Long Or Eastmond (Now in 2011) : Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:46 am  

Right, i spoke about this when we let Longy go but im gunna talk now considering Eastmond's future is in massive doubts. IMO Eastmond will go, his head and heart is not at Saints but the question i want to ask everyone is should we have kept Longy instead of letting him go for a young money grabber who would always want to go to union?


I myself know that Longy is nowhere near his best and know that he is injury prone just like Kyle but Longy is a match winner and i believe we could have benefited from his expierence and i think it wouldn't be a major bad thing if we did get him back for a season or 2. Obv there is better out there but now knowing that Eastmond will always fancy a chance at union and knowing his head and heart isn't at Saints would you have just kept Longy for that 1 season or 2?

Re: Long Or Eastmond (Now in 2011) : Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:48 am  

Eastmond played more games than Long last season

Re: Long Or Eastmond (Now in 2011) : Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:55 am  

Eastmond all the way. Long was poor in his last season at Saints, was injured most of last year for Hull amd will probably retire at the same time Kyle's current deal runs out anyway. Kyle had his problems with injury, but when he was fit and playing he was scoring crucial tries every week and doing a decent job with his kicking and distribution. Also, we shouldn't assume that because Kyle is keeping his options open regarding his future he won't put his back into it for Saints in the present.

Re: Long Or Eastmond (Now in 2011) : Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:57 am  

Two Wheeled Saint wrote:

Eastmond played more games than Long last season

I'm also not sure he realises that "match-winner" Long played at 7 in three of our four GF losses on the trot.

He started his downhill slope at least 2 years ago and it was certainly the right decision to let him go.

Re: Long Or Eastmond (Now in 2011) : Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:18 am  

Dux wrote:

Eastmond all the way. Long was poor in his last season at Saints, was injured most of last year for Hull amd will probably retire at the same time Kyle's current deal runs out anyway. Kyle had his problems with injury, but when he was fit and playing he was scoring crucial tries every week and doing a decent job with his kicking and distribution. Also, we shouldn't assume that because Kyle is keeping his options open regarding his future he won't put his back into it for Saints in the present.

Spot on

Re: Long Or Eastmond (Now in 2011) : Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:39 am  

Saint Jamie B wrote:

Right, i spoke about this when we let Longy go but im gunna talk now considering Eastmond's future is in massive doubts. IMO Eastmond will go, his head and heart is not at Saints but the question i want to ask everyone is should we have kept Longy instead of letting him go for a young money grabber who would always want to go to union?


I myself know that Longy is nowhere near his best and know that he is injury prone just like Kyle but Longy is a match winner and i believe we could have benefited from his expierence and i think it wouldn't be a major bad thing if we did get him back for a season or 2. Obv there is better out there but now knowing that Eastmond will always fancy a chance at union and knowing his head and heart isn't at Saints would you have just kept Longy for that 1 season or 2?

You make some pretty radical assumptions about Kyle there based seemingly on nothing but rumours in the press and tbh need to be more careful about what you say.

Re: Long Or Eastmond (Now in 2011) : Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:54 am  

Kyle 100%
If kyle goes, then we should see how a few others like Lomax or wheeler go in the halves, failing that just nick someone like Sammut from crusaders until we can find a more longterm solution

Re: Long Or Eastmond (Now in 2011) : Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:47 pm  

Kyle for me. I'm just hoping he decides to remain at Saints long term and manages to have a (relatively) injury-free season during 2011. Longy was the past. I'm happy for him to remain there.

Re: Long Or Eastmond (Now in 2011) : Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:21 pm  

A couple of years back I posted a topic "Fat boy or Rat Boy" asking if you should keep both Cunningham and/or Long.

I think you were right to let Long go, but maybe you should have released Cunningham a year earlier than you did.

Re: Long Or Eastmond (Now in 2011) : Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:16 pm  

Dux wrote:

Eastmond all the way. Long was poor in his last season at Saints, was injured most of last year for Hull amd will probably retire at the same time Kyle's current deal runs out anyway. Kyle had his problems with injury, but when he was fit and playing he was scoring crucial tries every week and doing a decent job with his kicking and distribution. Also, we shouldn't assume that because Kyle is keeping his options open regarding his future he won't put his back into it for Saints in the present.

What he said