WiganWarriorsFans.com

Sutty wrote: People go on about his attitude at Saints. Don't forget, at Saints he was one of the best and only stand out players that they had.
At Wigan, he would be another excellent player, amongst a team with more than one or two World class players in it. Hence, he would probably lost the attitude (if it ever existed in the first place) and could concentrate on playing the game.

Personally, I think he'd be a superb acquisition and could compliment Matty Smith excellently.

:eusa2: :eusa2: :eusa2:

Sutty wrote:People go on about his attitude at Saints. Don't forget, at Saints he was one of the best and only stand out players that they had.
At Wigan, he would be another excellent player, amongst a team with more than one or two World class players in it. Hence, he would probably lost the attitude (if it ever existed in the first place) and could concentrate on playing the game.

Personally, I think he'd be a superb acquisition and could compliment Matty Smith excellently.

Kyle is like the vast majority of Rugby League players, a sound guy who is very approachable.

Ability and pace in abundance, but Like Leon Pryce, Eastmond has a heart the size of a pea, showing a lack of consistancy at top level.
When at Stains he had a dicky shoulder and was caught out in defence too.
Is he a player who will be continually injured throughout his playing career having only made one "Off the Bench" appearance for Bath since joining from Stains. He is currently out with a hamstring tear picked up in training, on top of Groin and Knee injuries already suffered at The Rec.
My question is, how much of this is in his head.

Fair point PM, echoing many made on RedVee earning him the epithet of Biscuit Boy long before he was spotted by RU. Yet, ironically those same fans muse what might have been had he and Pryce been fit for the 2010 GF!

So the question is, do we want a player who can win us games, or one who just might have, had he played? :conf:

Not for me thanks, our current 2 HB's are tough as nails and that is a big part of them both being very good players. For me all great HB's have to be tough because they are targets for the big boys due to them being the biggest threats on the field, Eastmond is far from tough in my opinion.

Kittwazzer wrote:Fair point PM, echoing many made on RedVee earning him the epithet of Biscuit Boy long before he was spotted by RU. Yet, ironically those same fans muse what might have been had he and Pryce been fit for the 2010 GF!

So the question is, do we want a player who can win us games, or one who just might have, had he played? :conf:

Your guess is as good as mine Kitt, at his best he is no doubt a match winner but shown all too few and far between.
In his last season at Saints (or a good part of it) his mind was definitely away from St Helens, which maybe wasnt a true reflection of the real Kyle Eastmond.
I look at Sam Tomkins, similar age and similar ability to Eastmond, but theres no comparrison in attitudes, theyre like chalk and cheese.

All RL players are tough but some are tougher than others.

shaunedwardsfan​club​ wrote:All RL players are tough but some are tougher than others.

Exactly, and KE is not tough enough!

He has had plenty of chances and taken none. The killer for me is his injury record. A successful team needs a settled team and certainly in the halfbacks. So it's not on my nelly for me!