I don't think its that - its more that being defensively secure is a minimum requirement, and that the difference between a good and great full back is what they bring to the attack. As for Tomkins, for all his supposed weakness, he doesn't get shown up very often which may be down to good coaching of defenders around him, but in any event I'd take him in a heartbeat over any other SL fullback even if he does drop the odd bomb.

What do you believe then? Is defensive solidity first on the sheet for that spot?

A full back's primary role is defensive. If he is also excellent in attack he becomes world class. A bad defensive full back is no use to any team!

Neither is a bad attacking full back[size=200![/size

very old fashioned view. Attacking prowess at fullback is not something most teams can afford to be without , certainly not if they want to be challengers.

Quite right! but he has to be able to defend.

To McLennan: Yes, I do think defensive solidity is first but as someone else said it shouldn't be without a significant nod to their attacking capabilities. Not going to turn this into a Wellens thread, but despite my perceived increase (slight mind) in his errors, he still defends very well and he still provides something in attack. Admittedly what he provides is support of many breaks (if and when make any!) rather than the breaking of the line or broken running like Tomkins.

To No1 Saint: Maybe it is an outdated idea (or at least becoming more so). Again someone else has said that it may be in Tomkins case, and those defending around him, that they are well drilled so as to be able to cover any cracks in his defence. Once they are covered and defending well, his undoubted attacking and eye for a break can be readily employed.

My view (and this may be tainted by my old fashioned thoughts) is that there are defensive frailties to Tomkins game, but it may be that these frailties are no longer something to worry about if they can either be dealt with within the make up or defensive systems of the team and/or the vogue is for all teams to employ this more offensively minded approach at full back. If every body else does it, one's excellent defensive but quiet going forward full back looks useless.

Regarding Tomkins, he is an excellent player and this isn't meant to single out the individual but use him as an exemplar of my ramblings.....

I see the [u[ithird string[/i[/u full back for the pies scored a 70m solo effort on Friday. His defensive position was a bit weak on at least one of the tries but that's to be expected for a fresh face at this level.

Can't remember the last time our FB went length of the field. Still, it's looking like he'll have another 2 years in the spot to try and rectify that.

He's chased a few second rowers and props back from their line to ours, he's occasionally also nearly caught them as they've put the ball down for the try.

2 years? I hope so.

....and the team was beaten!

and to a different poster: When did any of our back line go seventy or eighty metres for a try, let alone our full back....who to be fair was never a full length merchant....although beating the first couple of men and making thirty or forty yards was common.