Way off on Tomkins nowadays. His game has totally changed and if anything he isn't running enough. The only complaint I've read from NZ Warriors fans about Tomkins is that he's not making enough running metres. He is constantly linking the play and setting his centres and wingers away like he did last year for us. Josh Charnley and Darrell Gouldings Wigan careers have stalled since he left because they're not seeing the same amount of ball as they got from Tomkins.

Has he learnt how to tackle yet ?

Typo amended

Certainly gives a headache ad it's great to have. Suddenly we have an exciting FAST back line. Interesting we have some many full backs, two of them started as half backs. And we're short of half backs.

Personally I would go with Tomkins (he is actually a 6, Wigan just moved him to 1 as his pace and chiming into the line ripped poor SL defences to bits) but against OZ/NZ this doesn't work. Tomkins has a lot of skill, hence he was England's highest Try Assist in WC.. Lomax and hardaker can then fight it out for FB.

Unfortunately we have a poor coach and it will be exactly same as last year.

Sad, but correct. It's a shame because this England team has real potential too.

That's why its all the more disappointing that Burgess has jumped ship. England has quality and cover 1-5 that were non-existent when Smith was coach. If Widdopp kicks on and stays fit, we're down to halfback as the major issue in the backs. Short-term I'd still go with Sinfield unless Tomkins moves up to 7.

A bigger problem is hooker, where Roby has class but his inability to play 80 minutes at Test level causes problems in terms of the bench.

I also think we need some of the younger second rows to stand out - England's backrow options look average compared to NZ and Aus.

Elliot Whitehead is doing a pretty good job at Catalans.

Maybe Whitehead has potential, but when you look at the second row options for Australia and NZ the gap based on what I've seen to date is enormous.

Whitehead has more than potential. He has a record of outstanding performances (including several tries) to make him a viable and attractive option in the second row.

Anyway this thread is about full back, and based on the votes so far it seems that forum members are evenly divided on Hardaker and Tomkins for full back.

That particular issue depends on whether Tomkins can/should play anywhere but fullback. If that's where he wants to play/McNamara sees him there and not in the halves, then he should be picked ahead of Hardaker. IMO if they both play to their best I'd be tempted to play both with Tomkins in the halves.

Australia have three club fullbacks in their 1-5 for the same reason - to get their best players on the pitch (it would be four if Hayne was selected on the wing).

Australia fielded the Four Club Fullbacks in the 2013 WC Final


Slater at Fullback
Inglis at Centre
Hayne at Centre
Boyd on the Wing

I believe that both Hardaker and Tomkins have to be in the England team.

It could be achieved by having Hardaker at full back and Tomkins in the halves. Or it could be achieved by having Tomkins at full back and Hardaker in the centres. (In the latter case then you have the dilemma of choosing between Watkins and Reed).

Hardaker

I think that Tomkins should play stand-off.

Tomkins had another very good game for NZ Warriors tonight. He scored a try and was instrumental in setting up two others with magical "tip on" passes to his outside runners.

He was however overshadowed by Konrad Hurrell and Shaun Johnson, both of whom were sensational.