Why hasn't Great Britain produced a great full back?

[ELBOWSEYE]

7 hours ago, Manfred Mann said:

The twelve best Antipodean full backs of the NRL and Super League eras are:

Billy Slater,
Roger Tuivasa-Sheck,
Darren Lockyer,
James Tedesco,
Brett Stewart,
Ben Barba,
Greg Inglis,
Anthony Minichiello,
Brett Mullins,
Jarryd Hayne
Tim Brasher
Matt Bowen

Can anyone please explain why they think that Kris Radlinski was in the class of any one of these, and point to Radlinski having the specific attacking skill set of any one of these?

 

 

Having watched Barba he was not good enough to lace Radlinski boots, and all your base argument is from watching NRL and as has been proved brits flourish when in the NRL .

[deluded pom?]

7 hours ago, Manfred Mann said:

The twelve best Antipodean full backs of the NRL and Super League eras are:

Billy Slater,
Roger Tuivasa-Sheck,
Darren Lockyer,
James Tedesco,
Brett Stewart,
Ben Barba,
Greg Inglis,
Anthony Minichiello,
Brett Mullins,
Jarryd Hayne
Tim Brasher
Matt Bowen

Can anyone please explain why they think that Kris Radlinski was in the class of any one of these, and point to Radlinski having the specific attacking skill set of any one of these?

 

 

Why your fixation with Matt Bowen? He’s not one of the players I think of when recalling world class Aussie FBs. Did he ever play rep football other than the Indigenous All Stars?

[Kirmonds pouch]

8 hours ago, Manfred Mann said:

The twelve best Antipodean full backs of the NRL and Super League eras are:

Billy Slater,
Roger Tuivasa-Sheck,
Darren Lockyer,
James Tedesco,
Brett Stewart,
Ben Barba,
Greg Inglis,
Anthony Minichiello,
Brett Mullins,
Jarryd Hayne
Tim Brasher
Matt Bowen

Can anyone please explain why they think that Kris Radlinski was in the class of any one of these, and point to Radlinski having the specific attacking skill set of any one of these?

 

 

So you don't actually watch the game then.

Steve Prescott was at least as good as half of those and that's just one I can think of. Bowen

[Rupert Prince]

On 1/15/2019 at 4:25 PM, Southerner80 said:

Agreed.....Williams would be better off at FB or Centre IMO.

 BJB for one could make a pretty good FB. Manfredi could in time be a star FB at the highest level.

Lastly for what its worth I would say J Davies merits the great tag, and Radlinski is not far off it either.

I am afraid, if I may be ever so humble, I have been reading these comments about fullbacks your ideas and those others like Saint1 are delusional.  

The important job for a full back is to tackle and catch high balls, added to that is intelligence in order to be in the right place to make the tackle in the first place. Everything else is secondary. A great fullback would have tackled Gildart's try in the NZ game.

The idea that a full backs main job, or a more highly regarded role, is to be another Boston-Ashton-Bolton all in one combined is risible.  (put in your own combination of choice)

Today the notion of a "playmaker" is massively overused. Thats not to say such a thing does not exist.  However, the rules today force defences to retire 11 yards. Teams generally will make easy yards without any playmaking right up to 20 yards out and then the attacking play takes place... often with a high kick or grubber.  The attacking fullback, being by definition at the back, can see the events unfold before him and can intervene. It's not rocket science.

[Kirmonds pouch]

On 1/15/2019 at 4:25 PM, Southerner80 said:

Agreed.....Williams would be better off at FB or Centre IMO.

 BJB for one could make a pretty good FB. Manfredi could in time be a star FB at the highest level.

Lastly for what its worth I would say J Davies merits the great tag, and Radlinski is not far off it either.

Sorry but we tried BJB at FB and he was dreadfull - it's been three years since and we've never tried it again.

[Kenilworth Tiger]

The best British full back for years unfortunately decided to protect his golf clubs rather than really kick on

[Dunbar]

37 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

I am afraid, if I may be ever so humble, I have been reading these comments about fullbacks your ideas and those others like Saint1 are delusional.  

The important job for a full back is to tackle and catch high balls, added to that is intelligence in order to be in the right place to make the tackle in the first place. Everything else is secondary. A great fullback would have tackled Gildart's try in the NZ game.

