until now.

Wouldn't want Tierney. He's no better than some of our 19's now.

Rather keep Fleming in the backs or play Bailey in his usual position.
Alternatively there is Dougie Charnock who played at 1 when he was a younger player.

You should know he's right. He's super coach, medical expert and worlds best rugby league historian

You said "ligament". The graft (which may be full or partial) effectively replaces the ligament. Hence the term "ligament graft".

[i"ACL reconstruction surgery uses a graft to replace the ligament. The most common grafts are autografts using part of your own body, such as the tendon of the kneecap (patellar tendon) or one of the hamstring tendons. Another choice is allograft tissue, which is taken from a deceased donor.[/i

It it stronger than the original ligament. Ergo it is LESS LIKELY to break under the same load.

QED.

Don't try and patronise me mate. Adding QED to the end of your post doesn't make you come across as intelligent, though it does add weight to the ever growing opinion of you on here.

You are putting words into my mouth again. Why do you keep talking to me about grafts when I have not mentioned them once? At no point have I even touched upon grafts or replacements or reconstructions or surgery or even this specific injury to Lomax. I was quite clearly speaking in general terms with regards to ligament damage, using my own injury as an example.

I damaged my ligaments quite badly but didn't require any graft and its the ligaments that have caused me more problems than the broken leg.

Now that we have cleared that up and ascertained that you misunderstood my post and went off on your own self-righteous path, maybe we can stick to the topic at hand?

Oh, I wouldn't dream of it.



You said"Ligaments on the other hand are much more vulnerable to go again though."[/i

I said that ligament grafts - which *the player we are talking about* has already received, is likely to receive, and which even patients on the NHS receive - because it is the best treatment for the condition, are stronger than before. Therefore they are less likely to break.

I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

I simply said ligaments are much more vulnerable to go again once they've been damaged. That is true. Notice I said damaged, not replaced or reconstructed or anything if the sort.

You have since quoted me and started talking about grafts and replacements which I have not mentioned once.

To make this very clear once and for all, I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT GRAFTS.
What is difficult about THAT?

He's typing his next novel like a mad man now in response to your post.