I agree it is not new at all. I just think the game has changed and so focusses on it more.
Saw some recent games with Paul Charlton and I was amazed how good he was. I knew his name but didn't know much about him.

As for Holmes v Lewis. Holmes was skillful and elusive but I'm not sure his long pass was as good as Lewis at all.

All this todays full back role has changed makes me laugh didnt the full back always have to deal with the high ball,kicks to touch,grubber kick and tackle and join the attacking line no matter if it was the unlimited,four or six tackle ruling etc.

Correct. The only difference now is that due to the limitations in the H/B's the FB is the only player with space and has now become a pivot player rather than the extra attacking option he once was. However it doesn't make todays FB's massively better than those of old.

All this about defensive v attacking is a bit of a misnomer imo.

It should be taken as read that a professional RL full back can make a huge majority of one-on-one tackles, pick up loose balls etc as just being the basics.

Barba, Slater, Bowen, Tomkins etc are "attacking fullbacks" but the still have the defensive basics to make them a solid last line of defence, its not often they miss "simple tackles". In fact i have seen all 4 of them make incredible defensive plays in the past couple of seasons that have saved certain tries.

Radlinski was hailed as a great defensive fullback because he always got the basics right and also made positive defensive contributions (such as being v reliable at taking high balls under pressure, last ditch tackles/preventing grounding etc). He had good attacking qualities (not in the mould of the 4 above mentioned) which were mainly to do with good support play and decision making rather than dazzling speed or footwork.

Mistakes made by the 4 quoted above are often magnified because of their attacking flair and also their inherent desire to take risks, but i dont think any of them are bad defensively.

Re Mathers, he has alot of positive contributions to make from fullback. My only disappointment with him is that he fails more often than he should in some of the basics that he really shouldnt fail in, such as picking up simple balls under little pressure and failing to prevent tries (like the one vs Widnes at home for example) - things that a Radlinski (or even the other elite fullbacks above) would not let happen. If Mathers gets the basics right he is an excellent fullback and i don't think we have anybody better, or are likely to get anyone better in the next few years.

Spot on, if Mathers could master the basics a little better he would be an excellent FB. My fear is it's getting a bit late in the day now, but fingers crossed.

Exactly.
Well said

Clearly not. There was no reason to kick the ball when you had unlimited tackles.
4th tackle you kicked for distance because you weren't as far up the field
Up and Unders were a definite 'Hail Mary' play where as 6th tackle and the more modern game has developed a bomb play that drops on the line. Changes in the rules of what happens when you field these kicks has also menat they occur more in the game. Fielding these kicks is more important now as it has developed into a main attack tool for some teams.

Teams can't target the fullback to run at him because there is always someone in front of him. They target the half backs now.
They CAN target them easily, from anywhere, if they are weak under the high ball.

a few posts ago i seemed to be the only critic of richard mathers , the only person who thought fullbacks should tackle but now i find theres afew on here feel the same thank god because id seiously thought what i was seeing on the field was an illusion, lwasnt actually seeing our full back sit on his behind as he attempted tackles,a lot of emphesis is put on his positional play ,but il say again defensivley when tries are scored against us on most occaisions our no1s defencive frailties are to blame

They still did though, no idea why. I was watching some old matches from the 60's and it was pretty shocking to be honest.

I quite like Mathers at the back, he does a lot of talking and organising. He is prone to errors at important times though and does miss some tackles.

Try scorer can you offer a better fb than mathers that's both available and affordable?

They have unlimited tackles in yawnion and they seem to do little else, other than kick the ball to each other

you say affordable as if mathers is on a low wage reports ihave heard say this aint so. My point as always been that it was foolish to throw a two year contract at a player putting him in acomfort zone which in my humble opinion his performances didnt deserve. Iknow my opinion wont mean a lot to some on here who can see no wrong in mr mathers but when i hear some one say hes better than owen a player with a load of potential if he can control his offfield antics i despair. In anwer to the other question thrown at me why didnt we make aserious bid for someone like gaskel out of favour at saints a quality player who was languishing in their reserves at the end of last season

Can we not just put this to bed !!

can for me

Hope he plays well on sunday otherwise it'll drag on and on and on and on