The idea that a full backs main job, or a more highly regarded role, is to be another Boston-Ashton-Bolton all in one combined is risible.  (put in your own combination of choice)

Today the notion of a "playmaker" is massively overused. Thats not to say such a thing does not exist.  However, the rules today force defences to retire 11 yards. Teams generally will make easy yards without any playmaking right up to 20 yards out and then the attacking play takes place... often with a high kick or grubber.  The attacking fullback, being by definition at the back, can see the events unfold before him and can intervene. It's not rocket science.

Sorry but this thinking is years, no decades, out of date.

The full back's most important job In the modern is to be the single most important attacking strike player.

There is nothing wrong with you having the opinion that tackling and catching high balls is the most important job of a full back but I will probably defer to Craig Bellamy and how he uses Billy Slater or Wayne Bennett and his deployment of Darius Boyd or maybe Trent Robinson and his use of James Tedesco.  Or in fact any modern coach and his desire to have a modern day full back at his disposal to execute his attacking plays.

[Dunbar]

11 hours ago, Manfred Mann said:

The twelve best Antipodean full backs of the NRL and Super League eras are:

Billy Slater,
Roger Tuivasa-Sheck,
Darren Lockyer,
James Tedesco,
Brett Stewart,
Ben Barba,
Greg Inglis,
Anthony Minichiello,
Brett Mullins,
Jarryd Hayne
Tim Brasher
Matt Bowen

Can anyone please explain why they think that Kris Radlinski was in the class of any one of these, and point to Radlinski having the specific attacking skill set of any one of these?

 

 

You can divide your selection into pretty much two groups

Billy Slater, Roger Tuivasa-Sheck, Darren Lockyer, James Tedesco, Greg Inglis and Jarryd Hayne (at his best) were all great full backs

Brett Stewart, Ben Barba, Anthony Minichiello, Tim Brasher and Matt Bowen were good NRL first graders and SOO reps but not in the class of the first group.  In fact, in the NRL era I would have Brett Hodgson and Karmichael Hunt in front of most of these.

Brett Mullins is an interesting one - he fits in below the elite but above the rest.  And that is where I would place Kris Radlinski as well.

[Allora]

7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

You can divide your selection into pretty much two groups

Billy Slater, Roger Tuivasa-Sheck, Darren Lockyer, James Tedesco, Greg Inglis and Jarryd Hayne (at his best) were all great full backs

Brett Stewart, Ben Barba, Anthony Minichiello, Tim Brasher and Matt Bowen were good NRL first graders and SOO reps but not in the class of the first group.  In fact, in the NRL era I would have Brett Hodgson and Karmichael Hunt in front of most of these.

Brett Mullins is an interesting one - he fits in below the elite but above the rest.  And that is where I would place Kris Radlinski as well.

Anthony Minichiello ahould be in the first group, he played plenty of Test matches.

The fact that Lockyer and especially Slater were locked in as Test Fullbacks for much of their time (until Lockyer moved to five eighth) made it vey difficult for any others to get a Test Cap.

Robbie O'Davis, Garry Jack, and Gary Belcher were all fine Fullbacks.

Ben Barba would not be on my list at all.

 

 

[Tonka]

I read recently that the approach in Aus is that your "best back" is your full back.  I think in the UK we have more of a pre-conceived notion of what a full back's role is.  In a nutshell I think that's why Australia produces such good full backs.

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Allora said:

Anthony Minichiello ahould be in the first group, he played plenty of Test matches.

The fact that Lockyer and especially Slater were locked in as Test Fullbacks for much of their time (until Lockyer moved to five eighth) made it vey difficult for any others to get a Test Cap.

Robbie O'Davis was another fine Fullback.

 

 

Yes, I think that you are right that Minichiello is better than the second group... I still don't have him quite up there with the 'elite' group but as good as Mullins I think.

[Allora]

Just now, Tonka said:

I read recently that the approach in Aus is that your "best back" is your full back.  I think in the UK we have more of a pre-conceived notion of what a full back's role is.  In a nutshell I think that's why Australia produces such good full backs.

Australia wants outstanding outside backs in every position.

Strong centres were a big part of the game and they still are.

It has turned out that in the modern game many of the best atheletes end up as all round fullbacks.

 

 

[DavidM]

6 minutes ago, Allora said:

Australia wants outstanding outside backs in every position.

Strong centres were a big part of the game and they still are.

It has turned out that in the modern game many of the best atheletes end up as all round fullbacks.

