Interesting Stats on Full Backs

[Neils]

And our Italian gets mentioned a fair bit -

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/how-the-heights-and-weights-of-full-backs-compare-across-the-premiership-top-14-and-pro14-full-backs/

[Shugs]

Really interesting read. It always amazes me that such a pivotal position is often regarded as an experimental project rather than a specialised and crucial role. Ignoring various instances outside of us we've tried the likes of Watson, Sopoaga, Daly and Beale there. I've always been brought up with the idea it's a defensive position but that seems to be changing (or maybe changed long ago and I've not kept up). That dictates you need someone with a bit of ballast and height for the high ball. But Le Roux and Minozzi show that diminutive characters can successfully operate there. Guess that's why we see such a mix of statures playing there.

[Shugs]

And there's no way in the world I'd have had Minozzi as the same height as Hogg!!

[Neils]

And there's no way in the world I'd have had Minozzi as the same height as Hogg!!

This I agree with. I thought Hoggy was around a six footer.

[Raggs]

Really interesting read. It always amazes me that such a pivotal position is often regarded as an experimental project rather than a specialised and crucial role. Ignoring various instances outside of us we've tried the likes of Watson, Sopoaga, Daly and Beale there. I've always been brought up with the idea it's a defensive position but that seems to be changing (or maybe changed long ago and I've not kept up). That dictates you need someone with a bit of ballast and height for the high ball. But Le Roux and Minozzi show that diminutive characters can successfully operate there. Guess that's why we see such a mix of statures playing there.

Goode is definitely not a defensive character, but his reading of the kicking game, and his vision for attack, make him a very good fullback. Not amazing in the air in competitive circumstances, but often has such good positioning that there's little competition.

It really is a variable position, from the likes of Spedding, dominating with size, and hitting hard lines in attack. Daly in his early attempts running superb angles and slicing defenses, now becoming more of a link man in attack. Le Roux and Goode able to fill in at 10 and call whole moves.

Love it when a position can be played in many ways. We may have our preferences, but it's the makeup of the team and their approach, that ultimately decides what would work best.

[mike909]

Its a slightly narrower range of Prem players perhaps, as Bath (like other teams) have Watson (and others) as Wing/FB and for me he's exactly my sort pf FB at 185cm, so tall enough and 93kg - so robust enough and fast fast fast!

I saw AW play several times for the U20s and he was the most exciting young player ball in hand I've ever seen. But that's how I prefer my FB, as Raggs says - it can be played many ways - but I prefer my second receiver at 12 (why I like Jimmy at 12) and I prefer my 15 to be the Watson or Hogg model, pace and the ability to be dangerous from distance.

I do think we might have got Wade to try it out though!

[coddy]

I really rate Anthony Watson too, comfortably better defensively than Daly and just as potent in attack.

[mike909]

I really rate Anthony Watson too, comfortably better defensively than Daly and just as potent in attack.

Easily the  best U-20 performances I have seen from Watson at 15 were two games vs Wales where he just looked like he was running at a different pace than everyone else and had that acceleration that really worried defences.

I'd have preferred him at 15 for England, but I guess that's what Jones get paid for.....Daly is always "a most useful player" hence Lions selections at wing, plus his ability with long kicks, but he was a 12 month project from the SA tour at 15 once Brown was moved/removed, which I always thought wasn't needed given the experienced options at 15, Watson etc.

But re the overall issue on the article - I want fast from 15 more than worries about shape!

[Shugs]

That's what makes it such an interesting position. Everyone wants different things from it. I prefer a stable defensive base with a bit of pace. So, for example I'd always choose a Mike Brown type over an Anthony Watson type. MB might save you three or four tries a game one way or another. Watson might score you two and be better to watch. Generalisations I know but just to illustrate the point.

[mike909]

That's what makes it such an interesting position. Everyone wants different things from it. I prefer a stable defensive base with a bit of pace. So, for example I'd always choose a Mike Brown type over an Anthony Watson type. MB might save you three or four tries a game one way or another. Watson might score you two and be better to watch. Generalisations I know but just to illustrate the point.

I'd have preferred England's RWC FB to have been Brown for results - last time around - with Watson to take over. But yes - its possibly one of the widest range positions. And Brown wasn't exactly slow!

Watson was always good to watch - genuinely one of very few players (with Wade and Varndell and the others) who I got "that feeling" when he got the ball.