After watching both Myler and Obrien aver the last few years, i dont see them both in the team together, i see them both as out and out 7's and neither playing stand off, So i would go with O'brien at 7 and Ratchford at 6. As O'brien offers more in the way of kicking and organisation.

Without seeing the team sheet. It would have been easy to forgive someone for thinking Myler wasn't even on the pitch.

Looking in the RL press today, what was clearly a huge part in our downfall was the number of missed tackles - 33 in total.

Of these, Myler missed 6 but actually made quite a few. Now, do we conclude:

a). Myler can't tackle
b). He was so shattered from all that tackling (or attempted tackling) he was too knackered to play
c). He was targeted

Whatever the answer, I personally don't expect my half backs to be doing that much defensive work during the match. Briers wasn't noted for his defence and seemed to keep out of the way during periods when we didn't have the ball but, as a result, he always had plenty of juice left for attack duties.

I like this idea, maybe Myler to 9 in the long run interchange with Dwyer? I reckon Myler would make a very good 9.

I dont see how Myler would make a forward?

Realistically the modern 9 is a bit like an extra 7 anyway. I think Myler would be good out of dummy half. Same sort of problems at half that Monaghan had but we all know how good a fit Monaghan was at 9.

Not me.
Agreed the modern hooker undertakes more creativity behind a pack that is on top.

But lets assume the pack isnt on top.
You would then expect the hooker to defend against big forwards and bring them down.
You would also expected him to have the upper body mass to be able to shrug off or stand up and release the ball against an opposing forward should he get gripped following a scoot from dummy half.

Because the modern day hooker no longer has to have the skill to hook in the scrum doesn't mean he is also excused the part he plays as a forward in centre field.

Myler at 9....I can never see it.

I don't see why Myler couldn't play at hooker. Rob Burrow covers the position at Leeds, and he's shorter and carries less upper body mass than Myler.

There's no reason my grandmother couldn't play it either.

Myler is no Burrow.
Burrow plays above his weight has speed from the mark With a low centre of gravity. Comparable to Luke Robinson. Myler is not in that elk.

Myler would be better bulking up some.

Right, so NOW you are saying it doesn't matter if "the hooker doesn't have upper body mass to be able to shrug off or stand up to release the ball should he get gripped following a scoot from dummy half", but as long as he has speed and a low centre of gravity like Burrow then he should be okay.

Jeez, make up your mind.

I didn't say either.
Can't you read.

All attributes together perhaps? ??

Myler would never make a forward. End of for me.

Myler could slot into nine quite easy as do most scrum halves, the positions are getting closer by the year. One organises from dummy half, the other from first reciever. One takes the line on form 1st reciever, one scoots form dummy half. There is no reason why one needs to be any bigger or tougher than the other.

Yes you did, hence why I quoted what you said. You rabbited it on about the hooker having to play like a forward, having upper body strength, and when I mentioned Burrow, who does play hooker but not as a forward, you then went off on a tangent and talked about speed and low centre of gravity.



No, but he could make a good hooker, which is what the point was. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it won't happen.

A hooker generally defends in the middle of the field and closer to he ruck against the opposing forwards so they do need to be defensively tougher than a half. Myler gets targeted now defending between Waterhouse and Atkins so I question the wisdom of being him further infield.

Some halves can make the change but doubt Myler is one of them.

I did say what I said. But I NEVER said "either"....quote me saying either and I'll show my at market gate.