No it's not, it's like saying Hardaker's excellent defence and kick returns make him a better all-round fullback than Tomkins. However Tomkins excellent attacking skills can be used effectively at stand off. That, along with Hardaker's attack from full back, might bring a better balance to the team.

That's what it's like saying because that's what people are actually saying.

Shuffling several England players into unfamiliar positions in order to accommodate the serial miscreant at full back is an idiotic strategy, just like it was when having to accommodate the internationally underwhelming Sinfield at 6.

Or like Australia do when everyone's fit and play four fullbacks in the threequarters? By "several" I assume you mean 1 - Tomkins. Not sure anybody else is suggesting any other player needs to move position.

Ha ha, the old Sinfield debate! A stand off who's defence splitting passes almost got us into the WC final. I've listened all year to NRL know all's telling me how good Widdop is but can honestly say I haven't seen anything in the 2 games that has backed it up. Other than his banana kick at goal of course - that was impressive. Smith has also lead a charmed life. Hardaker by plenty, rat boy in the halves.

Shifting Tomkins to 6...a position he spent more years of his life playing than fullback, revolutionary.

Hardaker for Charnley imo

Does ZH have a pure wingers instinct though?

I would say he does.he started with us on the wing and scored a few fantastic tries in the corner.he would be a fantastic winger now imo but was always destined to move inside and quickly went into centre and now FB.Australia have had no problem putting the likes of Boyd And Hayne on the wing in the past because they have better all round abilities than most other wingers. So should we.

Yes, I most certainly do mean "several".

If the serial miscreant was allocated jersey 1, both Tomkins and Widdop would have to be shuffled around and Smith would most likely be shuffled out of the 17 altogether.

I count 3 changes to the makeup of the team right there (just to accommodate the serial miscreant) which by most peoples definition would equate to "several".

As I alluded to earlier... idiotic.

If you're that desperate for Hardaker to get a gig, how about him replacing someone who has been absolute pants and an AWOL or turnstile liability in defence?

That'd be Hardaker for Watkins then.

Considering you said "shuffling into unfamiliar positions" then trying to include Matty Smith being left out of the 17 altogether as a reshuffling unfamiliar position is a push even for you in your ever decreasing trolling attempts???

So that'd be 2 reshuffling changes then.....better inform the Oxford Collins Dictionary that 'several' now means 'two'.

Idoitic you claimed.......yes, yes you are.

I think he'd be fine there. Defensively he's as sound as anybody in the squad (in the backs) both tackling and dealing with kicks. He's always had a finishers talent for scoring tries, his issue at centre and FB has been creating tries for others outside him. On the wing he wouldn't have that problem.

I'm not desperate at all for him to get a gig, i just think he is a much better all round player than Charnley and a better option with his kick returns and safety under the kick and we lose nothing in attack.

Hardaker is a steady centre but i would never play him there for England unless we had no other option.I agree Watkins has been very shaky at times, i stated that on the Watkins thread, and if he was to be dropped it would be justified.However, we have Shenton on the sidelines who didn't do a lot wrong and would be the man to take over were he to be left out.

You're so funny sometimes. "Serial Miscreant" Did your irony gland rupture during your defence of Catalans trying to sign Todd Carney? Or do you reserve all that bu$h!tt for Leeds players only?

Was that Hall or Hardaker in the background of that Hodgson student digs Video?