Right nothing to do with whether the manager should've played him or not was Boyd right to quit?

Depends what happened. If it was simply a dummy spit then no he was wrong to quit. If it was a personal thing with the manager then he is within his rights to refuse to play for him I reckon. Would you work for someone that made your life unbearable even though you liked your place of work?

One thing is for sure. We wont get to know the details of this, unless Boyd blabs it And I wouldnt think he will be getting advised to do that. The SFA will try and spin it to their way of thinking like they did with McCulloch but it was known at that point that there were several other deeply unhappy players. Looks like Boyd had had enough of it. Others will follow

To be honest I'm not sure if its that sort of conspricy. My mate spoke to Boyd last night and he said its the fact a man who was making his debut got on before him.

He's obviously frustrated as hell. Obviously feels like he can make a difference but gets little chance to do so at club and country. The reason why is he's only got goals, so he's therefore judged on a match to match basis by his goals.

Maybe he simply hasnt got the ability to improve his game beyond being a finisher. Shame. Must be hard to deal with being a reserve as a goal-specialist. Tough luck. He should maybe get more of a chance - no manager
has yet had the balls to build a team with the sole purpose of feeding him chances - kudos to the man who gives it a go.

He's made a massive mistake by quitting Scotland aged 24. I daresay if he doesnt realise his own mistake he'll never play for Scotland again. We have too many at least similarly able players for him to be missed.

He should be using that frustration to his advantage by proving everyone wrong don't you think?

I know its still early days for the poll but considering all the support for what Boyd has done I'm surprised no one has said in this poll that he did the right thing.

I'll speak to him this week. I doubt very much he will say what happened though. Maybe your mate has a lot more influence though

Well until we know what's actually happened then I dont see the point in voting.

OK, let me be the first to say that I think he was right. Burley clearly has a man management problem, not just with Boyd, but with plenty others. Burley clearly has no intention of playing Boyd and made that plain when he spoke to Chico after the game. Burley feels Boyd needs to prove himself at Rangers....so why waste time fannying around the friinges of the Scotland set-up when he has "proving" to do at Ibrox. Waste of time in my view, better he's not there - as I said on another thread, better for both parties. So, yes.

The p***k isn't getting a game for Rangers either, strikers brought in over summer getting a game ahead of him, let's see him spit the dummy out there. No, thought not. Twat.

Grow a pair, Boyd.

That's the whole crux of this. Boyd might well think this is fair enough if Burley won't pick players that are not being picked for their clubs or are not scoring goals. Look at Boyds career scoring record. Its better than anyone else who is Scottish and currently playing. McFadden isn't a first pick for his club yet there he is leading the line for us in a crucial game, clearly off form. Broadfoot gets slagged off in the press for being a player of limited ability.(quite funny, but indicitive of his poor man management skills). He brings on the Hibs boy Fletcher who while he looks like he might be a decent player, has had a massive scoring drought since last season and is only just finding his way to goal again.

I'd be a bit worried about the managers consistency if nothing else. He says one thing for one player and does exactly the opposite for another. I doesnt seem very fair to me.

If Burley thought Boyd needed to improve at Rangers before being looked on as a player for Scotland, he shouldn't have picked him for the squad.

It would be best for Burley to walk away.

Get Souness in and get a manager who will command respect.

Seems to me maybe Boyd is getting very pissed at being overlooked by both club and country. Maybe he will be telling Wattie & co to piss off next. I'm not intending to cause mischief by saying this i just think he's had enough . Personally I think he should be first pick for both, although i realise there are issues surrounding him, he's always worth a goal.

Boyd back, Burley out !

Burley has a stubborness in playing people that are getting regular football for their clubs, which Boyd clearly doesnt. As much as most rangers fans would gladly see him start every week and rightly so. I think when he say's that he wants to concentrate on getting a regular game, he's deluding himself if he thinks that he will be first team regular when walter smith is still manager at rangers.

our loss as per usual...

First of all I think Boyd should have played some part on Saturday, probably coming off the bench. I can understand the logic of bringing on Iwelumo instead but there was a fear that he'd not cope with being thrown into a game of that magnitude, and the same could not be said of Boyd.

But - if Boyd is spitting the dummy over that then, while I can understand the frustrations, it's unacceptable, and my reaction would be "good riddance". Who does he think he is?

That's 4 managers who haven't shown complete faith in Boyd, between club and international level - Le Guen, Smith, McLeish and now Burley. There's always been a feeling that there is some "unknown" reason why he isn't an automatic pick, when you look at his goalscoring ability. Most likely this is an attitude problem - well, what better way to prove you have an attitude problem than to refuse to play because you don't get picked in a game?

I don't think he should have quit. However, I do think Burley was wrong to say what he did about Boyd proving himself at Rangers though, particularly when he picks other players who aren't always first team picks at club level.

Personally I doubt that Boyd has quit just because he didn't get picked in a game. If he can't get along with Burley then I suppose I can understand why he's decided to leave. It's not much fun working in an environment when you can't stand your boss. I reckon 90% of people posting on here would quit if they found themselves in that situation.

Apparently according to the Daily Record 1 or 2 other players are ont he verge of chucking it under Burley. The manager looks like he has lost the dressing room. Yet he comes out with his 'I got the tactics right' and Scott Brown with his 'Scotland should be proud of us!' just goes to show how out of touch with reality they both are.

Boyd has to start when you are trying to win a game at home, Burley has made a mess of his tactics for the second competitive game out of 3, and he has lost 2 players through his awful man management, and made a fool of Broadfoot in the press.