 

 

And it seems Australian coaches don’t always get hung up on set positions . They get outstanding backs who they know are talented enough to play anywhere they’re needed to get the strongest team 

[Rupert Prince]

34 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Sorry but this thinking is years, no decades, out of date.

The full back's most important job In the modern is to be the single most important attacking strike player.

There is nothing wrong with you having the opinion that tackling and catching high balls is the most important job of a full back but I will probably defer to Craig Bellamy and how he uses Billy Slater or Wayne Bennett and his deployment of Darius Boyd or maybe Trent Robinson and his use of James Tedesco.  Or in fact any modern coach and his desire to have a modern day full back at his disposal to execute his attacking plays.

The game is indeed up to date.  As I said the rules make the game up to date.  As such it makes the full back the player it is, for what it's worth0.  Likeways the modern prop forward  or hooker is what he is. 

So talking about who is the "greatest" must look at each relevant era of rules.   As for current rules, there are opportunities to be a punt returner, or an extra centre, but as I said before, a "great" fullback would have tackled Gildart, not someone who just happened to be in a nr1 shirt. 

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

The game is indeed up to date.  As I said the rules make the game up to date.  As such it makes the full back the player it is, for what it's worth0.  Likeways the modern prop forward  or hooker is what he is. 

So talking about who is the "greatest" must look at each relevant era of rules.   As for current rules, there are opportunities to be a punt returner, or an extra centre, but as I said before, a "great" fullback would have tackled Gildart, not someone who just happened to be in a nr1 shirt. 

The modern laws of the game certainly have an impact in modern play but the game will and does evolve anyway as coaches look to innovate and develop new tactics and plays.

I certainly agree that judging players from different eras is very difficult as the most important attributes of a modern full back/prop/hooker are not the same as 20 or 40 years ago.

Steve Hampson was one of my favourite players when I was younger but he has a completely different skill set to a modern full back and so you can't say who he was better or worse than.

What I don't agree with is using one isolated incident in these discussions though.  Somebody said earlier that they saw Darren Lockyer miss a tackle and now you are using the missed tackle from Dallin Watene-Zelezniak on Gildart.  Every full back has missed a tackle in his career, we can't use one missed tackle to judge a player.

[dkw]

12 hours ago, Manfred Mann said:

The twelve best Antipodean full backs of the NRL and Super League eras are:

Billy Slater,
Roger Tuivasa-Sheck,
Darren Lockyer,
James Tedesco,
Brett Stewart,
Ben Barba,
Greg Inglis,
Anthony Minichiello,
Brett Mullins,
Jarryd Hayne
Tim Brasher
Matt Bowen

Can anyone please explain why they think that Kris Radlinski was in the class of any one of these, and point to Radlinski having the specific attacking skill set of any one of these?

 

 

Radlinski was better than all of them other than Lockyer, Inglis, Slater. 

[Allora]

8 minutes ago, dkw said:

Radlinski was better than all of them other than Lockyer, Inglis, Slater. 

Kris was more of a defensive fullback though, certainly at Test level.

[Dunbar]

12 minutes ago, Allora said:

Kris was more of a defensive fullback though, certainly at Test level.

This is the problem with judging individuals within the context of a team sport.  Radlinksi may have been more defensive at full back but that may be because Great Britain/England were not as dominant a team as some of the Australians full backs were fortunate to play in.

For example.

Radlinski scored 7 tries in 30 international appearances (0.23 tries per game).

Anthony Minichiello though scored 11 tries in 19 games for Australia - a ratio of 0.58 tries per game.  So does this stat help to demonstrate Minichiello is a better player than Radlinksi?

Maybe it does, but then again Minichiello played 7 times for Italy and scored just one try (0.14 tries per game) and so this proves that Radlinksi is better than Minichiello!

I think it is possible to look at the strengths and weaknesses of individual players but the context in which they played must be considered.

[Southerner80]

3 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

I am afraid, if I may be ever so humble, I have been reading these comments about fullbacks your ideas and those others like Saint1 are delusional.  

The important job for a full back is to tackle and catch high balls, added to that is intelligence in order to be in the right place to make the tackle in the first place. Everything else is secondary. A great fullback would have tackled Gildart's try in the NZ game.

