Myler clearly had no form as he was not playing.

He got the chance as he earned it for the France game and due to circumstances out of his control was dropped from the Salford team, once he announced he was going to Wire.

He was given a chance vs France as Smith believed we needed an organiser in the halves and Myler was the best option for this, but the simple fact he did not organise or lead the team round the field, and the other 2 players Tomkins and Eastmond are superior off the cuff, broken field players.

The bit in bold highlights the attitude of a typical SL player incapable of making the step up to be an International at the top level.

Wonder what Alan Langer and Ricky Stewart would say to that line of thought. The fact is if we want to compete with the best in the halves we have to have the best players with the strength of character to deal with it and the pressures it brings.

They are called Test matches because they are played to test every aspect of your ability, giving into the pressure of the situation not dealing with that perceived pressure etc gets you mauling's at Test level against the best, as has been seen time and time again of late.

Lets not let a garbage performance vs the top team in the world be swept under the carpet, he had his chance and has lost it, back to the back of the queue for Danny, now he will have to be patient await his opportunity but now for me he is fourth in line for a shot again.

Didn't you say: [i"Simply because he wore the 7 shirt in a meaningless international does not mean he had the 7 shirt"[/i. So which is it? He had no form and the French game was a meaningless international, so why did Smith select him? Why drop a winning half back, would you not expect him to need more than one game to settle with a new squad of players? We were poor against France in the first half, but gradually improved and got on top. Wouldn't that suggest that the halves were working better with the forwards and the backs as the game progressed.


Your obsesion with bagging McGuire is also noted.

Oh well if we can't beat the Kiwis, at least we should be able to beat JVT.

This argument will run & run, Tomorrow night a thread will be up about one of the half-backs, truth is any natural talent is coached of players in this country espesially by smith, no one even dare chip over the top incase of giving away good field posistion, its more convinient to kick dead and regroup for a 20m restart.

I think Tony made a statement in the dropping of Pryce, Burrow, Gilmour, Wellens etc..

Then I don't think he knows what his best combination is in the backs due to the usual lack of preperation time afforded him.

I also think deep down he knows the quality of our back line bar one or two is dog sh*t...

I think he did. I think he over reacted to all the leeds/Saints stuff as well.

Obviously leeds and Saints are still the two best teams in the comp and they should've made up the bulk of the squad. His job as coach is to make them gel.

What he did was dilute the squad with too many mediocre players from mediocre teams, including, arguably, his own.

You need to take yourself outside and give your head a shake.

It CAN be argued. I would argue it. Your opinion is not definitive. Its' usually the polar opposite.

I'll say it again, look on the VT and you'll find many posts from many fans of other clubs scratching their heads about Burrows' omission.

Personally I thought Burrow was the form 7 over the course of the season and his form got better as the season went on leading right up to....well....you know...the 4 nations.

Unlike Myler who hadn't played since Jul and unlike Eastmond who had barely played 7 at all and hadn't done at the end of the season.

You see, it CAN be argued and it CAN be argued with substance.

NEVER!

Never say never

Don't think he dropped Pryce. He's still not been found since he went missing one Saturday evening a few weeks ago.

That's generous.

Anything close to what Myler produced? Myler "produced" so much that his club coach felt he could comfortably manage without him for the final third of the season.

Are you seriously suggesting that for an international series in October and November we should pick players based on the form they showed between February and July?

In fairness, I think it's very obvious why Myler was dropped and it isn't because he's not good enough to play for Salford.

Which negates my question in the second paragraph how, exactly?

It doesn't, nor did I say that it did. Geez everyone on here is so touchy!

But [i"Myler "produced" so much that his club coach felt he could comfortably manage without him for the final third of the season"[/i is a little bit unfair given the circumstances.

You were watching something different to all the experts then, considering he wasn't in the top 4 of the voting for scrumhalf for the super league dream team.




Yet to see anything yet on this thread that you have posted with substance. Just seems to be your opinion rather than an argument with substance.

If there had been promotion and relegation I bet McRae would have picked Myler!!!

Maybe he would, we'll never know.

Fact is that from July to October Myler showed absolutely no form whatsoever. Zero. Nil. Nada.

To claim that he had done enough to establish himself as the number one British scrum half despite spending three months not featuring at first team level is ludicrous. If he was head and shoulders above everyone else fair enough, but even when he was playing he was hardly the stand-out performer amongst his peers IMO.

Got to agree 100% with Gareth in everything he has said over the last two weeks regarding Burrow.

Brian Noble mad Burrow wait 3 years to earn his place. He did this without ever moaning. He came in and was outstanding.

He certainly was also no worse than anyone else in Australia - Sykes anyone?

Then Myler plays a handful of decent games for Salford, standing out in a very ordinary team and all of a sudden Burrow is displaced.

I am all for progression, if in deed it is a clear progression but i also think with that lack of international games there has to be a degree of loyalty, Burrow over the course of the season was certainly worthy of another chance. His direction for Leeds in the grand final was exactly was England were missing last week.

The pre-match talk v Australia was all about a kicking game, yet along with Sinfield the man who has shown how it is done in the last 3 GF's was discarded in favour of Myler.

Like G1 says though he is not in the squad so no point worrying about it. The only thing is, Burrow has to be defended when people come on here raving about Myler as if he is some sort of Peter Sterling.

Its not that difficult he was given the shirt to prove himself the organiser Smith felt the team lacked, on form prior to being dropped he was the front runner for it.

He was not dropped for form issues he was dropped by Salford, as he chose to move to Warrington. In a game that we were never going to loose he played to see if he could be the organiser Smith wanted after so long on the sidelines, he did not step up to the plate in that department and was rightfully dropped.

Why drop a winning half back.....again ask Langer and Stewart why drop anyone after a win? To improve the team, if winning is the be all and end all not individual performance in the team the Aussie team would remain the same for years and years, generally it does not though as players who have a slight dip in form are gone, thats what International rugby is all about.

Regards my obsession with McGuire, thought this thread was all about discussing him given he is the title of it. You seem happy to attempt to justify his selection for this week, even though he clearly does not deserve it, yet are unable to offer well thought out reasoned debate against him being dropped.

I like McGuire, nothing against him but his performance on Saturday was shocking and he has to step aside and let a younger more hungry potentially far more effective partnership have a crack. That is what International rugby is all about.

I second this.

In 2007 Rob Burrow got the Harry Sunderland award at the Grand Final and got man of the series against the Kiwis. Since then he’s won one world club challenge, one league leaders and two more grand final trophies. Myler on the other hand like you said standing out in an average team that lingers at the top of the national league or bottom of super league.

But I’ll agree to whoever Tony picks and history will only tell whose the better player out of these two. Myler has got a long way to reach the highs that Burrow has.

ERM.............TONY SMITH HAS JUST SPLASHED OUT NIGH ON 200 GRAND FOR THE LITTLE GREMLIN.HE'S BOUND TO PICK HIS FAVOURITES FOR THE NATIONAL SIDE!!!

Do Leeds fans not realise that certain players simply do not have the right attributes to be an International rugby league player regardless of there performances for there domestic team?

I’m more than aware hence why I’m happy with who Tony is sticking with.

Seems like you are in a minority Damo.