Really interested to see the responses to my thread. It seems that most people view full back as more of an attacking position than a defensive one. If that's the case, indeed Patten can be seen as a success. However, it may be old fashioned, but for me I prefer a full back who can put his body on the line and is effective under a high ball.

If that turns out to be MP's view, our priority is to assemble a pack that can dominate the opposition and have half backs and Centres who do not resemble turnstiles. If not, surely an attacking full back is a luxury we can't afford.

Must admit I'm never confident when he's fielding a kick of any sort, theres always that doubt that he may drop it or do something stupid and as for when the line is broken well we can forget him making a tackle a try is defiantly on the cards.

Saying that he is a class act going forward not doubting that for one minute, but we need to remember that if you play at Salford you need to be able to defend as well as attack because more often than not the line will be broke or we will be required to mop things up on our own line.

I think Tex Evans caught more bombs than Patten! The hype surrounding Luke before his arrival hasn't lived up to expectations IMO and I guess thats where my critic of him started. In the first friendly he played against Wigan I stated he looked very suspect in defence and was shouted down, I stick by that opinion and believe to have been proved right.

It's been stated on this thread in a way that most people prefer an attacking FB rather than a defensive one or to put it another way - a modern FB rather than the traditional. Paul Wellens stands head and shoulders above the rest in adopting both the old and the new for mine.

Luke is a good player - not great but half decent, he has cost Salford more points than I can remember from simple mistakes where previous FB's did not and for mine that stands out alarmingly! However I much prefer the way Salford are playing with the style of attack he offers than the way they have in the past. If the defensive line is so weak and Patten can't tackle very well there is always the option of playing two FB's when defending, it's been done before!

If Patten is weak at tackling why not move him to the wing when were defending and then move him back to fullback when we are attacking. He could switch places with Mark Henry.

TBH I'm unsure whether I worry more about his tackling or his failure to be able to catch a bomb and the more I think about it the more I like the idea of two FB's, would give the oppostion a lot more to think about and could change the modern game into something more interesting than the 50+ hammerings we witness in games week in week out plus O/T I'd also like to see the 3 points for a win and bonus point introduced into SL.

I think that FB's ability under the high ball is pretty old hat these days as most bombs are contested by centres and wingers, with FB's taking only a tiny percentage compared to the past. Look at Steve Hampson. I don't think he ever dropped a high ball. I certainly never seen him drop one that I can remember. On the other hand, his tackling was awful and his attacking play pretty good.

Ok, the General's tackling hasn't been great but I stand by my previous post as it being secondary to an extra attacker.

I'm really in favour of those 2 ideas.
As for using 2 FB's, that could be workable, but it'd probably see off the 40/20 to some degree. Therefore, I'm not sure if that would be a good thing.

Surely if there is one less player in the defensive line then teams will exploit the extra space. Fullbacks are only effective in defending 1 on 1 line break situations, if the team that make the break have support they are about as much use as an ejector seat in a helicopter.

Yes thats possible but the defending team has to man-up and not allow any extra space, working a little harder shouldn't be a negative (note Catalans recently when they have had a man sent off!) and when a line break does happen you have double the second defensive line to cope with a supporting player.

As for bombs to FB's TB, Luke has received his fair share this season! ( I wonder why? )

Having only just seen this post, I can honestly say I am suprised it has taken so long. the situation is becoming simmillar to the Gary Jack years,where critisism was just brushed away as "your wrong" if you didn,t fall in line with the licking. In fairness Ithink any player needs two seasons to settle,so lets judge next year,but remember when Jack came to Salford he was without doubt the best fullback in the world,but was a disaster for us,but no critisism was allowed,let us judge on what we see,and no be led by the nose.For me I expected a lot more but am willing to give him more time,but not to much.

I'm confident now Matt Parish is on board Luke Patten will come good.

It's always hard for any overseas players when they first come over.

Patten is a class attacking full back but of course when he is the last line of defence things have not always gone his way this season.

Personally i have not been a fan of Patten and think he is very over rated and he had under rated the quality of super league at times. Yes as mentioned above his attacking skills and stats are impressive but the defensive display(yes i know those in front of him were not much better)on friday was a joke and we would have been better playing a very good friend of mine from the north east at full back !!

I find it amazing that we get ourselves a top quality FB and people still find cause to complain. We are, currently, not a top 8 side and for some reason Patten is supposed to play like Robo-fullback and play the perfect game every week? Without going over old ground, I see where people are coming from but you are never gonna get the perfect player. As it stands, I'd rather have Patten with his current stats than many alternatives that could be playing for us.

As a progressive side we should be looking at Patten with a glass half-full mentality, not the other way around. Given a choice to swap his attacking capabilities for a fullback that could only defuse bombs and tackle line breaks, I would stick with his current stats.

The best fullbacks in the world are attacking fullbacks, not defence machines. This is 2011 not 1973.

I respect your opinion "TheButcher" but i also find it amazing that people can just overlook his defensive weaknesses just because he came here with a reputation. For me I just don't think he's been up to the task, his defence is a real sore point and needs to be vastly improved on, in an ideal world we used him like American football, we'd take him off when defending and bring him when attacking. Perfect!

I also understand where your coming from with the 2011 point, but correct me if I'm wrong I thought defence was a big part of a rugby league players game after all they've said it before 1973 "defence wins you games"!

If you watch more in depth, you'll see he organises the pack infront of him even when on his own line, its not up to him to stop a 2v1 when they break the line.

He also has a great pass in attack which can be a strong advantage to your line.