Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:41 pm  

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

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:22 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

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

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

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.

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.

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:36 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.

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.

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:51 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

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.

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:53 pm  

Carlos Alberto wrote:

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

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?

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:54 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

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

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

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:00 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.

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?

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:29 pm  

Cragganmore Kid wrote:

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.

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:08 pm  

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.

Re: Matty Smith : Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:27 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

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.

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.