Yeah - the only reason we lost against Leeds and Saints was our FB.





FFS.

yeah cause thats what I put we lost against leeds and saints because motu was at FB dint i - NOT.Just a fact we won games with horney at fb and leaked less points . Motu is not fit fact !!

No seriously I don't I've never rated him at fb and don't think he's that great at 6 either tbh. My opinion of course.

You missed my point but no matter.

great, leave us a gap right in the middle

in your opinion



and no its no sloeley being safe, but being safe is part of the requriment as is backing up breaks, 2 thins which Horne excels at. Id bet given a bit of time there he could work on his ball returng and quicker PTB's



mind you what more should we expect from someone who thinks wingers need to be defensive and workhorses

I hate the term deadwood - would we like it if someone called us that at work during a round of redundancies or "restructuring"? "But who was last year's growth that needs pruning" doesn't quite have the same ring to it, I know. I think:



G Horne (I'd love him to have a magnificent season and prove me wrong)

Cusack (very good start to the season but can we have more dynamism?)

thorman (I'm sorry but not making the grade to my mind)

Thackray (not delivering what we need)

King (certainly playing with pride - not sure it's enough anymore)

Radford (great servant, fantastic effort every week, great tackler, offers us little going forward - time to move on)

Crocker (can anyone tell me what he's brought to the club this year?)



Now, who to replace them with.... hmmmm... maybe we ought to keep them all.

I don't think it's that daft to want players who don't get much ball in attack, but do have plenty of chances to help the team out by bringing the ball away from their own line, to be good at bringing the ball away from their own line and be willing to do so.



In much the same way as I don't think it's daft to want a player who essentially has a free role in attack, with more opportunities than pretty much everyone except the halves to influence the attack, to be good at attacking.



And wingers don't [ineed[/i to be defensive, but they do need to be able to defend.

Thackray (not delivering what we need)



thackray has been our best prop over the last couple of months,as at least he gives us something different to dowes and cusack who basically have one tactic(run up the middle).

Bingo.



Safety in a fullback is hardly an antiquated concept. It's a necessity. Given a few weeks in the role, his kick returns will come and he'll be able to hit the line much better with a decent SH, too. Above all, he looks comfortable there. Assured. That's what we need.

Not sure really. A good full back is a good full back. Gary Kemble played 25 years ago and would be the best FB in Super League if he was playing now. He could catch (on the full), had pace, could join the line as a runner and a link player, and he could support. As in any position the top players have all the skills to play in whatever role they play. The game has changed but the top full backs 25 years ago weren't doing things much different to what they are now, apart from maybe not packing down at loose man in a defensive scrum.

I'm not saying 'being safe' isn't desirable. It is. 'Being safe' doesn't make a good fullback, though, if they don't have anything else to bring to the table.



My point was that, in this country, 'being safe' is seen as being enough to be a top fullback. It's been the same for a number of years, just look at our international fullbacks in the recent past: Radlinksi - safe, but not much else; Wellens - safe, but not much else. Both held the position for a numbers of years, with no-one really providing a threat. Prescott aside, they were the best we had to offer. Look at the antipodean internationals for the same period: Lockyer - purely an attacking threat; Barnett - well, we all know what an attacking threat he was; Ridge - hardly limited in attack; Minichiello - again, an all-out attacking weapon; Webb - not overly safe yet one of the best in the game; Hunt - not too bad an attacking threat really; Slater - not what you'd consider safe, but the best in the game.



Just look at that list. It's embarrassing what we've produced in that position and it's an endemic problem over here. Right from junior level, being able to catch (and having a bit of pace, generally) is seen as the only thing necessary to be able to play fullback. It's the same in the amateur game, the odd exception aside, and it's the same at academy level. It's no surprise, therefore, that we simply don't produce good fullbacks at the top level. Lee Smith is the closest we've got FFS. It's also no surprise that all the best fullbacks in the league are antipodean and they're all key players in their teams. It is, IMO, the single biggest reason why we're so far behind the Aussies and until attitudes change, our level of success won't.