I agree with all of that.

If Kyle is back for the semi, would it be worth going with smith and Kyle at halfback?

In the absence of Pryce and Lomax it's a certainty IMO.

I think I'd go with smith and Kyle even if lomax is back.

I think Potter may feel compelled to revert to Kyle and Jonny if both are fully fit, and I'd be inclined to agree with him.

I'd agree with that, jonny lomax is coming along nicely, but is similar in style to Kyle, matty is different and give us a different dimension in attack.

Yes, I do. Unlike you, it seems!


I think the two are different types of player and would complement each other well. But that is what I have consistently thought. Friday night just reinforced it.

Exactly.

And we are missing what Smith gave us on Friday night.

That's my point, while lomax is coming along very well, I don't think he's played halfback enough yet for such a big game.

Matty smith has been first choice halfback for a while now and can control the game for us.

Lomax may show the glimpse of class like the pass to gidley against cas but we need more than that with leon out.

Smith and Kyle for me.

I doubt we'll see Kyle back again. Surely even Mick Potter wouldn't put him back on the pitch if he is still in some discomfort, as he was last time, because in these vital matches if it can possibly be avoided the team really don't need being unsettled during a match again when he once more limps off.

Yes, those are a lot of kicks he's made seeing as none of them are from midfield.



They are two different types of player, Eastmond has more strings to his bow.

In that case surely lomax can't play as the is a good chance he'll limp off as well.

I've a feeling kyle will be fit for the semi and IMO without doubt should link up with smith in at halfback.

He limped off later than Kyle did though so maybe he's not as badly injured.




According to reports, things are not looking hopeful for that.

I don't agree. He may do over time but at present, I don't think he does. I just think he has different strings to his bow.

Incidentally, I'm not saying that smith has more strings to his bow than Eastmond, so don't go misquoting me on that as well. I'm saying that he has his own set of strings and Smith has his, but Eastmond's are not greater in number than Smiths; just different.

I'd agree with that. Play Kyle at 6 and let Smith guide the team and take up the majority of the kicking from 7

Worth saying though like SaintFan pointed out we shouldnt play Kyle unless he is fully over his injury

I never said you did, where have I misquoted you?

Smiths kicking game is better than Eastmonds, but not as much as Eastmonds running game is better than Smiths. Eastmonds kicking game is competent, he has the leg strength and accuracy, he lacks experience of picking the right option. Smiths running game has not improved in 2 years of first team action.

You misquote me fairly regularly, BL.


Like I say, the two are different. I think Smith's running game has improved but would have improved more had he had more game time in that two years, not to mention better teams in which to play. Moore had the advantage of Huddersfield under Brown. What has Smith had? Crusaders where he was virtually never played and Salford where he has only recently secured a regular spot and they finished towards the bottom end of the table. However, aside from his running game Smith is a good organiser. I'm still not convinced over Eastmond in that respect. That may develop as time passes but as things stand just now Smith is the better organiser and kicker; Eastmond the better broken field player with significantly more flash and speed. As I said, I think the two could complement each other well and provide Saints with a more rounded halfback partnership.

I think this is about the best explanation of the two players I've seen. With leon as a running halfback, he would be ideally complimented by a kicking half, but Kyle is still improving and could become that very rare player that is both

I think you've answered your own question about why Smith hasn't been offered a deal with one of the league's premier clubs. Smith has a good kicking game which is something that pretty much most Saints fans agreed with a couple of years ago. However, there was also consensus that Eastmond offers us significantly more than Smith does and a couple of performances in wet weather behind a dominant pack are not going to overhaul that opinion instantly for the sane section of our support. For those knee-jerking reactionaries it will change their opinion instantly in the same way that opinions usually change with knee-jerk reactionaries i.e. one week we're amazing, the next it's "Potter out!". This team needs support that has a level head and is able to see the bigger picture which is something that is severely lacking in some sections.

I've never misquoted you, anytime I have quoted you I have lifted the text directly from your posts. The fact that you try to go back on what you have written when you've backed yourself into a corner or are plainly incorrect is not misquoting. Neither is it usually out of context and it's certainly nothing to do with integrity. It's all about you being intransigent.



I agree.




He played 16 times for Crusaders, often at SH or SO and 25 for Salford, again often in either of the half back positions. He's hardly been rotting in the reserves in either year.



He did, but we're talking about Eastmond not Moore.



That statement is incorrect. Smith could not usurp Jace Van Dyjk at Crusaders. Yet you think he's a better bet than Eastmond, the current GB 7?



They could complement each other, but that doesn't show that Smith is a better bet than Eastmond, and he's certainly not in the class of Pryce. He's had near enough two years of full time SL experience being on loan, he'd not have got that at Saints.

I don't think I answered anything actually. I was giving an example of how, compared to Moore, Smith hasn't had the opportunity to develop his game. The point of sending players out on loan is to develop their game (these days that's the point anyway). However, he was largely ignored in Wales, because Dixon loved his fellow Aussies, and McRae was juggling between Ratchford and Smith to partner the Aussie whose name I can't recall just now in the halves at Salford. Ratchford was supposed to be the Next Best Thing after Myler at Salford but it turns out McCrae thinks Matty is the better deal at 7. I would say Smith may have had some development at Salford but obviously playing behind a better pack is going to develop any halfback's game more significantly than playing behind what Salford has to offer.

Actually, I was talking about Smith when you 'lifted that quote' directly from my post. (No, of course you don't misquote me!)


Dixon preferred Van Dyjk at Crusaders, that does not mean Van Dyjk was a better 7 than Smith. I didn't say Smith was a better seven than Eastmond. I said he was different. I'm not repeating myself anymore.

Jase van Dyjk was a quality 7. Ask him. Australia were gonna come a calling!

Was he cute? I can't remember.

I heard they called but he'd changed his number... Australia missed the boat there!

Van Dyck > Thurston

Right on!