Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:07 pm  

Ski wrote:

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

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

Van Dyck > Thurston

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:09 pm  

tm - tl wrote:

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

Van Dyck > Thurston

Right on!

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:18 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

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

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

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.

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?

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:22 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

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.

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:26 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

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

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

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?

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.

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:28 pm  

tm - tl wrote:

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.

Whereas I would say both men would provide us with the ideal halfback partnership. Or rather, perhaps more accurately, both styles 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.

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:52 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Whereas I would say both men would provide us with the ideal halfback partnership. Or rather, perhaps more accurately, both styles 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.

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 3:16 pm  

Chris Saint wrote:

Smith playing organiser and kicking in general and allowing Eastmond to play the type of game that got him the England number 7

Yup. That's the one.

but we can't overlook just how good a season Leon has had and he is the number one half back.

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.

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 3:56 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

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,

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.

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:31 pm  

McClennan wrote:

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.

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 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.

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.