In essence it's a choice between a FB who is defensively strong and links in attack or one who offers the more creative attacking options.
It's really going to be down to what options you have in the halves. If you choose less creative halves you have to make up for it somewhere else, and that would be FB these days (loose forwards are just extra props these days). England had no creativity in the halves against NZ and we looked boring and struggled to move the ball or create any space. If you had the same halves then I can't see any other option than having Tomkins at FB. It plainly didn't work for Zac (or any of the outside backs) going forward the way England set up.
However, if you add Sam and George Burgess up the middle and, dare I say Cuthbertson, then you have the threat up the middle of an offloading game sucking in wider defenders and delaying the defensive line getting set (something we spectacularly failed to do against NZ) then you create a much better structure for a classical linking fullback like Hardaker to free up the rest of the backs - who are very, very good.

Going to be interesting.

I'm as happy as anyone to slag the little turd off, but I'm struggling to see anything in that article to criticise him over.

As DHM says, the lack of creativity in the halves may necessitate Tomkins rather than Hardaker at full back.
Hardakers defence is superb but even for Leeds he was often struggling to effectively fit in to our attack. That is obviously highlighted more so for England where you're not as familiar with the other players. Hopefully he'll improve his ability to link into an attacking line/move, if he does he'll have pretty much everything.

It seems to me it depends on whether you want your full-back to be able to defend. Zak is better in the air (crucial it seems to me when the sides down under rely so much upon bombs in attack) & is a better one on one tackler than ST.
If fit I think both will play, ST will be FB in attack & Zk will be FB when defending.

Bennett will be more familiar with the terrible NRL version of Tomkins than the exciting, pre-crocked Super League version.

That said, if Tomkins does recover some fitness or form then perhaps Bennett will move him up to the halves as he's done with a similar attacking talent - Milford - at the Broncos.

He's an intensely irritating individual but I don't read anything in there other than a player wanting to remind Bennett in particular that he is still out there. Bennett's appointment should have a positive effect on elite players, making them more likely to want to be part of the set up & less likely to take their skills elsewhere.

Agree that Hardaker is a much better defender, he's excellent, the best in the world in my opinion.

That's something I've thought of before to try and have the best of both, but I struggled to find a good way of incorporating both of them in that fashion.

Presumably you'd have them swapping from full back and centre?
Obviously that's not a problem having Hardaker attack in the centre position, but having Tomkins defend there would be an issue.

Ironically, this knee injury could be the making of Tomkins moving back into the halves on a permanent basis.

If he loses some of his pace, agility and elusiveness then like McGuire before him he will need to add other elements to his game.

There is a long season ahead before Bennett needs to make any choices. First thing is to see how Tomkins plays. Some of his passing under pressure in nrl looked brilliant to me. He will have more space playing for Wigan. Other parts of his game are likely to be better post nrl, if his body holds up and he can still step etc his attacking game could be outstanding. Playing him in halves and defending wide like McGuire and others do may be his future. Who knows ?

The only thing is know for sure is don't really bothered if he throws Bennett a bit of toffee or grows another weird beard like half of rest of league.

Trust Bennett to make right choice at end of year.

Agree

I think his passing is already there

But you're much more likely to get a heavy bad knock to your knee at SO than you are at FB - and rightly or wrongly, opposition players will be fully aware off that.

Are Hardaker's comment's any different to Tomkin's? www.loverugbyleague.com/news_207 ... tment.html

Are Hardaker's comment's any different to Tomkin's? www.loverugbyleague.com/news_207 ... tment.html

I watched the 2 years in NRL and have to say i must have watched a different Tomkins, He was very good in defence, perhaps not as good as Hardakre but not half as bas as you all are making out....

What is so offensive about the comments from Tomkins? If not offensive what specifically irritates you to obvious distraction?
If you can't answer no problem.
If he was interviewed and said he couldn't give a shoite about playing for England again I think you would be part of the crew who would be screaming he was a traitor.