You have to take note though that at Wigan, in attack it's ALL about getting Sam the ball. The attack was set up for him.

At Leeds we don't use Hardaker that way as we like to use other threats also. Hardaker is actually asked to do a lot of work in terms of ball in hand near Leeds' own line bringing the ball back with Briscoe and Hall to give the forwards a breather rather than near the opponents line.

I really really rate Hardaker, but all I'm saying is that I think Sam is the better attacker. He is a more elusive runner, and has a better passing game. He scored a lot, and set up almost as many as he scored. In the seasons he played for us we had Charnley top try scorer in the league, Pat Richards with high numbers of tries, and even George Carmont on 20 tries in his final season. I understand that being a Leeds fan means you like Hardaker as naturally you back your own players; but I don't think it can be disagreed that Tomkins in super league was a more potent attacking threat than Hardaker.

However, as I previously said, Hardaker is far FAR better defensively.

I think the metres, try saving tackles , solid defence Hardaker provides will be more useful to England than having Sam at FB, then God knows who to partner Widdop at HB with Zak in the stands .

A 1,6,7,9,13 of Hardaker / Sam/Widdop/ roby/ cuthbertson is pretty decent ,especially with Hooker cover in Burgess .

McNamara will pick Tomkins.

Ive watched Zak all season and am basing my opinion on watching him play rugby, not reviewing his stats. They're just numbers. He's been immense in both attack and defence.

But if you want to base a review of his attacking contribution upon numbers, don't just focus on two, tries and assists, here's some others.

Why not consider number 97. That's the number of tackle busts he's made, fourth best in the league.
Or number 3297, the number of meters he's made, 3rd best in the league.
Or number 20, the number of clean breaks he's made, 5th most in the league.
Or the number 21 which is the number of offloads, bested by only 1 other full back.

Or just watch the kid play rugby and if you understand the game you will understand how good he has been this year.

I certainly agree with Hardaker being the best defensive FB. There's not an English FB that comes anywhere near. In a world of pseudo FB's Zak is one of few to appreciate the importance of defence. The 2012 (I think?) Cup semi vs Wigan when he was in direct opposition to Tomkins was a perfect illustration of his defensive abilities.

Attack wise, it's open to opinion, but the fact that we've scored 30 more tries than our nearest challengers and our top tryscorer has only 15, might tell you not to read too much in to stats alone when making a judgement. Our attack isn't as focused on Hardaker as it was Tomkins at Wigan. It doesn't need to be.

Thing is Tomkins has been able to rip it up against SL opposition but he hasn't come close to reproducing that form at International level. And for all Tomkins attacking ability I actually think what Hardaker does in attack ((the bringing the ball back early in sets, helping forwards out, more physical) is actually more suited to Internationals and helping us beat the Kiwis rather than expecting Tomkins to run through them as easily as he can some SL defences.

Not disagreeing with you, however, I also watched Sam play week in week out for the years he was here.

And whilst I agree that Hardaker has been great this year, Tomkins made more clean breaks and tackle busts in 2013 than Hardaker has this year.
And offloads dont necessarily define good attacking play, as some offloads can be 'successful' but not gain the team a direct advantage. Tries and assists provide a more direct link to good attacking play. So Tomkins had over twice as many tries, four times more assists, more clean breaks and tackle busts.

And just so you don't jump on me, I AM SAYING HARDAKER IS BETTER DEFENSIVELY AND SHOULD START AT 1 FOR ENGLAND.
But just pointing out that perhaps you are underestimating just how good Tomkins is/was as an attacking threat.

Spot on, the work he does early sets to get us on the front foot is massive . His metres and busts are pretty impressive given he isn't making them scoring long range tries .

Got it right in the last sentence.

Was. In a team that was centred around getting the ball to him whenever and wherever possible.

England cannot be that one-dimensional if they want to be successful. It cannot be the Sam Tomkins show, mainly because he isn't the player he was when he left for the NRL. His deficiencies have been exposed over there, and the rest of his game has not progressed to balance them out.

