Spot on.

Yes, he was. Smart .

He played at Batley and Castleford, IIRC.

I knew he had played in a couple of games but I was thinking more along the lines of regular first team appearances. I have no doubt that he would have gone on to be a regular feature but it seemed like the original poster was insinuating that he was playing regularly.

er....wriggle away, but you did get there all on your own and you have nobody but yourself to blame.

Come on - I mean there is a difference. Andrew Thornley made one appearance when on loan for us against Saints this season. I would never say "he's been playing first team rugby". Widnes obviously should take a lot of the credit for Myler but we did sign a 17 year old half back and start him from day one of the season which in most cases you wouldn't expect to happen.

Quote ="XBrettKennyX"Essentially Warrington won on Saturday as they were not as bad as Wigan. They did try their best to hit the suicide button, but Wigan were simply not clinical enough to exploit it. Two very average sides. Or at least that was the hypothesis. After the disappointment of Saturday I have been watching some old Wigan games, not to cheer me up, but to answer a question that came into my head repeatedly throughout the game- what on earth has happened to the standard of play/player in RL in the UK? The harsh reality is that in the last 15 years the only area in which the game has moved on is fitness/strength. In almost every other area it has gone backwards. There are fewer superstars, less entertaining football (maybe connected to the first one, maybe not), and certainly less "memorable" games. I asked myself "Surely the CC cannot be responsible for ALL of this". Sadly I found myself time and time again coming to the conclusion that it has. The CC is a very powerful weapon in RL in the UK, it effectively drags down teams to the lowest average level (it has to mathematically, and thus by it's very nature breeds mediocrity). "But they have a CC in Austrailia and that works". Well yes and no. They do have one, but the level of media attention ensures that a top players earnings outside his direct salary in Oz will earn far more than one over here. "They have one in American Football" - yes, however, that is in a country where there is no viable alternative to playing Gridiron (if you are cut out for that type of game), oh and there is also the massive absolute difference in the cap, not to mention sponsorship/other earnings opportunities. The difference in the UK is that the CC is really hurting the product on display. Few people notice this as the process has been a gradual one over time. Watching video's of how RL used to be played rams home this blunt fact. Not surprising when we lose players such as: www.swinglow.net/news/viewarticle.asp?id=21584 Which brings us back to the display on Saturday. We can't blame the players (on both sides) for not being up to it. They did their best. The truth is they are simply not as talented as those who would have competed in the same game 15 years ago. Yet who is really to blame for the continued acceptance of this mediocrity? Well people like me. In just over 2 weeks time I will trudge down to Wembley, as I have done for 20 odd years and watch the game. I now realise I am giving tacit approval to the CC in principle, and more importantly to it's effect on the game. Well this will be the last time I do it. Enough is enough. I am no longer prepared to accept a second rate spectacle. If I had wanted to see "competitive" or "level playing field" games, I would go and watch Amateur RL. In 10 years in order to see true talent I believe RU will be my only option.'" You can always rely on Tweedledum for a deluded and entertaining post. Now where's Tweedledee (Deano G), the other half of the Brothers Dimm, to add his, equally ludicrious, opinion?

