jamie Lyon has come out and said that the only club he will sign for in super league is Saints, but money talks and saint have none !!

RLFans made-up fact of the day.

Where has all this belief that Myler is a world beater come from?

At the start of Nat Wood's final season we signed a 20 year old Chris Bridge, he was being talked about as a potential GB player just like Myler is now. If Bridge had been the business then after Wood retired he could have been our halfback for a decade but he couldn't cut it as a first choice playmaker so we had to bring in an experienced player.

In came Sullivan who was young enough to do us 7 seasons at least, but again he couldn't cut it as a first choice playmaker so we had to bring in Monaghan (who we signed on a four year deal, rarely do any clubs sign players on longer than that).

Just because Myler is young doesn't give any guarantees - if we're aiming to be a trophy winning club then he needs to be top drawer - if not then he would be someone else we looked to move on after a couple of years.

A few years ago there was this sort of talk about Luke Robinson and Chris Thorman, but they generally get scoffed at now by a lot of fans....would these type of players, or for instance Danny Orr, have been the type that could have taken us to maybe win a title or two alongside Briers?

What if you compare the period from 2002-2005....Warrington had the stability of Wood & Briers (with Appo as back up), and won nothing, whilst Leeds shifted through Ben Walker, Sheridan, Sinfield, Dunemann, Burrow and McGuire playing in the halves, reached 2 CC finals, 2 Grand finals and won one SL and one WCC.

Well, I've not given up on Chris Bridge just yet, but that's a different debate for a different day.

The belief in Myler, is belief, nothing more.

Your point about guarantess is exactly my point really, Myler could be an outstanding halfback for the next decade, would sign on a relatively small salary, and could repay it ten times over, he could be flop, an enigma, just doesn't kick on, as you rightly say, a Luke Robinson. But any NRL player, a Lockyer, Inglis, could prove to be just as bigger of a flop if not bigger, a Michael Sullivan, but would cost you far more, and in the meantime would take one of your quota slots. If your asking me, which is my preferred option of risk, it's the young English lad who could be special, as oppose in this instance to a 32 year old Australian who has been/still could be special.

If the there isn't a young English lad available. I'll risk the 32 year old Aussie, who has been/is special.

Just because a top-drawer NRL player comes over, does not guarantee they will be a success.

There are as many factors on an overseas player settling, as there are a youngster making the step-up.

Surely there is less of a gamble signing Inglis or Lockyer than there is signing a 'young English lad'. There's a difference between signing Inglis/Lockyer and players like Sullivan who have turned out to be flops.

Look at Wigan, when they signed Lam or Barrett you knew they were getting quality. When they signed Denis Moran, Tim Smith you knew it was a gamble.

If Myler is as good as you're rating him then would he really sign on a low salary? If we were paying him a low salary and he was good then surely he would do what Danny Brough did to Hull. British halfbacks get very well paid, look at Deacon/Harris etc.

I don't think there are any young English players worth looking at in the halves, if we could pick up a young English forward like Sam Burgess or James Graham then this wouldn't be a gamble but if its a case of pick up a halfback because he's English, try and get him on a cheap deal, and hope for the best, then that doesnt sound like a strategy for trying to win SL. Targeting the best - like Saints did when they got Leon Pryce from Bradford - is what we should be doing.

I think your doing Myler an injustice to tell you the truth, this season being the acid test of course, but I really do think he's got alot of potential, and I don't think it's just a case of trying to 'nick some kid and try him', I think he's got a very big future ahead of him. When I say 'low contract', I mean in comparison to Lockyer of course, I'm sure it'd be a healthy contract he'd want, with increments for GB call ups etc. I just think that with salary cap constraints etc, a Lockyer/Inglis eating a chunk of your cap is a dangerous way forward.

Like you say, Wigan had Barrett, but it brought them no success did it ? They were weak in other areas, maybe because they had him eating a chunk of cap up. You say that Inglis/Lockyer are unlikely to be flops, and they are different to Sullivan, but there's plenty of Scott Hills, Matt Kings, Shaun Berrigans who just for whatever reason don't settle, and if you only have the bloke or a relatively short stay, it can quickly be a bum deal. Saints were a bit lucky, they didn't target Pryce, he just got fed up of being shunted around positionally, and wanted to play in the halves, if Bradford had given him this opportunity, chances are he'd still be there. Saints got him when he was seeking a change, and the rest is history.

As I say, I'd be happy with a quality Australian, who wouldn't be, but my first choice would be Myler. I think there's something about him, and being young & British that adds to the appeal for me. Maybe if Monas goes home, we could do both, get a Lockyer alongside a Myler and have the best of both worlds.

You not rate Myler much then Sally ?

Sally - I know you have been "out of touch" with Super League for the last couple of seasons but surely you are aware that the World's greatest half-back is the young and British enigma that is Sam Tomkins.

Does this mean that top class players are a disadvantage to a team?

Has having Lockyer or Inglis hampered Brisbane or Melbourne or their ability to have a competitive side? Or even more so what about Fittler at the Roosters or Johns at Newcastle - those guys were on big salaries at their clubs but they were crucial in taking their clubs to Grand Final wins.

To me its about how the salaries are balanced. If we got rid of the ex internationals in our team on good money who are in the comfort zone or always out injured, and replaced them with young upcoming players, that would free up a lot of extra cash, then that cash could be used to bring in a player that would make a difference like Lockyer.



I bet Scully was on similar money at Saints to what Barrett was on at Wigan, and he was always out injured, but Saints managed to put a good squad together. Wigan did the same as us - ie brought in a lot of average players on salaries that they would have warranted 3-4 years ago, that ate up their cap. If Lockyer goes dud next season then I would also be opposing us signing him because I'd put him in this bracket just like I didn't want us to sign Johns in 2008. But as of now if it was Lockyer for 2009 I would be very much for it.



Those were bad examples to choose, Scott Hill was good for Harlequins and Berrigan was one of the best players in SL last season



This sort of thing happens all the time. How often have we given a hooker chance to play halfback etc. If Saints weren't able to get Pryce that year who do you reckon they would have gone for - I have a feeling he would be Australian....



Can't pass judgement till he's played in Super League. Remember how dominant Simon Svabic was in the National Leagues with Leigh - would he have been a big player in SL? There have been a lot of NL halfbacks with good reputations who didn't stand out in SL - Cliff Beverley, Sam Obst, Barry Eaton, and then a couple who have done ok - Rooney and Brough. But would you be happy with Rooney or Brough at Warrington? Id want to set our sights higher than those two.

Don't be daft.


or: oh crap I just fell for a not-so-cunning trap that Sally set.