I am an advocate of Barkley as a good FH. I believe he offers good attacking options, good passing, good kicking out of hand, good (but not as good as Wilko's) defence plus more. What I like most about him is he is not conservative. Sometimes he doesn't have his head screwed on - usually outside of the game though. And punching that Sky guy was for the fans - we've got twice as many live games a last season.
Whenever I argue with my sister (ironically also a Northampton fan) that Barkleys good enough she always says, "well Wilkos a better kicker." I honestly don't believe he is. His range is poor, his placekicking is worse than Paterson's :huh: and his dropkicking is nothing spectacular (although his two-footed ability is a nifty trick). Chris Malone could nail them from halfway whenever he wanted. All he has is the ability to slot goals under pressure. Don't get me wrong there's noone else I want tasked with a last minute pressure kick but do not think that because he kicks drop goals he is a good player. Waht he is above nyone else is massively conservative. He is not the best kicker ever, more that he willingly trusts his boot more than his hands. 5 points is always better than 3 and Wilko has missed some golden oppurtunities. My point is Wilko is not a good player because he kicks drop goals. He is a good player because he defends fiercely and will not buckle under pressure - the same cannot be said of Barkley. Just I don't think Barkley is far behind Wilko and I'd prefer to see Barkley in the SA game - we might score a try then.
I don't have a problem with Flood except he seems more of a Dan Parks than a Dan Carter to me.
And god save us if both Barkley and Wilko get injured. We'd have Mike "Carlos Spencer" Catt kicking, or worse, Farrell playing... because he's needed to kick. It wouldn't have been so tough to have brought Geraghty or Flood now would it? [/b]