Nonsense. Dig out your videos of the semi and final from 2010 and then tell me that Smith was the answer. He clearly wasn't. Only an idiot would have sold Pryce, Eastmond or Wheeler at the time to keep him and we made absolutely the right decision to offload him.

Well seemingly only one of those is currently at the club and let's be honest wheeler is not fit to lace smiths boots.

Nonsense again. Smith is the dictionary definition of average. You may be happy building a team around average (and I bet you're one of the kneejerkers who come on here screaming about our lack of "ambition" in recruitment every 2 minutes) but I'm not. Wheeler runs rings 'round him in terms of talent all day long. I'd sooner take a chance on a potentially great player who may or not make it over a thoroughly uninspiring and totally middle of the road player who will never be anything but.

Quote: Northampton_Saint "Nonsense again. Smith is the dictionary definition of average. You may be happy building a team around average (and I bet you're one of the kneejerkers who come on here screaming about our lack of "ambition" in recruitment every 2 minutes) but I'm not. Wheeler runs rings 'round him in terms of talent all day long. I'd sooner take a chance on a potentially great player who may or not make it over a thoroughly uninspiring and totally middle of the road player who will never be anything but.'" Wheeler is lucky if he can run take your specs off. Ditching smith was a big mistake. I bet those that made the decision are kicking themselves so get off your high horse. Clearly someone at the club thought so too if this is to be believed. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18282851

Quote: Northampton_Saint "Nonsense again. Smith is the dictionary definition of average. You may be happy building a team around average (and I bet you're one of the kneejerkers who come on here screaming about our lack of "ambition" in recruitment every 2 minutes) but I'm not. Wheeler runs rings 'round him in terms of talent all day long. I'd sooner take a chance on a potentially great player who may or not make it over a thoroughly uninspiring and totally middle of the road player who will never be anything but.'" Wheeler is lucky if he can run take your specs off. Ditching smith was a big mistake. I bet those that made the decision are kicking themselves so get off your high horse. Clearly someone at the club thought so too if this is to be believed. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18282851

I tend to agree. We should have kept him, but not instead of the halfbacks mentioned, we should have kept him instead of Moore .

Eastmond for me was a 6
Wheeler I just don't rate and his attitude stinks.
Lomax could be a great fb or maybe even 6 but he does not have the brain or kicking game for 7

Smith was a 7. You say average I say you do him a dis-service.

World class no but better than average.

Letting smith go was not the error.


Letting Smith go, telling Long he could only have one year ( effectively telling him to go), booting out ellis. This left Eastmond as the last man standing, with no competitors before we had even agreed his contract was the mistake.

We put all our eggs into one basket, who had bigger fish to fry and an agent whose aim was to get him to RU, not long term at Saints. I find it hard to believe that Eastmond would have gone to RU, after only a few 'guest' appearances at Saints. Telling everyone else to go, left it wide open for Eastmond to plan his exit from RL to perfection. Had we held off getting rid of Long and Smith until the contract had been agreed with Eastmond, maybe we could have pushed Eastmond into a longer contract than 2 years. Or if not we could have looked ahead and seen that he was going in 2 years and would need an experienced half and not get rid of them all.

We've shifted more quality halfbacks out of St. helens in the last 2 years than most clubs can develop in 10 years.

Put Lomax or Gaskell or Wheeler along side any of these.
Eastmond, Long, Pryce, Smith.

The half back situation would be dramatically improved and there would never have been a need to panic buy Lance. The younger players would have an experienced, quality player to learn from and to take the big calls. Unlike now were the younger players are having to tutor Lance.

I agree with that.

I liked eastmond at 1st reciever, his power from a stadning start was a real assest, he had composure and a better kicking game than we gave him credit for.

So much of what was good last year came from the Lomaskell combination. If we'd still had Smith, that wouldn't have happened, BUT, a smith 7 lomax 6 combo would be very capable - certainly better than current.

Yes to an extent still think 6 similar to mcguire would have suited him better.

A smith lomas combination could have made a different saint this year IMHO.

Damn ipad

Yes, but so could a Gaskell - Lomax combo.

Smith is a good scrum half. He can pass, kick and organise. He's not a bad defender, either and can play both 7 and 9.
In a good set up, he'll do his job well, but he'll not be the guy breaking the big games for you - but, he may have played his part in a more rounded team performance helping Lomax or our outside backs play better.

That sort of player is very valuable in a salary capped game, mind. You can't have a team full of stars, but I wouldn't have kept him for any of the players mentioned at the time except, as I mentioned, Scott Moore.

Smith would be very useful to have in the side right now and he would give us a lot of the components in our game that we have been missing. But given the choice you would never pick him or keep him over an Eastmond. Eastmond is a very rare talent and, given how few alternatives of vaguely the same quality there are these days it was understandable that the club over-persued him and put too many eggs in his basket as it were. It was a terrible mistake to ever allow him to sign just a one year extension, but hindsight is 20/20 and we ultimately just don't know what was going on behind the scenes financially or in other context at the time that led to that decision.

We're still potentially 'reet though - I'm not utterly convinced Gaskell will ultimately be the answer to our creative half issue, but he potentially could be and has a far, far bigger upside than Smith if he does develop. Same goes for Wheeler - if a new coach can sort his head and his body out next year then we could still have a real match-winning superstar on our hands. Add in Lomax and we could have the kind of quality and options at half that most of the rest of the league could only dream of. Lots of ifs though naturally.

There are a couple of things with Wheeler......I think he expects to be 100% fit before he takes the field. Rightly or wrongly, most professional players spend their entire career at 85-90% and are never fully injury free. Look at the SF, he was out with a finger injury, even though it wasnt widely publicised, Wilkin played most of the final 6 weeks with broken fingers, missing just a game or two after his injury was aggravated.

Gaskell spent most of his junior career scoring tries for fun due to his sheer size advantage and as a result, now that he is in SL, he isnt the ceative half back that people seem to imagine him to be. First and foremost, he is a ball runner and his first instinct is to go himself rather than to look to put someone through a hole. That may work against tired defence but when you have top class defences, it only leads to frustration because you find yourself asking "why didnt he pass?"

His kicking game seems to be better that Lomax or Hohaia so he does have that going for him.

Personally, Id be looking to offload Hohaia and bring someone in.....anyone.....but that is easier said than done. Lomax would greatly benefit from a creative 6 and he would look alot more comfortable at 7 than he does now.

The Wheeler injury was the finger he dislocated at Warrington and at the moment seems to have some kind of metal support on it.

Biscuit fingers are always harder to fix than normal ones.