There have been players capable of playing both positions though - Holmes and Harris, to name but two. But I think you're right re Hardaker. Furthermore, while he might not possess every ounce of ability for every aspect of the FB's role, he is sufficiently good at it not to want to move him from there.

No, out of English FBs, the principal candidate for a trial in the halves must surely be Tomkins - although, even then, I'm far from sure he'd be an unqualified success there.

Tomkins started out in the halves, even played against the Aussies there in the 2009 4N final but from what I recall he was dropped back to FB largely to get him out of the defensive line as his defence was suspect.....something that's still a problem now at FB.

As well as Harris, Robbie Paul made his name originally at FB for Bradford and Leon Pryce like Hardaker played several years in the backs playing FB, Wing and centre.

Lockyer would be the obvious outstanding convert to HB from FB.

True. What I should have put was that it might now be time to try him there again. Presumably his game will be a lot stronger all round than it was back then.

Tomkins is primarily a runner. Yes he can pass a bit, and kick a bit, but he's not really a halfback. Him being at fullback makes the most of his abilities and decreases the impact of his deficiencies

I think Michael Maguire would agree with you. He was moved to make the most of his running abilities not really to hide from defensive frailties, which have been over stated in my view. His defence is pretty good. He is certainly very brave, but because of his size can get mown down by a much bigger guy.

I think that it's a nailed on certainty that he will return to the halves in a few years (hopefully with Wigan). His passing is the equal of anyone's, he has the quickest hands in the England team and his kicking has improved no end too.

I agree with that. It also depends what you want from your halves and fullback and who you have in those positions. For instance if I had Chase as 1 halfback I wouldn't necessarily want Tomkins as the other, I'd want more of an organiser and a kicker alongside him. But if you've got, as we have now, Smith or Widdop as half back then I'd be happy with more of a runner alongside him.

Some great points being made on this thread and very few, if any, without merit. Good to see the art of discussion is alive and well and apparently living on the Leeds board!

As for the Tomkins v Hardaker for fullback debate I think it's too easy to overlook the fact that they offer different things. It's easy to make a case for one or the other by comparing one's strengths against the other's weaknesses but the truth is that neither is the complete fullback. In fact, fullback is such an exposed position in many respects, that it's probably true to say there has never been the complete package, even if some have come close. Slater, for example, is prone to brain farts that a lesser player would be crucified for making. I've seen better under the high ball (our own Steve Hampson for example) and more destructive runners (Inglis). There's been more creative players, more elusive runners and better passers of the ball. Yet he was, quite rightly, considered the best fullback in world rugby for a while... and still is by many!

I'm not saying that either is as good as Slater, of course. Just that put any player up against another and you will have one better at some things than the other and vice versa. In the end I think it's true to say that, on balance, Tomkins brings more to a team than Hardaker and that's why he's in there ahead of him. As well as the things he does better (not all by any means) he also brings leadership qualities and a stability to the team that Zak simply doesn't. Despite the desire of many to move Tomkins to half, as it stands he's a fullback and so it comes down to a straight choice of who brings the most. At present that's Tomkins.

Phuzzy-Fwiw we saw last year v Bradford Zak starting to take a more vocal/Nuturing leadership role so saying he simply doesn't have them is pretty wide of the mark.

Would these be the occasions when when Zak called for players to move from their defensive positions and leave gaping holes in the line?

you really do have an agenda against him don't you? still waiting for the other full backs you say are better

Why is it that if I make a point contrary to your opinion it has to be "an agenda against him"? Does this mean you have "an agenda" for him?

My argument has not been one-eyed and has included plenty of praise for Zak's strengths. I have never said he is a bad player or that we should sell him or drop him. But in pointing out his weaknesses I do appear to have upset his some of his myopic fans

i don't get the latest point, what's this about Hardaker creating huge gaps in our own defensive line?
Because I've got to say I've not seen it. In fact there have very rarely been huge gaps in our defensive line. Our defence in 2014 was excellent.

I'd actually say a key part of the reason why Leeds have conceded a lot less points in 2013 & then 2014 compared to the previous few years before that is because of Hardaker's organising from the back as he's grown more experienced in the FB role as time went on.

Zak has probably edged out Watkins of late to be Leeds' jewel in the crown.

If people want to pick over Zak, I'd ask them to point at easier candidates for criticisms. there's plenty to go at.