Pryce is a shoe-in at stand-off. Therefore you'd have Eastmond and Smith both vying for the scrum half position, with neither of them happy to be second choice. You don't often have the luxury of being able to field a reserve scrum half on the bench given the need to spell your forwards.

So while I'm sure he [icould[/i complement Eastmond, I'm pretty sure Smith wouldn't be happy with playing back-up.

Some people need to get some perspective. Matty Smith had a great game on Friday but in a Saints shirt he has not shown the consistency to warrant the jersey. I'm grateful for what he did, and I hope he does it again if called upon, but I don't think a mistake was made in letting him go. I'm happy with our half back options when everyone is fit and I don't think Matty would be in the first 17.

Plenty. Often turning round the back three too.



Plenty, made a fair few too. I thought you watched all of the home games?

Christ, I can't believe this is even a debate, look at the stats for [url=http://www.superleague.co.uk/statistics_player.php?hs1=2010&hp1=2302&hs2=2010&hp2=2844&stat=tries&season=2010this year[/url alone. He's better than him in most stats, and is only a small distance behind in kicks in general play and attacking kicks. In half the matches. Yet you haven't seen Eastmond make kicks from mid field? And you'd prefer Smith to Eastmond?

Kyle has only kicked one forty twenty in his entire career and it came in 2008.

This is all that needs to be said on the matter.

The one at Wakey? Thought he'd done more than that.

It's quite simple - Eastmond is a special player, Smith is a good kicker. If Eastmond is fit, Smith doesn't get a look in.

Would Smith have won us the play-off against Wigan last season with ball in hand? Would he have scored that try in the GF last year? Would he have terrorised the Kiwis like Kyle did last year?

Let's face it - Eastmond is better, which is why Smith is playing for Salford next year. Smith is 23 and won't want to be sitting around waiting for Kyle to get injured, so it's not even a debate.

Plus, why should we be in constant contact with Matty? He was on a season long loan and everybody knew full well he would sign for Salford and wouldn't get an offer from Saints, including Matty himself.

I agree with all of that.

If Kyle is back for the semi, would it be worth going with smith and Kyle at halfback?

In the absence of Pryce and Lomax it's a certainty IMO.

I think I'd go with smith and Kyle even if lomax is back.

I think Potter may feel compelled to revert to Kyle and Jonny if both are fully fit, and I'd be inclined to agree with him.

I'd agree with that, jonny lomax is coming along nicely, but is similar in style to Kyle, matty is different and give us a different dimension in attack.

Yes, I do. Unlike you, it seems!


I think the two are different types of player and would complement each other well. But that is what I have consistently thought. Friday night just reinforced it.

Exactly.

And we are missing what Smith gave us on Friday night.

That's my point, while lomax is coming along very well, I don't think he's played halfback enough yet for such a big game.

Matty smith has been first choice halfback for a while now and can control the game for us.

Lomax may show the glimpse of class like the pass to gidley against cas but we need more than that with leon out.

Smith and Kyle for me.

I doubt we'll see Kyle back again. Surely even Mick Potter wouldn't put him back on the pitch if he is still in some discomfort, as he was last time, because in these vital matches if it can possibly be avoided the team really don't need being unsettled during a match again when he once more limps off.

Yes, those are a lot of kicks he's made seeing as none of them are from midfield.



They are two different types of player, Eastmond has more strings to his bow.

In that case surely lomax can't play as the is a good chance he'll limp off as well.

I've a feeling kyle will be fit for the semi and IMO without doubt should link up with smith in at halfback.

He limped off later than Kyle did though so maybe he's not as badly injured.




According to reports, things are not looking hopeful for that.

I don't agree. He may do over time but at present, I don't think he does. I just think he has different strings to his bow.

Incidentally, I'm not saying that smith has more strings to his bow than Eastmond, so don't go misquoting me on that as well. I'm saying that he has his own set of strings and Smith has his, but Eastmond's are not greater in number than Smiths; just different.

I'd agree with that. Play Kyle at 6 and let Smith guide the team and take up the majority of the kicking from 7

Worth saying though like SaintFan pointed out we shouldnt play Kyle unless he is fully over his injury

I never said you did, where have I misquoted you?

Smiths kicking game is better than Eastmonds, but not as much as Eastmonds running game is better than Smiths. Eastmonds kicking game is competent, he has the leg strength and accuracy, he lacks experience of picking the right option. Smiths running game has not improved in 2 years of first team action.

You misquote me fairly regularly, BL.


Like I say, the two are different. I think Smith's running game has improved but would have improved more had he had more game time in that two years, not to mention better teams in which to play. Moore had the advantage of Huddersfield under Brown. What has Smith had? Crusaders where he was virtually never played and Salford where he has only recently secured a regular spot and they finished towards the bottom end of the table. However, aside from his running game Smith is a good organiser. I'm still not convinced over Eastmond in that respect. That may develop as time passes but as things stand just now Smith is the better organiser and kicker; Eastmond the better broken field player with significantly more flash and speed. As I said, I think the two could complement each other well and provide Saints with a more rounded halfback partnership.

I think this is about the best explanation of the two players I've seen. With leon as a running halfback, he would be ideally complimented by a kicking half, but Kyle is still improving and could become that very rare player that is both

I think you've answered your own question about why Smith hasn't been offered a deal with one of the league's premier clubs. Smith has a good kicking game which is something that pretty much most Saints fans agreed with a couple of years ago. However, there was also consensus that Eastmond offers us significantly more than Smith does and a couple of performances in wet weather behind a dominant pack are not going to overhaul that opinion instantly for the sane section of our support. For those knee-jerking reactionaries it will change their opinion instantly in the same way that opinions usually change with knee-jerk reactionaries i.e. one week we're amazing, the next it's "Potter out!". This team needs support that has a level head and is able to see the bigger picture which is something that is severely lacking in some sections.