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!

Yes, talking about Smith when comparing him with [iEastmond[/i, not Moore. You brought Moore into it, for no apparent reason, how have I misquoted you?



Ah, so you agree with me then, keeping Eastmond over Smith was the correct way forward? Surely you don't think we should have kept the inferior player?

Inferior is a tad harsh. I think its not only about who is the better its about who will fit into and around the style we play the best. Eastmond is that man.

Because you took my quote out of context. I brought Moore into it to contrast opportunities. That is obvious from reading my post.


When did I say we should replace Eastmond with Smith? I'm sure I've been saying that they are different. I don't think Smith is an inferior player. He may turn out to be if Eastmond develops his game. But at present I think they are both good players, with Eastmond having the headstart in the flash department, but they are very different players. Smith is the better organiser and tactical kicker. Eastmond is speedier, flashier, can pull off some great individual moves, sometimes setting up plays and can create some sweet kicks over the tryline. I can't compare their passing games as I haven't seen enough of Smith with the Saints to do so. Eastmond passes quite a few hospital passes in every game he plays but then he'll pull of something extraordinarily brilliant. Based solely upon Friday's match, Smith made a couple of seriously good passes, average passes and one howler.

Whereas I would say both men would provide us with the ideal halfback partnership. Or rather, perhaps more accurately, both [istyles[/i of halfback play would make the ideal halfback partnership. What Smith brought to us on Friday is what IMO Saints have lacked for a couple of seasons. Smith clearly isn't going to be the man to bring that to us because he's signed for Salford.

Well he still has great affection for the club and admitted he'd have been there watching regardless of the late call up & Carvell signed for Hull but started the season at Warrington, never say never but its hugely unlikely and its probably right as full strength he isn't going to be in the 17 unless he took the place of Scott Moore maybe and he deserves to play every week.

I agree that they could form a great partnership playing off each other, I wanted us to retain Smith for this year rather than loan him again (in hindsight it would have been very handy given the injuries to 6 & 7 we've had this year), Smith playing organiser and kicking in general and allowing Eastmond to play the type of game that got him the England number 7, but we can't overlook just how good a season Leon has had and he is the number one half back.

Yup. That's the one.


Nope. He had a brilliant season and we've missed him big time since he has been injured. We didn't know that he would a season ago, though, did we? As it turns out he was probably held back by Longy.

My understanding is that the Crusaders wanted to take him on loan. It makes no sense for them to take him on loan and then not play him unless he isn't good enough to play. There is little logic to your suggestion that there was an anti-Smith conspiracy at Crusaders to keep Smith out of the team because of Dixon's favouritism.

As you appear to have forgotten I will remind you on behalf of everybody else who had this debate two years ago. Smith's ability to take on the line with the ball in hand is nowhere near the same quality as Eastmond and in the modern game you must have a half back that is able to ask questions of the defence when he is taking it on. Smith is very much an upgrade on Paul Deacon in that he has better leg strength but his ability to take on the line is around the same level as Deacon's was.

It's far easier to coach kicking and organising into halves than it is to improve their ability to take on the line. Eastmond is a natural athlete in this area and with the time for development as Smith has had his kicking game would be comparable.

Don't be stupid.

If memory serves, it was only the injury to the Aussie halfback that enabled Smith to play on a regular basis. Since the idea of loans is to develop the player, that was a poor show by Dixon. But Dixon was obsessed with his Aussies. And he was only a championship level coach anyway.


As you appear not to have read my posts, I will repeat once more for the hard of understanding. My very point bringing in Moore was to compare loan experiences. Smith has not had top grade situations in which to develop his game. Had he been at a Huddersfield, for example, like Moore was, he may well have developed his ability to take on the line. He might not either. But he might. Just as, playing with Saints, Eastmond might be able to develop his organisational side or his short kicking game or his ability to think on his feet rather than rely upon the coach's instructions. He might not either. But he might. At least Eastmond will have a good team around him and hopefully a good coach too to provide him with the opportunity. I'm not at all sure Smith has enjoyed that luxury.

SaintsFan - do you like being contrary all the time? You could start an argument looking in the mirror...

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.



Because you think we should have kept Smith. It was an either or situation, not both. Both players were at a level were reserve level was doing nothing but hindering them, neither was going to replace Pryce for a number of years. It was keep one or the other.

It is harsh, but true. In the same vein as Deacon was an inferior player to Long, although he had a better kicking game (far better than the Smith/Eastmond comparison at the moment IMO).

I have no problem with Smith as a player, he was good enough for SL 2 years ago. I didn't think he'd get much better than he was then, and I don't think he has now. Hopefully he'll end up at a club that has a dominant pack that can give him room to work, I actually think he'd have been a better bet for Huddersfield than Brough.

I just think that the club made the right decision to go with Eastmond over Smith, the fact that he's come back and played well now hasn't changed that opinion.

The majority of the fans on here would agree with that.

There is a great incentive for Matty to perform at his highest level to try and get a Grand Final place.

Why do you choose to have a go at me? I mean, other people disagree with each other. Why is it that I'm contrary when all I'm doing is disagreeing with two different posters but everyone else is simply debating? If they keep on bringing up different elements of my post, which actually they are arguing with (and therefore they could be accused of being contrary), then why am I not free to contradict that without being harrassed for it?

If we end up playing Leeds at the Grand Final again then an on-form tactical kicker is exactly what we need.

We can only have one first choice stand off, and one first choice scrum half. Smith and Eastmond have made it perfectly clear they don't want to settle for the position of 'reserve'.

We have Pryce, Eastmond, Smith.

Which two do YOU stick with?