Spot on, he was average on Friday but was positioned where he needed to be when the passes came his way.

Was impressed with his early form before getting injured away at Saints, which gave Lineham his chance. Bulls pal of mine was surprised we signed him, IMO we would have been better signing Jamie Foster, which would also have provided us with a reliable kicker after Tickles departure.

I am not convinced by him but always ask myself one question when his value to the team is brought up. That is Wire seem to do ok with Paul Riley. How many would have him in their dream squad. I would suggest in all honesty not many. The squad can not be made up of 25 world beaters. Crookes does the job asked of him. Any defensive lapses by wingers are invariably due to mid field mistakes not a winger.

He scores tries and runs in hard and I would suggest is not on a massive wedge. As a result he will do for me. Our main priorities are elsewhere.

I don't think that is what people are saying.

I stated I think average, but deserves at least a chance.

However, my eyes tell me to formulate the opinion of average, not where he comes from.

Would love Dixon from London here. Scored trys for fun in a poor side.

But can't tackle to save his life.

The masses as you call them are supposed to be fans !!

Still really don't get the calls that we should have signed Foster. Crookes is called average, but IMO if you take goalkicking out of the equation that's precisely what Foster is. A few things to note:

Crookes has scored more tries in 10 games than Foster has in 17.
Crookes averages more metres (both per game and per carry) than Foster.
Crookes averages more dummy half runs per game than Foster.
Crookes averages over 1/3 more tackle busts per match than Foster.
Foster makes 39% more errors per match than Crookes.
Foster averages more missed tackled per game than Crookes (although has a marginally better tackle completion average).

Crookes may not be the answer for us on the wing, but I really don't see why anyone would think Foster would be, either.

Interesting responses. Crookes deserves 20 games in a row to prove himself one way or the other next year IMO. Hopefully he'll stay injury free next year and we can see if he's worth another contract or needs replacing.

He played as well as could be expected at Wembley, barring one brain fart at the end but the game was gone by then.

On Friday night, he took every chance coming and finished them. He worries me under the high ball, he dropped a fairly easy one at Saints at the beginning of the season and he's by no means a superstar but he's done alright under difficult circumstances and ran a damn sight harder than Yeamo or Briscoe on the other side.

In fact Yeamo was embarrasing on Friday, but utterly bullet proof on here. Had a torrid time with their youngsters on that side and was made to look poor by Glesson at Rovers the other week a number of times in the first half. I was a big fan but he offers nothing nowadays with ball in hand. But it's alright, we'll have a go at Jason Crookes, it's less controversial.

Crookes is a better winger than Will Sharp, that's who he has replaced.

Crookes has not let the side down. He proved on Sunday he can be in the right place are the right time.

He is not perfect, he is not the best winger in the league, or our squad for that matter.

As long as he gives 100%, there should be NO ONE calling him at all.

Neither could Martin Offiah but it never did him any harm.

I would certainly have paid him well over £100k as well.