great asset to the team, versitile back and can score from anywhere. just needs to improve his defense to step up to thet next level

It's not daft, it's rediculous!!

Full Back is the last line of defence on many occasions.

It's not ridiculous at all. A centre is likely to make far more tackles in a game than a full back (unless it's salford's full back



)

Look at this comparison from last season (didn't use ours as we didn't have a settled side)

[url=http://www.superleague.co.uk/statistics_player.php?hs1=2008&hp1=920&hs2=2008&hp2=351&stat=tries&season=2009HERE[/url

I'm not talking number of tackles, but how important they are. Stats are irrelevant.

So the man who has to make around 3 X the number of tackles doesn't need as good defence? Sounds like an interesting, if bollox, theory to me.

A FB may need to make a small number of crucial tackles in a game, however a centre will be called on to make several tackles which, if missed, are likely to result in tries (or opportunities for tries). Centre is a very difficult position to defend as it tends to be very exposed

Where did I say a centre doesn't need good defense?

Ah, the famous standee strategic withdrawal

It's a completely different type of tackle generally though. Fullback is about getting the tackle completed and little else. That isn't enough at centre.

I also think it suits his tackling style - i.e. catching a man or a side tackle. Yes a full back does have to make one on one front on tackles (a Wellens good point) but I stand by a centre needs better man on man defence.

I don't disagree.

So you agree?

By definition, yes.