He is still credited to Huddersfield in the official team sheet. Are you sure that his SL loan contract with the Giants expired?

In what sense? I mean I'm sure his registration card is in the back office somewhere, but he's on loan at Huddersfield, and didn't he spend the whole of 2008 season on loan at Castleford?

He last "played" (on the bench) for Saints on 17th August 2007. Would they even know what he fookin looks like at Knowsley Rd?




Didn't I read somewhere that Warrington is his next stop?

Jesus, don't they have enough halves and hookers as it is?

Briers, Monaghan, Clarke, Higham, Myler & Grix aswell as the likes of Bridge, Solomona, Mathers & Vinnie Anderson who have played there in the past.

I don't think Tomkins or Myler are ready for this level yet.

Problem we have is really good ones don't come along that often and when someone with a hint of talent - Tomkins, Myler now, Westerman last year - we kill their career by piling it all on them far too young. What's wrong with a burrows/mcguire combo at half back?

Yeah I was a little suprised that Burrow has been completely omitted from the squad. A player like that can always pull something from nothing and swing games in our favour.

But at the same time, after the disaster at the World Cup I can't really blame TS for mixing things up. If we'd gone into the Four Nations with a near identical squad to that of the WC then people would still be slating Tony on here, so I doubt he could please everyone either way.

I don't think it will do their careers any harm playing for England this early. It's still a good experience for them which they can only benefit from, regardless of the outcome.

I have no problem with him starting Myler rather then Tomkins, surley if anything Tomkins has been droped at the expense of McGuire who has had a great season and is a better SO IMO. Granted he didnt have the best of games last week, hopefully he used this game to dust off some of the cobwebs from not playing in while, but i would still rather go into a game with a specialist SH and a SO rather than a SO playing at SH

Tomkins is actually a Scrum Half anyway that's being played at 6 for Wigan.

How do you work that out, he always played stand-off for the reserves, and before that at Wigan Saint Pats.

Going by the comments of the Wigan fans that watched him in the reserves. And one of them that commented on this very forum when he first broke into the team, saying he's actually a 7.

And for your consideration, [url=http://www.wiganrl.com/history_full.asp?fixtureid=531his Wigan first team debut[/url.

But if he's played 99% of his games at 6 then at most he might be a wannabee 7, I could have played that same game as 7 for Wigan but it wouldn't make me no scrum-half, trust me!!

Generally doesn't matter which player is 6 & 7 as they are pretty interchangable these days, and many teams will play with a left half and a right half, but their role is the same

Again, the comment was mainly based on Wigan fans' previous comments. I won't argue the point with you as I know even if there was incredible evidence, you wouldn't concede, but Wigan fans definitely commented on here stating he was actually a scrum half playing at 6. I'm more inclined to believe them.

Which is pretty much what Smith has said in that he thought Sam 'wasn't good enough (sic)' to take a place over the brilliant (sic) Myler. Nice theory though. If only it were true!

Which would be fine were it true. You have obviously failed to notice that Sam operated at Scrum Half for most of the Wales game. He comprehensively outplayed Myler in both positions.

really? Not at all like the incredible evidence that apart from one or two games the lad has, in fact, spent his whole life [ide facto [/iplaying 6, which [iyou[/i won't concede, then?




Fair enough! I don't [iwant[/i to argue the point! Maybe he [iis[/i a frustrated 7 that has against his will spent his time playing at 6 ! I don't actually [icare[/i! All I pointed out is he's almost always played 6, and quite why that (fact) should cause such consternation, I've no clue.

[url=http://www.skysports.com/rugbyleague/player/0,25470,12215_396381,00.htmlMore evidence[/urlof Tomkins' stand-offishness on the Sky Sports site. (But they could be lying too!)

Also he was named as STAND OFF for the [url=http://www.superleague.co.uk/article.php?id=153232009 SL Dream team[/url. But maybe they were confused.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/8282558.stmBBC thinks he's a stand off[/url

Maybe against Wales yeah, but the majority of the season has been playing as second receiver, yes Tomkins was the better player on the day but that was Mylers first game in a while and i stand by in what i said of id would rather have a "specialist SH and a SO rather than a SO playing at SH". i have nothing wrong with Tomkins at all, hopfully this will make competion for places that much better, personally i would have liked to start with Eastmond at SH

Again there's nothing wrong with your assertions on the face of it except that:

1) Being Myler's first game in a while is a Red Herring. He has been gash since his return from injury, to the extent he was dropped by his club side, who didn't even make the playoffs! In addition Ratchford was the better half back for them throughout the whole season.
2) Brian Noble also played split halves so no, he didn't play 2nd reciever. In fact you could argure that he is more accustomed to playing in Tony Smith's preferred system than Myler who's deficiencies in playing this system where there for all to see in his last outing. If you require further proof of this; Tim Smith, a natural Scrum Half by your definition, was the one playing 6 whenever Sam wasn't and when ever Leuleui went to hooker, Sam moved to Scrum half.

Myler proved a few people wrong tonight, but I'd still rather have seen Tomkins.

On that performance Tomkins should be in for McGuire not Myler.

Agree with that.

Next week i'd go with :

Eastmond
Briscoe
Smith
Shenton
Hall
Tomkins
Myler
Peacock
Roby
Graham
Ellis
Westwood
Burgess

Carvell
Morley
Sinfield
McGuire

I can't understand your fixation with Burgess at loose forward at all

Mine?

Most of the time i've aaid he's not a loose, and never will be. I stick by this (i know that will sound strange as i've put him there) but against the Aussies we need someone with size, power and great ball handling skills. O'Loughlin is injured, and I wouldn't play Sinfield at Loose against Oz in a million years, so thats why i've put Burgess there.

Imo Burgess' best position is by far prop.

By scoring two tries from broken play?

He took the two tries very well, but in the first half he was very poor again. In the second half, he hardly did a lot, but at the end of the day, he scored two important tries very well, so maybe he deserves a spot next week. However let's not get carried away and suggest he had a really good game last night.

England badly miss someone to actually organise from halfback. Myler and McGuire are both very very similar players. We need someone who actually takes charge of the game and neither of those do. Play one or the other, but not both.

You seriously believe that? I don't want to knock Myler for what is purely a problem of Smith's making, but he is clearly out of form. The first 40 he ran round like a headless chicken and even in an improved 2nd half display where was this "moving this big ship around" or any evidence of a link with DM? These were the supposed reasons for his inclusion, not a couple of opportunist or broken field tries. Tomkins will give you that in spades! In fact Eastmond came on and showed him how to ask questions near the line with a deft short kick. He most definitely proved no one wrong last night...unless you meant Tony Smith of course!

Briscoe
Briscoe
Ellis
Smith
Hall
Sinfield
Mcguire
Morley
Roby
Graham
Peacock
Crabtree
Burgess

Eastmond
Tompkins
Carvell
Westwood