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.

Now Kirek and Bailey have been moved on we need a new scapegoat though

My money's on Briscoe.

Im not one for scapegoats but a lot on here are, my moneys on Danny Mags!!!!

With Bailey and Kirke gone from the front row and a few on here against the decision to give him one more year then I reckon Leuluai could cop some depending on how much game time he gets.

Of course the ultimate in scapegoatery won't be a member of the playing staff at all. But that goes without saying.

My Money is on Broscoe.

Sorry, I meant more in terms of respect and professionalism off the park rather than any failings on it. I doubt even his most ardent of supporters would suggest he's a stabilising influence or a good role model within a squad.