youtu.be/LtQWS2VrpqM Eastmond gives a pass on this at 8:50 that Smith still couldn't throw now. This was his first game against Australia at the age of 20. Smith isn't fit to lace Eastmond's boots. Never has been.

youtu.be/LtQWS2VrpqM Eastmond gives a pass on this at 8:50 that Smith still couldn't throw now. This was his first game against Australia at the age of 20. Smith isn't fit to lace Eastmond's boots. Never has been.

Eastmond is another level to smith. Simple as that

Maybe, but does Matty Smith.

I wish we could have kept Eastmond, it would have solved a lot of our problems at our club level and international level.
On the Smith/Eastmond debate we can say Smith is now a very good superleague player who has took 10 years to get an international cap, where Eastmond had far more potential proven by getting an international cap in 18 months.
Over the years saints half backs have seen them play "off the cuff" rugby to suit the clubs style of play, Smith didn't really have the skillset to fit into this category and seems to better in a structered side like Wigan.

The frustrating thing with Smith is not that we favoured Eastmond ahead of him. Eastmond was clearly the better prospect and I feel pretty sure that he'd be one of the best scrum halves in world rugby league had he stuck around. It's unfortunate that he didn't, but such is life.

The frustrating thing is that we binned Smith off while Scott Moore was still at the club. Smith could have done a good job of the back up half/hooker role that Moore was playing at the time, and then when Eastmond jumped ship we would have had a replacement already at the club. Instead we were lumbered with a brainless hooker/loose forward who spent the next few years either out on loan or giving away penalties in big matches.

I think thats a good call tbh. The problem we had was we just didnt think through the contract / recruitment situation properly. Letting Smith go and keeping Moore but also only having Eastmond on a short term deal was utterly stupid.

I think the only feasible explanation for the Eastmond 1 year deal was that he had basically said 'it's one year or nothing'. In that situation I can see why Saints gave him the deal, no doubt in the hope that they could free up some cap space and make him a bigger offer the following year. In hindsight we'd have been better off cutting our losses at that point and looking for a permanent replacement, but that would have been a massive call to make at the time.

Every top quality side is structured. Off the cuff rugby grows off the back of a solid structure. It comes from doing the simple things right.

I feel that if we'd invested in Smith, he'd have won his 1st England cap years back.

If we are being honest, matty smith didn't look enough at the time and eastmond was streets ahead of him. I'd say Moore had more potential at the time.

Yeah, you're probably right. I suppose they were two different kind of prospects. Moore was a rough diamond - talented but flawed - so I suspect the club thought that if they could smooth out the irregularities they would have a top player. As it happened he never got rid of his weaknesses. Smith probably looked like a solid enough player who was never going to get much better. Fair play to him - he's proved a lot of people wrong.