Good heavens if there's one position whereas Australia completely overshadow us (there's more of course) it's full back. The two best full backs we've produced over the past 20 years - Wellens and Radlinski would not have been in their top 5 selections at any given point during their careers....and 5 is being generous.

It seems I watch more NRL than many of you guys.



The issue isn't whether or not NRL full-backs are technically excellent in many departments. The issue is whether they are safe under the high ball.

In games against both the Kiwis and England, Inglis looked totally lost. On two occasions he MISSED THE BALL COMPLETELY (which has never been an indicator of "safety" in any code of rugby). Ben Barba went through a Grand Final Season as possibly the worst full-back under the high ball I've seen. That was [utwo seasons[/u ago. If the NRL has changed significantly since then I'd say it's gone the opposite way.

If you fools want to deny all the above took place - that's your business. Meanwhile, get a tape of Garry Jack and watch an Aussie full-back who really was safe under the high ball.

I forgot to mention Matt Bowen. A legend going forward. Great attacking player. But if anyone seriously thinks Matt Bowen only began to make a hash of taking high balls the moment he crossed the equator they are deluded. Bowen has ALWAYS been flaky under the high ball - especially when his teammates were unable to shield him from some of the bigger guys barreling in. No guy that small can ever be safe when you have players who are twelve to fourteen inches taller also contesting it. It's a physical impossibility.

The truth is you just don't see scrum halves constantly resorting to bombing the full-back time after time after time in the NRL. Kicking games are more evenly spread - some to the wings, some as diagonal grubbers, some as half-and-half etc. Whereas in SL you routinely see a full-back being bombed four or five times on the run.

Well as I live in Aus, I usually watch at least 3 and as many as 8 games a week


From this obviously limited NRL viewing I have rarely seen NRL fullbacks susceptible to the high ball, except a few Tomkins howlers





So Inglis is crap under the high ball on the basis of two games?



Obviously I must be a fool to disagree. Inglis is pants and stealing a living at South Sydney and if they rightly let him go because of two poor performances in the green and gold every club would run a mile and sign Jordan Tansey instead.

This is getting tedious and we're going in circles.

You're entitled to your opinion. It's not mine.

So is he signing or not? Meant to be here today?

Not as good as this pearler from the Wigan rumour thread:



At least two of those posts have to be in jest?

That's the good thing about opinions Mugwump. They can't be wrong.
Life is all about perceptions

To be fair, I think he's on about Richards' kick offs, which are top notch.

Just on the size of backs, surely by now scouts will realise that tiny nippy lads are likely to only be viable as halfbacks? Are we still in the mindset of "you're big, you must be a prop" thinking at junior level? If anything the trend to bigger outside backs is increasing. There's barely a small threequarter in the whole NRL now - most get peppered to death by crossfield kicks and end up being replaced by bigger guys.

To be honest, I wish the sport would do something about kicks. All this hoof-the-ball-sky-high stuff is a depressingly negative style of play more suited to god-awful union. It's getting that way now that teams are better suited to scoring points from kicks than they are crossing the line ball-in-hand.

The fact that we are now picking bigger and bigger players in the backs smacks of the same retarded thinking which killed football for two decades in this country.

Scrums are also a joke! slows the game down so much as players use it as a time to take a breath, one time players used to pack down quickly.