he doesnt give nowt away, even if he did you would need someone to fit it for ye.

I'll remember that

stop stringing them along

you cant even return the voicemail i left ye

Ok i don't know nowt

Seemed almost as if they did it to teach briscoe a lesson for not signing to me

Apart from how to sell carpets that shed half their pile within a week

Sharp didn't really want him IMO. Another piece of great judgement.

So do we know whats happening at the minute? We seem to have everything from a mild insect bite to a blood clot!

You can't recruit based upon who might or might not get injured (well, except when it comes to signing someone like Dykes, who obviously was going to miss a large proportion of games). And, like it or not, Briscoe wasn't our first choice fullback and wouldn't have been if he'd remained. He'd have, at best, had a bench spot, and that's doubtful, given his limitedness.

Would it have been worth paying a presumably sizeable (given he was wanting international-player wages) amount for someone who would only be in if there was an injury to Tony? In hindsight, yes, because Tony's been out for most of the subsequent period. At the time a decision had to be made, no. Tony had shown no sign of being likely to miss any significant game-time and there was nothing to suggest he might.

Tony is a very good utility back/hooker. Briscoe is a very good full back. Byrne is an average utility back. If the coach had had any balls and set out for Tony what his actual best role in the squad was we could have had Briscoe at FB and Tony at utility back, 2 good players in their best positions, rather than Tony at FB (when he's not a FB) and Byrne as an average utility back.

Tony is a fullback. Again, like it or not, that's his best position. Always has been and always will be. And he offered/offers more than Briscoe did, so he was, and would have remained/did remain, first choice. He's not very good at hooker. He's not anywhere near good enough to be playing there regularly and he would be behind Lee and Berrigan for that role. He's not a winger (interesting the people who apparently themselves when he has to take a catch at fullback would be happy to see him on the wing, where it is even easier to target the player with kicks) and he isn't a centre either. He's not played in either role for very long and for good reason. The only other position he could possibly play in the backs is at 6, and the last few games he's had there (for us, NZ and Cas) weren't, to say the least, impressive performances. Again, just one more time in case it finally sinks in, he's a fullback and has been throughout his career.

Finally, Briscoe's not a 'very good' fullback. He's an average, 'solid' fullback, the sort of fullback we seem to persist with in this country and the sort of fullback that will continue to see us embarrassed at the top level.

If you're happy with accepting average 'solidity', that's your choice. It's not mine though, and nor is it the choice of the top coaches/clubs in the game.