Fullback

[Spanner in the works]

All you've done is state the hard bits about being a fullback, you could do the same with any position. Make a point and I'll happily explain myself. Don't be such a bigot.

And all you did was point out the easy bits of being a fullback, you could do the same with any position?

[crikey chris]

Slater is the current blueprint of a modern fullback.
According to ch 9, he covers around 15km's in a game. Incredible!

[Rooster_6]

And all you did was point out the easy bits of being a fullback, you could do the same with any position?

Because I was asked why... no one has actually named the hardest position in their response so there's still no real argument.

[Rooster_6]

Sorry mate, but that's a massive call.

Fullback is not an easy position to excel in. You have to cover a lot of ground, constantly be in support, position yourself for an opponents kicking game, and run in back into a wave of a defence time and time again. Next to no defensive responsibilities? From that comment, I'd question whether you've ever played the game... a fullback's positional play in defence is a massive part of a team's go forward, and when the opposition are in your red zone, a fullback has all the responsibility of cleaning up kicks into the in goal.

It is not an easy position. And that is why it is so important to have a good one - it's part of the spine of a rugby league team, and we are weak there.

It's massively important to have a good one, I've never argued against that. From that comment, I'd question whether you've even read my argument.

Lets take Hayne for example, his defensive positioning is and always has been woeful at fullback. Frankly no one gave a shit, why? Because they have none to little defensive responsibilities. No one gives a shit if a fullback misses a tackle, in fact it's almost a miracle if they do make one the commentators go off like someone's just won the loto.

A good defensive fullback could be invaluable to a side but they don't exist.

As for attack they're given all the space in the world to run and whether they decide to support or ball play is up to them, there's no other position on the field with that type of creative license.

[Guest]

It's massively important to have a good one, I've never argued against that. From that comment, I'd question whether you've even read my argument.

Lets take Hayne for example, his defensive positioning is and always has been woeful at fullback. Frankly no one gave a shit, why? Because they have none to little defensive responsibilities. No one gives a shit if a fullback misses a tackle, in fact it's almost a miracle if they do make one the commentators go off like someone's just won the loto.

A good defensive fullback could be invaluable to a side but they don't exist.

As for attack they're given all the space in the world to run and whether they decide to support or ball play is up to them, there's no other position on the field with that type of creative license.

Your argument is that fullback is arguably the easiest position, because, I quote, they have "little defensive responsibilities."

This just isn't true.

You say no-one cares about Hayne's lazy positioning; they clearly do. That is probably why Stuart said Hayne was a 5/8, and didn't pick him for Origin in the number 1 jumper. It is why we were able to exploit the Eels when we thumped them last year. It's part of the reason Kearney has been experimenting with Burt at the back.

You are arguing that defence is making tackles. That is only part of it. So yes, the fullback is the last line of defence, and rarely has to make one-on-ones. But his positioning is a huge part of a teams defence - both in terms of stifling oppositions short kicking games, and winning the battle of territory for your side. Slater is a fullback with a brilliant defensive side to him, because his positioning is fantastic. Brett Stewart is another.

To play well as a fullback in attack is difficult as well. The support play, and the execution of ball playing is tough for halves, who do it full time, let alone fullbacks, who have other stuff to worry about too. A fullback is practically a backrower, a halfback and a centre all rolled into one - he has a hell of a lot of responsibility.

There are a good six or seven others arguing that fullback is a difficult position. At the moment, you're argument is, "Playing fullback is easy because you don't have to tackle and you can do what you want in attack." That is an overly simplistic and incorrect way of looking at the position.

[Guest]

Every position is important if we at weak in one link the chain breaks!!!!!

[Guest]

Every position is important!! if we are weak in one link the chain breaks!!!!!

[Guest]

as an ex player who played Fullback, screaming at your defensive line on where to stand and what gaps to close while your still catching your breath and a mouth guard not helping things isnt easy either.
Most things have already been talked about, Im guessing people who think its easy havent played at all.
Halfback is by far the hardest position followed by Fullback IMO that could be debated with Hooker.