Five of the Best: Full-Backs.

Quote: WireWireWire "First three are all locked in choices for mine but the last two are embarrassing. For me, a Full Back has to be above all else, a fantastic defender, they are the last line of defense for the team, I can't count how many times Radlinski and Wellens pulled off brilliant defensive acts when it looked dead certain that the opposition would go over. Brett Hodgson is a step lower but still worth his weight in gold as a Full Back.

Luke Dorn is a try machine and a very good player, but he doesn't spring to mind as a top quality FULL BACK, for me, he doesn't have the attributes to be mentioned in the same breath as the 3 above. Now, Sam Tomkins, I find to be an absolutely laughable inclusion when it comes to being a great Full Back. Fantastic broken field runner? You bet, one of the best actually, he's lethal with space in front of him, but a great Full Back he is not and it's just ridiculous to me that he makes such a list. He can't defend, he's dodgy under a high ball, and I don't rate his linking into the line either unless he catches and goes himself, his passing game isn't anything notable.'"

Quote: WireWireWire "Why are people putting tries scored up to show how good a full back might be?

Leave the tries to the wingers. What about, first and foremost, defence? Hands under a high ball? Spotting plays from the opposition and organising the defence in front of him to combat that? Kick returns? Link up play as a third pivot?

But certainly, unless a player is an excellent tackler, especially on his own line, he shouldn't be anywhere near that list.'"

Both posts are rooted in what a great fullback might have been 10-15 years ago, and not what a great fullback is today. Fullback should be (and generally is, especially in the NRL) the most attacking player on the team, because he is the only player who isn't marked by an opposite number and therefore the entire attacking structure is based around getting the fullback in space. As someone who has both played fullback for the last decade and also done a fair bit of coaching, the modern game sees fullback as an attacking position.

Roger Tuivasa Sheck, Matt Moylan, Greg Inglis, Billy Slater, James Tedesco, Darius Boyd, Josh Dugan - when you think of these players, it's their ability to beat a defender, to hit a miss pass to their winger, to hit the right line, that comes to mind, not the fact they can catch a high kick. Billy Slater is one of the best fullbacks of all time and you still see him fluff some high kicks, but I can't believe anyone would take Paul Wellens over him.

In the NRL in the last few years what has happened is in most cases each team's most dangerous attacking weapon has been moved to fullback (if not already playing there). In the 2013 RLWC Final, Australia's backline was:
1. Slater (fullback)
2. Brett Morris (wing/fullback)
3. Inglis (fullback)
4. Hayne (fullback)
5. Boyd (fullback)

This wasn't because Austalia wanted a backline full of players all who had never dropped a high ball, it's because they wanted a really potent attacking backline. When this is the case, it's impossible to leave Tomkins out of a list of the best fullbacks in the Super League era.