Quote ="XBrettKennyX"Essentially Warrington won on Saturday as they were not as bad as Wigan. They did try their best to hit the suicide button, but Wigan were simply not clinical enough to exploit it. Two very average sides. Or at least that was the hypothesis. After the disappointment of Saturday I have been watching some old Wigan games, not to cheer me up, but to answer a question that came into my head repeatedly throughout the game- what on earth has happened to the standard of play/player in RL in the UK? The harsh reality is that in the last 15 years the only area in which the game has moved on is fitness/strength. In almost every other area it has gone backwards. There are fewer superstars, less entertaining football (maybe connected to the first one, maybe not), and certainly less "memorable" games. I asked myself "Surely the CC cannot be responsible for ALL of this". Sadly I found myself time and time again coming to the conclusion that it has. The CC is a very powerful weapon in RL in the UK, it effectively drags down teams to the lowest average level (it has to mathematically, and thus by it's very nature breeds mediocrity). "But they have a CC in Austrailia and that works". Well yes and no. They do have one, but the level of media attention ensures that a top players earnings outside his direct salary in Oz will earn far more than one over here. "They have one in American Football" - yes, however, that is in a country where there is no viable alternative to playing Gridiron (if you are cut out for that type of game), oh and there is also the massive absolute difference in the cap, not to mention sponsorship/other earnings opportunities. The difference in the UK is that the CC is really hurting the product on display. Few people notice this as the process has been a gradual one over time. Watching video's of how RL used to be played rams home this blunt fact. Not surprising when we lose players such as: www.swinglow.net/news/viewarticle.asp?id=21584 Which brings us back to the display on Saturday. We can't blame the players (on both sides) for not being up to it. They did their best. The truth is they are simply not as talented as those who would have competed in the same game 15 years ago. Yet who is really to blame for the continued acceptance of this mediocrity? Well people like me. In just over 2 weeks time I will trudge down to Wembley, as I have done for 20 odd years and watch the game. I now realise I am giving tacit approval to the CC in principle, and more importantly to it's effect on the game. Well this will be the last time I do it. Enough is enough. I am no longer prepared to accept a second rate spectacle. If I had wanted to see "competitive" or "level playing field" games, I would go and watch Amateur RL. In 10 years in order to see true talent I believe RU will be my only option.'" You can always rely on Tweedledum for a deluded and entertaining post. Now where's Tweedledee (Deano G), the other half of the Brothers Dimm, to add his, equally ludicrious, opinion?

How many games do you have to play in the first team before you are classed as playing first team rugby in your opinion? Most of the credit for developing myler into the player he currently is is down to widnes, which is why i originally posted as it was suggested that salford were responsible for mylers development.

i'd go a step further and say players trained by a club dont cost under the salary cap until aged 21. add to that heavy compensation for taking a player under 23 from his original club.

I see a lot comparisons with aussie players. remember they have had a bigger talent pool for a longer period of time not to mention far superior junior structures and coaching. RL's junior talent pool has only really gone national here in the last decade and we have a lot of catching up to do in coaching etc..... but on the bright side look at places like london, the junior development and amateur game there is exciting for RL's future.

It's all about handling pressure. Playing at London the pressure is off. Expectations are not that high there. Playing at Wigan the pressure is on with the historical stature of the club and Moran simple didn't handle that.

I thinks it more to do with the fact that wigan used him in the wrong role, he was a great support player (ala mcguire, dorn) but not a great organiser, and wigan seemed to want to use him as an organiser.

Yeah...right

PMSL!
3 seasons running, playing for a mid table side with the smallest pack in the league he played 81 Superleague games and scored 64 tries.
1st year at Wigan he played 25 games and scored 15 tries and I believe was your second top try scorer that year, so no problem handling pressure at all..........

the following year he was made the scapegoat for Wigans pi55 poor form.

The only club where Dennis Moran is not applauded and held in high regard is Wigan and that's because he was an easy target.

Same with orr, great at cas and quins, poor at wigan.

Mmmm...do you see a trend developing

Not sure, may have to ask messuers fielden and gleeson.

And next season when Tomkins gets dropped like a hot spud for failing to live up to the hype.

I would agree with this post, standards are equalising not falling

....except that I would rate Edwards higher than that. He developed his game to be much more than a support player.
Clarke v Westerman I agree......but Clarke made better use of his skills by having a ruthless attitude to training and winning.

The one thing that Edwards and Clarke had in common (and I knew Phil Clarke at college and played a couple of times with him) is an absolute dedication to their game and personal development... in my mind, alongside the likes of Mike Gregory they were the first generation in this country to be completely professional in attitude and approach. I fully respect that

What a load of nonsense.

Standards haven't fallen and the cap is working. I used to think this and that the game was more skilful in the old days. I will agree that it was better to watch. Then I realised I was watching tapes of Widnes in their heyday. I was watching the top of the table clashes. Also if you look at these games the defences are all over the place, meaning there were far more gaps to score from.

