Theres always one player who gets the pick of the critisism after a performance like that.

The truth is, Smith was no worse than Sinfield, Burrow, Watkins, Hardaker, Peacock, McShane, Kylie, Delaney, Ablett, Clarkson, or BJB. But of course certain ones you are not allowed to critisise with certain posters.

Smith probably could have done better in some instances. But let's be honest, you could easily have had Billy Slater back there, and Saints would still have topped 40 points.

Our problems are far worse with regards the half back spots (with McGuire out), than they are with the fullback spot.

I've never understood the ploy. A tap 20 is a nice breather, but the flip side is that a set of 6 defending your own line is extremeely energy sapping, and momentum changing. Webb is just as likely to leave a ball to go out then get caught in goal, and did it a couple of times in the WCC IIRC. He's also been known to be far too leisurly in the returning of the ball.

On McGuire, he could have made a difference, or he could have been unfit, and ineffective. Either way, the root of our defeat was not our inability to create, it was the fact we were physically dominated in practically every contact situation. I don't see that McGuire would have had much influence on this really.

I would say that what you say is correct. I think people's main beef with Smith was that this was his chance to stake a claim. He should have been bang up for it, I know I would have in the same scenario. He wasn't. He looked quarter-ar5ed

Here's one!! They are never late!

Out of all of the 17 who played against Saints, there was only one bloke who had a real point to prove.

All he proved was that he is not a contender for the full-back shirt at present. End of.

The result and the margin of defeat isn't solely attributable to Lee Smith.

Plodding across field to collect kicks, then returning them back at half speed before hitting the first defender and falling over however is entirely down to Lee Smith.

Playing well in such an isolated position often gets you more praise than you maybe deserve The flipside is that when you play badly, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

For someone with a point to prove, his effort, application and enthusiasm were far more disappointing than any technical flaws in his game.

you could argue Ward did too, but I'm just being picky

Overall it was a poor team performance:
We left acres of space around the play the ball area which is suicidal when you've got Roby at acting half
Our defensive line speed was set to 'tortoise'
and our kick chase was lethargic to say the least

All of them should have a point to prove in every game, simple as that, no matter who they are.

Burrow has proven over last 12 months he isn't a contender for the starting scrum half role. It didn't stop the club putting him there, and doesn't stop some posters defending him on every occassion.

That echoes my view too. It was very disappointing from Smith and I can't see a way back for him really unless there are long term injuries in 1-5, but even then you would have to say Chisholm deserves a chance next. I don't quite know what's wrong with Smith to be honest. He's obviously lost a lot of pace but hasn't replaced that with strength and defensive solidarity. He's probably now at least 3rd choice in all positions he would play.
I'd have all of these:
FB - Webb & BJB
W- Hall, BJB, Hardaker, Watkins, Chisholm
Centre - Watkins, Hardaker, Ablett, Delaney
Hooker - McShane, Hood, Burrow, Sinfield

before Smith. I just don't see where he fits in now and would expect to see him leave at the end of the season.

Out of interest, what other options do you think were available once McGuire injured himself in training and it was apparent Webb wasn't going to be available?

Ward? McShane? Hood? Olds?

As poor an option as Burrow might have been at scrum half in your opinion, he's still significantly better than any of those in mine.

Put your little motivational book down and enter the real world.

Simple question Gotcha, who out of the 1-17 had more to prove? We all know the answer.

Not dissagreeing with you. And Smith on Sunday was the best option to replace the injured Webb at fullback. Unless all the ones critising had their crystal balls out before hand?

Do we? I would suggest you are making the answer up as your go along with the benefit of hindsight.

Kirke had a lot to prove, especially considering the comments he gets on here. McShane had a lot to prove, especially considering how highly Hood is thought of who replaced him. Clarkson had a lot to prove, especially considering an in form Pitts was dropped for him. Moore had a lot to prove, espcially considering the club originally got rid of him and this was one of his limited opportunities.

Sorry, but putting Smith down in a seperate category is rubbish. Players are and most certainly should be anyway, playing for thier places in the side. I would very much be willing to bet money, that had Smith put in the exact same performance in a Leeds result of beating Saints by the scoreline they beat us, that posters on here would have a very different view at this time.

Smith is just simply one of the those players that it is fine for to be the scapegoat.

I would say of that lot Smith had the most to prove.

I would also say that Kirke & Moore were two of the better players on Sunday. McShane has a point to prove, but is still learning his trade, same for Clarkson. Smith has been a first team member for a long time and is now out of the team mainly through his own lack of application. He should be trying to rectify that

Sorry, you seem to be side-stepping the point. Do you think Lee Smith had a point to prove or not? You have also conceeded he had a poor performance, which you had to because he did. He wasn't the only one of course, but I was discussing Lee Smiths contribution and it wasn't very good. Smith isn't the scapegoat, he didn't cost us the game. He was a sum of the parts.