I really don't think they are, though. they are simply looking at past form, and if he isn't up to that standard any more, then we'll soon find out. of course, nobody can "know" whether he , or isn't, for the reasons you set out.





Don't think anyone would argue with that.

if all are fit, reardon!

It's been obvious for 24 months that David Halley was the best full back at the club, he should be full back next season but I fear he wont be for the majority. I can't understand why some people are still adamant that Michael Platt is a 'quality attacking player' either, despite 2 1/2 years of performances you would expect to see in national league one.

Egbert sounds like someone we know?



I have a feeling Reardon will surprise a lot of people, whatever position he plays.



On balance, I would probably prefer to see Halley on the wing - I reckon he could do more damage there - but I am quite content to see how the initial roles pan out since at least we have a few options now. Also very interested to see how Crookes fares in the centres - the forgotten man but I suspect with much to prove and much incentive.

I feel really sorry for Crookes to be honest.



Last year, with the complete lack of options in our backs, was the perfect opportunity for him. He just got into the side and would have had a decent amount of time to prove himself (or of course fail, but let's be positive here) and potentially cement his place in the 17. Instead a really bad injury hits at the worst possible time, and by the time he gets back, we actually have more options in the backs again, making it harder for him to get in the side.



He must feel like the rugby gods are really not happy with him for something.

David Halley is a rubbish winger, his talents would be totally and utterly wasted there.

Don't punish yourself trying to remember.

You might suppose that; I could not [ipossibly[/i comment...

Platt

If he bulks up could do a job in the back row as a Gilmouresque player