Full-time professionalism has changed the game. The way the game is played has completely changed and resulted in this impression that it is less skilful. It is played at a completely different pace now and requires different skills. The Great Britain of today would totally dominate the Great Britain of 20 years ago and that's not just down to full-time professionalism. They wouldn't be able to cope with the speed or fitness levels and would be ineffective against must better organised defences.

The other thing that has affected matters is Union going pro. Even if we didn't have a salary cap they would still poach our best players. They aren't just going for money but for profile and media attention. Then of course there are the players that we aren't getting from defections. Even players like Sean Edwards came from Union at a young age.

The salary cap is evening out the competition. Some people like to make out like Saints and Leeds still dominate the league but nowhere like the same way as they used to. Saints were outclassed against Huddersfield on Sunday in a way that wouldn't have happened 5 years ago.

It is clearly better for the game and we need to stick with it.

@ Dunbar and Maximus Decimus.

He scored them all when we were playing well. Soon as the chips went down so did he. Simple as that. I watched him all that time and he was poor. No coincidence soon as we got Michael Dobson in instead we started winning games in 2006.

Just a pity you couldn't sign him within the salary cap.

Comparing the 2009 GB team with, say, the 1970 GB team, can never be anything more than an entertaining argument, but out of fairness, imagine

Dutton
Smith, Hynes, Myler, Atkinson
Shoebottom, Hepworth
Hartley, Fisher, Watson
Thompson, Laughton
Reilly

with the same full time training, conditioning and backup that the 2009 team have. I was brought up around the likes of these players: from a very early age they played many hours a week, and sometimes many hours a day, of touch and pass rugby, where the focus was to work a gap in the defence with footwork, passing, timing and deception skills. They were hard lads from a hard past, playing rugby at a time when almost every lad in their town played, and competition for advancement was enormous. They had to be good to stand out. The best of them were filtered through challenging junior and open age amateur leagues to reach club level. They could all pass accurately, catch anything within reach, and tackle their opposite number by themselves, if needed - if they couldn't, they simply did not get very far. The 1970 GB team would not have been as big as the 2009 team, but would, I suggest, match or surpass them in most other areas.
Whether the spectacle on show was inferior or not, is a different issue, mostly a matter of personal taste.
(By the way, I have no idea of the 13 from 2009 who would have to face the GB team that lost to Australia in the 1970 World Cup final: anyone feel like suggesting a line up?)

Apologies for drifting away from the main point of the thread.

I think a lot of that is simply nostalgia. You talk of challenging amateur leagues were everybody played the game, but the reality is very different. BARLA was formed in 1973 because there were only 150 clubs left and only 39 youth teams.

I'm sure there's a report on the 1982 invincibles where people are astounded that the Australians could run and pass at the same time.

It's all glorifying, I know because I used to do it. I recently watched the 1988 3rd Ashes test where we won for the first time in ages and without my rose tinted spectacles it wasn't really that impressive. The standard of passing was certainly no higher than you would see now. I did the same with the 1984 Challenge Cup final and saw the same thing.

The main difference is that the players tried more tricks and run-arounds but the defences were a lot more shoddy. Players were coming out of the line all of the time creating opportunities to break the line. The emphasis of the game is very different now and it has probably resulted in a slightly less entertaining game. It's the same for most sports though that have seen the advent of full-time professionalism.

It wasn't that signing that took us over the salary cap.

I did the same thing (ESPN Classic?) and, to take it further, the standard was terrible. Both offensively and defensively. Neither team playing that day would even hold down a place in SL, let alone compete internationally.

Wally Lewis was the only player who really looked like he would have done a decent job were he playing now. Having said that, the wingers, particularly Offiah and Gill, would probably be just about as good as what we've got now. The rest were well below in pretty much every area you could name. The skillsets were terrible, with almost every pass thrown from standing and most being either inaccurate or slow. Ball retention was also pretty poor and the defences were a shambles. Add in the lack of fitness and general lack of athleticism, and it didn't make for a very high standard game (by modern standards, at least).