Yeah, I know. Your probably sick of hearing this question. The answer seems fairly obvious and a rhetorical one at that. But, then I had second thoughts.
No doubt, Defoe is one of the hottest English strikers on current form; four in four for Spurs and five in three for England. At first sight a start against Croatia seems more obvious than a gooner sitting in Park Lane.
Defoe has scored more England goals coming off the bench than starting. Maybe it would be a good idea to consider using Defoe as an impact player rather than starting him. I do believe goals should be rewarded with starts and not just the huge bonuses that the players receive, but maybe, tactically, it would be better to bring Defoe on when the opposition defence is more fatigued giving him the chance to continue banging in the goals.
So should England continue to keep using Jermain as an impact player or have I just had a long day at the office resulting in my mind not thinking straight and introducing crack-pot theories? After Saturday, I was well over the fence into fully believing Defoe should start and, despite no one deserving it more, I'm sat back on that fence.
It would also be nice reducing the chance of him picking up an injury playing 45 minutes instead of 90 as well. I'd take an injury free Jermain Defoe over any result this Wednesday.
He does deserve a start but should England give him one, but what do you think?