I wont jump on you for anything, opposing views from opposing fans, well expressed, like yours is, are welcome in here.

But re-read my posts. I've made no comment at all on Tomkins. I've praised Hardaker.

FWIW, I've not seen much of Sam since he went to the NRL but from his days in Super League I'd agree entirely about how good an attacking threat Sam was. However, IMO, he was nowhere near Zak when it comes to fielding kicks or defence. For those reasons, I'd agree with the school of thought that both should be in the 17 and Sam should be in the halves.

I get that but it has been said previously, (several times) that Leeds don't run as much ball through Hardaker as Wigan did with Sam. The points scoring at Leeds this year is pretty evenly balanced amongst all the backs with even a few coming in the forwards. At Wigan everything was put on Sam to pull a Rabbit out, which he did often, and very well.

I see why you're making the comparison but given they are two years apart and what has been said above and previous it's quite hard.
Sam was put at FB (imo) to keep him out of the defensive line, keep him fresh and let him be where he wants to be in attack . in SL that works, but at international level vs teams that are often bigger, better and more defensively coached ?.

most agree Sam should be at HB ,as do you and I .I just think that Sam has yet to prove he can do in internationals what he did vs SL sides and that's what the main call is for him at FB, his SL performances in 2013.
Hardaker has earned the 1 Jersey and his chance .

I think this is the key bit. I think Hardaker is more capable of reproducing his club form/style of play at International level than Tomkins has done in the past. That's nothing to do with who is the better player, but how the International is a different kettle of fish to club rugby.

Tomkins style of play does have to factor the gulf in quality between SL and International levels. Hardaker style of running the ball back strongly, solid under the high ball and great tackling efforts are more capable of being reproducible at Internarional level.

Paul Wellens was a decent defensive full-back, useless at international level though.

What relevance has that to this discussion?
It seems to me we're all arguing & agreeing about the same thing.
Tompkins is the better attacker & Hardaker the better defender.
Both have pace to burn over Wellens.
Ideally we'd like to see them both in the England team.
Next topic.

.....but define "better attacker". Hardaker securely fields the ball and can be [irelied on[/i to do that and then run strongly back at the opposition in 'attack'. Tomkins might be the more elsuive runner, but to simply state he is the better 'attacker' is disengenuous.

Admittedly I've not seen much of him in the NRL, but this clamour to include both even if one has to play out of his 'normal' position is IMO daft. If the success of both has been to play the FB role I can't see how it is sensible to play either Hardaker at centre (where he is not perhaps so well equipped to play that role as successfully) or Tomkins in the halves (where he has not played since his earlier days). Of course if there is a dearth of real quality alternatives in the halves perhaps it makes more sense to try slotting Tomkins in there, but it would be a real indicator of England's paucity of talent in depth would it not?

Without a doubt "slotting in" Hardaker into any position other than at FB where he excels would be folly.

No.
Although I will concede that I should have said used the word "arguably".

Another dominating performance from Samkins this morning as he ran a whole 24 metres from fullback as his side shipped 50 points.

24M in 80 mins ? That can't be right ?

Just who does he think he is? Ian Kirk?

It's from NRL Fantasy stats. The other stat provider has him down at 18 metres, but I was feeling charitable. And yes he played 80 minutes.

Kind? Kick returns alone should give more than that

1 kick return should give him that

Those are terrible stats.must of had a nightmare

Tomkins links into the line very well. Whereas Hardaker is a very good runner in the open and is one of the best under the bomb and defending.

Tomkins was the best player in SL when he left. The ball behind the back play was quite new back then. I think teams are much sharper defending this now and so although Tomkins will still be a good player he won't have as much success as back then.

Like people have already said, when Tomkins was at Wigan all plays went through him and so take him out of the game and the team are nullified. I think Hardaker offers far more to a team at full back than Tomkins. Hardaker would be my full back for England but Tomkins should get a spot at half back.