Re: Kyle Eastmond : Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:23 am  

SLS wrote:

http://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.

Its a pass a 12 year old could do? am i missing something, or did u think nobody other than saints fans would check it?

The pass against samoa is 10x that pass and for all the world class arm chair scouts on here Andrew johns and Tim Sheens praised smith more than Widdop.

Re: Kyle Eastmond : Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:56 am  

dubairl wrote:

:lol:

Its a pass a 12 year old could do? am i missing something, or did u think nobody other than saints fans would check it?

The pass against samoa is 10x that pass and for all the world class arm chair scouts on here Andrew johns and Tim Sheens praised smith more than Widdop.

I think comparing 12yr olds and 20yr old international players is a little stupid to be honest.

Re: Kyle Eastmond : Fri Nov 14, 2014 7:27 am  

Twentyman wrote:

I'm sticking to my guns with this one Matty Smith is playing for one of the strongest clubs in SL and is representing his country. Imo the club did not recognise his potential & let a quality scrum half leave. We struggled from then on without a quality half back for years until we eventually signed Walsh. Granted, Eastmond could be a match winner but was frustrating at times, opting to go alone instead of distributing the ball, especially near the line. I felt at the time we were quite boring and predictable on the attack, especially near the try line. I appreciate nobody is going to agree with what I've said here.

Someone questioned Smith's performances for England but I thought he'd played well personally. With a better hooker, he might have got better ball.

I have to agree, as you say its not a popular opinion, but i wish we'd have kept Matty, great player IMO

Re: Kyle Eastmond : Fri Nov 14, 2014 7:38 am  

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.

Re: Kyle Eastmond : Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:50 am  

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.

Re: Kyle Eastmond : Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:48 am  

Dux wrote:

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.

Re: Kyle Eastmond : Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:50 am  

dubairl wrote:

:lol:

Its a pass a 12 year old could do? am i missing something, or did u think nobody other than saints fans would check it?

The pass against samoa is 10x that pass and for all the world class arm chair scouts on here Andrew johns and Tim Sheens praised smith more than Widdop.

You think 12 years olds are throwing 10/15m passes to their wrong side perfectly in step for their outside backs ? Considering barely any British halves, Smith included, are even capable of providing quick and accurate passes to their wrong side at all, you're very wrong.

So, I'll surmise you're either an upset mug because 'dat norty man sed bad fings about de Wigun pwayer' or you're an idiot. Since I've checked and you're a daft Wigan fan, I'll conclude that you're both.

Re: Kyle Eastmond : Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:59 am  

No1 Saint wrote:

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.

Re: Kyle Eastmond : Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:04 am  

Judder Man wrote:

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.

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.

Re: Kyle Eastmond : Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:35 am  

Dux wrote:

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.

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.