The idea that a full backs main job, or a more highly regarded role, is to be another Boston-Ashton-Bolton all in one combined is risible.  (put in your own combination of choice)

Today the notion of a "playmaker" is massively overused. Thats not to say such a thing does not exist.  However, the rules today force defences to retire 11 yards. Teams generally will make easy yards without any playmaking right up to 20 yards out and then the attacking play takes place... often with a high kick or grubber.  The attacking fullback, being by definition at the back, can see the events unfold before him and can intervene. It's not rocket science.

Thanks for this. I will say Reading this I don't disagree And can see more. While I am a big fan of RL I will be the first to say my actual understanding of the game itself  on the field is much less than my take on the marketing and feasibility of expansion being southern and aware of how competitive the market for sports is in London And on TV for interest of the public if you are not football. 

I can agree with your comment in regards to being able to read the game. Again Jiffy still fits the category of Great FB based on all that. 

[Tonka]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

This is the problem with judging individuals within the context of a team sport.  Radlinksi may have been more defensive at full back but that may be because Great Britain/England were not as dominant a team as some of the Australians full backs were fortunate to play in.

For example.

Radlinski scored 7 tries in 30 international appearances (0.23 tries per game).

Anthony Minichiello though scored 11 tries in 19 games for Australia - a ratio of 0.58 tries per game.  So does this stat help to demonstrate Minichiello is a better player than Radlinksi?

Maybe it does, but then again Minichiello played 7 times for Italy and scored just one try (0.14 tries per game) and so this proves that Radlinksi is better than Minichiello!

I think it is possible to look at the strengths and weaknesses of individual players but the context in which they played must be considered.

I think Rads was an outstanding club player and a very good international.  More of a support finisher than a line breaker.  Undoubtedly would have scored more in better sides but did have limitations in attack.

[Allora]

8 hours ago, Dunbar said:

This is the problem with judging individuals within the context of a team sport.  Radlinksi may have been more defensive at full back but that may be because Great Britain/England were not as dominant a team as some of the Australians full backs were fortunate to play in.

For example.

Radlinski scored 7 tries in 30 international appearances (0.23 tries per game).

Anthony Minichiello though scored 11 tries in 19 games for Australia - a ratio of 0.58 tries per game.  So does this stat help to demonstrate Minichiello is a better player than Radlinksi?

Maybe it does, but then again Minichiello played 7 times for Italy and scored just one try (0.14 tries per game) and so this proves that Radlinksi is better than Minichiello!

I think it is possible to look at the strengths and weaknesses of individual players but the context in which they played must be considered.

I agree with much of your post Dunbar.

The only points I would make though, when Mini was playing for Italy it was towards the end of his career and he was not in his prime. His role in a team like Italy would have been Captain and on field General more than finisher.

Kris had some pretty handy players around him when he played Centre and Fullback for England & Great Britain, certainly better than anything Italy was putting out when Mini played his seven Italian Tests.

I agree though that comparisons of different decades and players styles are difficult to make.

[Rupert Prince]

On 1/12/2019 at 8:34 PM, Exiled Townie said:

Paul Charlton.  The best I've ever seen play.

Yes. Very good point.  And throws a very good custard pie in the face of all the witless witterings from the crowd who cheer on the usual suspects from the NRL.

[JohnM]

Naming good players who play No. 1 does not mean they are therefore great full backs. There is more to it thsn just wearing that No.1. 

[ghost crayfish]

These conversations are always tricky. For example, Brett Mullins in 94-95 was absolutely phenomenal; I'd say ahead of Radlinski and just about any other fullback you could name. Of course, Radlinski performed for a decade though, whereas Mullins was pretty patchy after that... Maybe he couldn't keep up with the evolving demands of a fullback, in the way someone like Radlinski could? Another point is Matt Bowen - he was an absolute genius. He never played as much rep football as the others (because of his size and the fact he competed with Lockyer, Hunt and Slater) but I've never seen a more natural attacking footballer than him. The instincts and skill of Allan Langer, combined with the speed of Billy Slater. For defence or the ability to take the tough carries forward though... you'd take Radlinski. Slater is revered because he is close to the top in every attribute.

But yes, in Australia today, the best player usually ends up at fullback. Halves who can run? Fullback. Centres who can pass? Fullback. In today's game, a young Brad Fittler would play fullback, not centre, five-eighth or lock. Same goes for Laurie Daley. 

[Allora]

2 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Yes. Very good point.  And throws a very good custard pie in the face of all the witless witterings from the crowd who cheer on the usual suspects from the NRL.

You are going back to 1974.

Next we will be talking about Langlands.