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.

Well, pardon me for getting the wrong end of the stick in a thread titled "Lomax" about the very same who has recently returned from major reconstructive surgery to his seriously damaged anterior-cruciate ligament which required a graft to fix.

Here's an idea then: actually read what people are saying instead of being in such a big rush to prove people wrong and win arguments. That way you won't get these embarrassing moments.

He wants to try reading instead of writing once in a while.

[iShow me the way to go home, I'm tired and I wanna go to bed ...[/i