Neither is a bad attacking full back[size![/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To No1 Saint: Maybe it is an outdated idea (or at least becoming more so).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 [ithird string[/i 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.

On the subject of defence, someone once told me that if a player scores more points than he lets in, he’s good enough to have a place in any side. Not saying I agree with it, but at the time it was hard to argue with. I must think of a reason to disagree. He was an x RL pro

Rock 'n' Roll.

...was common.

If you ask me, Wello has worked very hard over the past 18 months to get his attacking game back on track and he's suceeded.The way he loiters around the play of the ball to pick up short passes and offloads has been excellent and we've really benifitted from it going forward.
Unfortunatley, attacking this area constantly leaves us with a somewhat limited game and in closer forward battles its harder to make work.
Wello is far from all defence - no attack, but when we ask him to come into the line in that outer pivot role, which is so effective for many #1s in SL to stretch the defences, he lacks fluidity and danger. Opposition backs seem to be able to defend against him better than other's in his position.

Don't forget on kick returns as well. The prime reason Wellens was better than potato head over in Wigland is that you could pretty much guarantee he would beat the first man and make 10m-15m on a lot of kick returns. He hasn't done that on a regular basis for about three seasons now. Being able to return to the ball well is like having an extra tackle in your set of six and can often make the difference between our field kicks landing near the opposition goal line or 35m out. Nobody I know, who is critical, has a bad word to say about the man's character, integrity, commitment, determination or desire. Perhaps we need Stuart Pearce to cut through the sentimentality.

Nathan Brown doesn't strike me as the sentimental type.

But I'd say he's been returning better this year than last.........