It's difficult, different times and the game changing sooo much over time.

Best defensive FB for me has to be Sir Keith, his uncanny ability under the high ball (and there were some very cynical individuals running in to 'tackle', in those days) plus his tackling and reading of a game were way beyond excellent imo. Both Sprogger and the Ghost were very good defenders and better on attack then Keith, so would probably be a better 'all round' choice. I wouldn't have liked to choose which to pick if they'd been available at the same time, I'm delighted I was around to see them all though.

If Sir Keith had played for the Bulls it would have been no contest. Add sporting fairness to Bulliac`s list I never saw him do anything dirty or underhand.
Hard to choose between Sprogger and Mick Withers but for his last minute drop goal against Leeds which broke their hearts, I`ll go with Mick.

Keith Mumby was the best fullback i have seen, simple as that

Only saw Keith at the end of his career so I don't really know. From what i've been told he was an absolute star and probably still would be today, even though the game has changed so much.

First full backs I remember were Roger Simpson and Dave Watson. Absolutely love Watson as everyone else hated him so much!!! lol

What no Ian Wilkinson???

What a absalute legend when you could get through the smoke

As if no votes for Nathan Graham !!!

Absolute legend under a Bobbie Goulding bomb

Bull era only i'm afraid.

The Ghost is an easy choice for me. Close between Sprogger and Kearney, Sprogger just shades it but Kearney has time.

Keith Mumby was, of course, the greatest fullback ever, in the world, if you want your fullback to be your last line of defence. I've never seen anything even close to how good he was. He was also deceptively good at joining the line and was often underrated on attack. But those tackles, and that instinctive positioning. We will never see the like again.

Withers was very sound and reliable as a defensive F/B but his unerring attacking instinct and ghosting in for tries, often crucial ones in big games, was a treat to watch. So he gets my No. 1 vote for Bulls f/bs.

Poor Nathan always gets it in the neck.
He was a decent player who was very badly let down by his fellow defenders in a cup final and sadly got an undeserved reputation because of it. He made one real 'mistake' in that match, which was the first 'bomb' he let go, and that would have gone dead 999,999,999 times out of a million (more or less

) and before it bounced and took that horrendous reverse rebound, I suspect 99% of fullbacks would have made exactly the same decision.

The other supposed 'missed catches' he never got near; overrun by Saints attackers and with no support from his team mates who didn't even do the basics. Maybe they were tired, I dunno but they could have moved towards where the ball was dropping and made the onrushing Saints players run around them, at the very least.

Still, never mind let's blame Nathan..

Not that he was ever going to win this poll, of course.

Alex Green, Burnden Park.

Withers first, he was so suited to the modern fullback role. Attacking wise he was superb, he read the game so well. Always got on the end of things. Defensively I can't recall any howlers at all. Sure, he was in a champion team but he stood out as safe as houses.

Spruce second. Good in attack and defence. Not as classy as Withers and a bit slow to turn when a kick went behind him. Other than that he was very good.

Mumby was the best of all time tho!



Thanks. I'd just got over the recurring nightmares.

Withers - first class

Kearney - not played as many games as the ex full backs but is simply superb

3rd would have been Sprogger. Im counting Robbie to be a half back even tho he played with num 1 on his back

jimmy 4 bradford how many games at full back did withers play? first year wing, second year centre, and then some injury prone years I would be surprised if withers actually played 30 games at full back.

Love how even with options provided and suggested as a super league full back - mumby still gets votes in near enough double figuires. For someone who honestly did not see him but has countless times been told how good he was in defence how was keith in attack? bearing in mind we talk of a modern full back how would he have coped?

Still think witers did not have enough games at full back to be voted for above spruce and with Kearney being touted as not played enough games and being signed as a 6.....

keith mumby was the greatest fullback i ever saw for either northern/bulls, he was like a heatseeking missile

Too true. His ability when faced with a 2 on 1 to shepherd the guy with the ball was unbelievable. The best defensive full back I ever saw and not too bad going forward. All this and he also wore contact lenses, after one match I was with a bunch of fans helping him search for one which he had lost on the field. A true great.

They were different times, it's true. However the ability to catch the ball, whether bombed or along the ground, and to seemingly 'know' which man to tackle when multiple runners are bearing down, remains the same today and I did allude to the fact that there was less professionalism around back then, and there were many more who regarded the game as a test of virility and were far more likely to get away with being, ermm.. shall we say, over physical. Standing, with eyes on a dropping ball, was infinitely more dangerous then, than now. Though I still remember the old coach, Peter Fox, saying in the T&A how he was 'fed up with his wingers not going back to cover when the ball was put in the air - their excuse? "Keith doesn't drop it"! You could also add in he always seemed to know where it was going too.

Keith wasn't the quickest, though he did get quite a few tries, and I've seen him run then in from half-way more than once. He was also a decent goal kicker for his time, though not as consistent as the best modern day kickers, he was first choice for most of his career and kicked many a goal for Northern.

Keith was kicking with one of the old fashioned leather balls in huge old boots more often than not on a gluepot of a pitch and toe end style. With the nice modern balls, boots and better pitches I reckon his kicking would be even better!

Seem to remember Peter Fox saying something like " Having Keith Mumby at full back was like having the 8th army behind you"

Withers for me. Suerb under high ball, great support player and a very good defensive player as well.

Spruce close second!

withers and spruce for me, none of the others come close with Kearney being the exception.

Spruce best out and out full back, Withers was a utility man that excelled anywhere, but Spruce was the best FB without a doubt for me.

Keith Mumby was the best--end of.Also as far as attacking went,Keith scored many length of the field tries after breaking the first line of defence.He had deceptive pace and power.He wasn't a bad goal kicker eithericon_smile.gifWatson,John Woods(everyone forgets what a good player he actually was),Terry Price also in the "northern era" weren't half bad.

As far as BULLS go it would have to be Spruce as Withers played wing,centre etc.

Only one Keith Mumby though.

Withers just for me. His organisation of our defensive line, general reading of the game gave him a slight edge.

The poll has ended and you have chosen....

... MICHAEL WITHERS!!!

Stuart Spruce finished runner up and as a result will go forward the final poll to find the super subs to back up our starting XIII.