Burley will remain in place until the end of this unsuccessful campaign then be ushered out the door hopefully.

I thought Boyd should have came on and their was complete disbelief in our group at the game when he didn't.

He's made a complete t1t of himself though. Fcuk him, I hope he never plays for Scotland again. Thought the same about Weir when he chucked it under Vogts.

My mates daughter is close to boyd and his wife and he's got very pally with Boyd over the last few years.

Burley has only lost won player through his choices and that was Boyd. McCulloch stated clearly what his reasons for quitting and they weren't what the daily record were saying.

Burley should remember that David Healy wasnt a regular starter for Leeds, Fulham and now Sunderland yet he still banged the goals in for N. Ireland.

Fuck'm.

Boyd's action seems to have been fairly effective.
It has stimulated even more debate about the Scotland managerial position.

As for the original question ("was Boyd 'right' to quit Scotland?"), he was perfectly within his rights to quit the Scotland squad.

No onw said he didn't have the right to quit but was his decision a mistake and most people seem to think that.

"Most people" don't have the adequete information to make such a decision .

The reason he quit is because he didn't get a game before someone who was making his debut. Thats from Boyd himself.

Read between the lines why McCulloch left, apparently Boyd was considering leaving a month ago, and there are other upset parties within the Scotland squad according to the press.

To be honest Scotland were never going to replicate their form they had in the Euro 2008 qualifying group. They were lucky to play, and beat a terrible French team twice, but their bottle crashed in Georgia, and they ruined it against Italy. Burley had a thankless task which he has messed up beyond salvage with his inane comments, and even worse formations.

Boyd quitting Scotland was the best decision for him, why be 5th or 6th choice against unproven shite like Fletcher?

Please don't believe everything you read in the papers. Spin Spin Spin to sell papers. There are a few players who don't agree with what Burley does but they have no right to undermine him. Scotland the team is bigger and more important then any manager or player.

I don't believe Boyd was that specific regarding his reasons for quitting. The BBC doesn't have a quote to that effect.

The only way he can be judged (with the lack of information available) is not by whether his decision was "right" in terms of morality ( ) or whether it was healthy for Scotland's World cup campaign.
He can only be judged on whether his actions were a legitimate protest (which they were) and whether he was within his rights to make said protest (which he is).

As I said this came from Boyd's own mouth. I know loads of people say things like this but in this case its actually true. My mate hangs about with Boyd and told him on the phone yesterday.

Not saying if he was right or not but if neither McLeish, Smith (scotland and rangers) Le Guen and now Burley are playing him. . . .there must be a reason why the lastt 4 managers are saying the same ?

i can't believe some people are defending him tbh.

Yes he was.Boyd should be starting every game for scotland.He is our best striker,and for burley to leave him on the bench in a must win game and bring on two unproven players was taking the piss.

Burley isn't the 1st manager not to play Boyd...PLG, McLeish, Walter and now Burley. Even Jim Jeffries had him on the bench at times.

Yet he still has a sensational scoring record.

He was out of order, end of.

They might start him on the bench, but when it gets to crunch time in a game and they need a goal are they really going to overlook the best goalscorer in Scotland?

Well I suppose in Burley's case he did. Nice one George.

Boyd has never scored for Scotland when coming off the bench and he hardly scores for Rangers in the same situation. Maybe this is why Burley didn't use him.

All the more reason he should have started him then.

Agreed with everything said above.

1 Man upfront against Lesser Opposition at Hampden
Leaving out your most prolific Goalscorer
Snubbing your most prolific Goalscorer when it came to subs to use untried and inexperience players
Saying to the media that one of your players has "Limited Ability"
Saying to the Media that Boyd has to prove himself at Rangers before he can get in the Scotland team, then playing McFadden who has been dropped by Birmingham as he's been off-form.

His after-match interview with Chick Young was quite frankly embarrasing and out of order. I don't blame Boyd one bit for his decision to quit the team. The lad has been saying all week how he is dieing to lead the attack for Scotland and how proud he is to play for Scotland. Only for Burley to kick him in the baws...

At the time, I was happy at Burleys appointment. But I'm just not keen on him now - He's done nothing so far to show he's the right man for the job.

The common theme with managers is that they only play Boyd against certain opposition. Norway is obviously a team he doesn't have enough quality to play against. Accept that and move on Boyd no need to throw your toy out of the pram.

He didn't leave his most prolific score out (for scotland), McFadden played and miller was injured.

Why is Boyd not good enough to play against Norway? If James McFadden and James Morrison are good enough on current form Boyd certainly is.

LOL!!! Are you saying we should have played Boyd in the same position as Morrison?

What form are you talking about? 4 goals this season and 2 were pens that he didn't even win. He doesn't play every week.

I take the point McFadden is off form but he has shown his value for Scotland...Boyd hasn't.

So Steven Fletcher has the required quality to face Norway then?

James Morrison has been excellent for West Brom all season.


Personally I think Boyd was correct. I don't know what Burley was playing at, frankly. Boyd should be starting every game for club and country. I do see a way back for him, by all accounts he's a decent guy, and I'm sure if Burley gave him assurances that he'll start then he'd come back into the fold.

Incidentally, I do laugh at the number of P&Bers who claim to have a direct link to the thoughts and feelings of the top players in the country.

When you play two upfront you need one player who can score or set the other up which Fletcher has the ability to do...Boyd doesn't.

Nope, I'm saying he should have played in a 4-4-2 instead of Morrison.

7 goals in 14 games is plenty of value if you ask me.

only 4 in 10 competative games which is a more important stat. 2 against a part time team known as the faroes!!!