I don't think anyone who sat in the stands or on their sofa can question Tomkins' commitment. he set himself to take the ball. it moved, which is why it looked like he didn't fully attempt.

No ball is uncatchable, commentary on sky is an absolute joke, I cringe when PC pipes up, Carney is the only guy on that gantry with an ounce of relevant RL knowledge.

couldn't have put it better but this is the amazing sam tomkins remember he can do no wrong!!!!!!!!

Funny thread.

For what it's worth, in my opinion, Lockyer has (had) the most difficult bomb in the world.

My club fullback, Josh Dugan, is great under a high ball. He got absolutely bombarded by Lockyer in Origin I and...oh, defused every single one. Nevermind.

Tomkins is an awesome player, potential superstar. I was very impressed with what I saw this Four Nations, my estimation of him has certainly risen. But compared with NRL fullbacks, he's still very much in the thick of it.

People talk about his youth, but Kevin Locke, for example, is the same age. The aforementioned Dugan, is a year younger. He's got the keep up with these young players (among others) before we can talk as highly about him as many already do. The absence of Slater for almost the whole tournament robbed the audience of a decent yardstick to compare, and no doubt an added spectacle.

Was Tomkins injured? He looked like it to me with a general lack of activity in the game in not getting to the high balls and when returning kicks he always passed it to another of the back 3 instead of returning it himself. Which is a shame because he's obviously very dangerous when returning the kicks. Didn't he pick up a knock against France?

Sam has a lot of talent, which will mean he can have weaknesses and still be considered a top performer, because of the slightly questionable all round ability of the SL professional compared to the NRL. Basically, he'll get away with dropping a few balls in SL that he wouldn't down under, because he can go up the other end and score one straight back.

If he's injured surely he wouldn't be playing RU at the weekend?

He failed to get to the pitch of high balls in the other matches too. Maybe he has a problem with his binocular vision - a gammy eye, eyes too close together, etc?

For what it's worth, I believe Australia had spotted a weakness there - hence the high kicks, which also gave the chasers time to stop him running the ball back. I had expected Oz to pressurise him at Wembley in some way - but they chose to kick to the wingmen instead. It was therefore inevitable they'd try to pressurise him in the final and based on a weakness they had perceived in other games.