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?

I couldn't decide, to be honest. Not because I think they are all of equal ability but because neither Pryce nor Eastmond offer us the tactical kicking game that Smith does and while Pryce is a better organiser than Eastmond, I think Smith organised us better than Pryce on Friday. Granted, he wouldn't always play that well but we have lacked really good organisation and any form of tactical kicking all season. In fact, so far as tactical kicking is concerned, we've been missing it for a few seasons as Longy's tactical kicking faded ages ago.

So I couldn't decide because we need all three to really make us the strongest we could be.

That's all I'm saying.

No point in all the heated debates on this topic.

Saints had a choice to make in keeping either eastmond or smith, the club knows these two players better than any fans, the club went with eastmond.

IMO saints made correct call as it's pretty obvious kyle looks to be be a very special player and has the x factor.

I like smith and he was awesome on friday and when he filled in for longy he was very good but clubs have the SC to abide by and having eastmond, pryce, smith, moore and wheeler wouldn't be good for our SC.

I'd pick smith in all our games this year and i'd love him to join salford with a grand final winners ring.

I wouldn't drop him now, none of our injured players are going to be fully fit and I think we've seen theat the injuries they are carrying won't allow them to play at full whack for 80mins.

I think it would be unfair not to include Lomax in the selection. I know he doesn't have experience but he has bags and bags of talent. He's ripped teams to shreds single handedly the past few weeks. I don't recall him ever having a bad game that i have seen. Performs fantasticly week in and week out and if he is fit, i believe he has more than earned a shirt.

All this bickering over whether a Volkswagen is better than a Ferrari. Mental.

If Lomax and Eastmond are 100% fit, they should play in the halves - not Matty Smith.

I disagree, Smith added a massive amount of stability to the team and it's organisation. Pryce could do that were he fit but assuming he's out for the season, Smith IMO has to play every game, whether Kyle returns or not.

Kyle free to create and run at 6 and Smith at 7 organising and probing? It's a dream ticket.

go for a lie down, youre talking sense

Eastmond won't be fit so go with Lomax and Smith (if Jonny's fit enough)

Exactly, exactly, exactly.