Just been reading about Bowen and how people feel as though he isn't at his best playing in a structured attack and that he how played more of a ball playing role in the NRL. It's my understanding that a full-back is generally used as a support player earlier on in the set and out the back as a third receiver towards the back end.

Was just wondering how people view the role of the attacking full-back in the game now and how it's evolved over the years.

Personally I think the "out the back" play to the full back is becoming very easy to pick and defend because teams over use it! Take Warriors vs Dragons last week in the NRL! Warriors used Tomkins pretty much every attacking play and it was snuffed out very easily! I think Warrington over used it too when they had Hodgson at the back.

Its an easy read if they stand in a structured back line. Tomkins at Wigan would come from the other side of the field or stand near the first receiver and as such the defender wasnt sure where he would enter the line, disrupting the defensive pattern. It draws in a defender thats for sure sometimes leaving an overlap.

This Chap is an attacking fullback. youtu.be/x3vfiDljZNw And a defensive one. youtu.be/IpxVmWHZd4E

This Chap is an attacking fullback. youtu.be/x3vfiDljZNw And a defensive one. youtu.be/IpxVmWHZd4E

Seriously you need to grow up and get over you're hatred for Sam Tomkins, your like a child.

Don't hate Sam at all. But there are people in this country who a seem to actually believe he's the world's best fb. Those videos suggest otherwise and by a huge margin.

Every single fullback/NRL/Tomkins thread you do nothing but try and slate him, you defiantly have a personal hatred for him. Nobody believes he is the best full back in the world but he is defiantly one of them.

Developing full backs is one thing that we do particularly well in this country. Off the top of my head we have Tomkins, Lomax and Hardaker who could all easily fill the #1 role for England.

Go on then who are these people - don't recall anyone stating he was the worlds best FB.

We've realised in this country what the Aussies have know for a while, that the full back is the first line of attack rather than the last line of defence. Thankfully international full backs like Paul Wellens should now been a thing of the past now that we're developing players like Somkins, Hardaker, Lomax and Shaul. Obviously, defence is still important, positional play, and ability to take difficult kicks are still a necessary facet of a modern FB, but the ability to operate as a 2nd sand off is now the FBs main attribute IMO.
By the way, if h carries on the form he's show so far this season Hardaker will be England's FB for the 4N. Tomkins will move into the halves. Although, I could still see Sinfield and Widdop carrying on in the halves for the next tourney, and then Tomkins moves into the halves after that.

I've played a lot of rugby at full back and I have to agree with the post above. For me though, the key to playing full-back at the top level is the ability to read the game. Good positional play from the full-back ultimately gets you where you need to be on the field a lot quicker. The top full-backs now are all dangerous broken field runners who return the ball at pace.

There is no set position as to where the full-back should or shouldn't link into the line. The common trend at the minute is to have the full-back linking in as a third pivot offering himself as the extra man, but that really depends on where on the field you are attacking. With this in mind though, you need to be able to make decisions and speed and a passing game. No coincidence that we are seeing more and more running halves making the switch. The likes of Slater don't even need to take the ball - their threat and presence alone forces edge defenders into decisions leaving space for the runners and edge attackers. Other than that, you want the full-back following the play in order to be on the shoulder of a half-break.

I do however think that people are underestimating the defensive role to a certain extent.