When Tomkins is out we must not play Pat there again. He offers no threat in attack and gives the defence easy options as he fails to join the line providing no second phase.

I understand he is solid in defence, but fullback is an attacking position and without that threat from fullback a teams attack is always going to struggle.

Pat at fullback was not our problem tonight, not by a long shot, in fact I thought he was one of our best players

If Sam is out, I'd stick him at fullback every time

I thought he had a good game personally. Defensively he was good and safe under the high ball. Infact I've already said on twitter that from a defensive view point I'm more confident In Pat at FB than I am Sam.

I don't even think he was bad as far as attacking is concerned... But you are comparing him to Tomkins..... So he's never gonna match up in that department.

I don't think there were any major problems, it was a good game and the best team won on the night. It was a good team performance. An older head in the pack I think we could have nicked it.

Richards is a quality player top class, and a very solid defensive fullback. He offers our attack nothing though in that position, the second phase out the back play was non existent tonight as he does not have the pace or hands to join the line or create space for those around him.

Great wingman, not a fullback in the modern game.

It's the safe option and ultimately thats probably the correct call in an away match at Leeds. He's solid but does limit you in attack.

In terms of other options who have we got? Charnley was the same against Huddersfield, Powell had a crack but is too slow and Murphy is out on loan. After that Tierney is possibly too young and a player I'd consider as a real left field selection would be Ryan Hampshire but like Tierney its probably too soon especially considering we'd be moving him from his usual position.

Murphy or Hampshire for me.

Well seeing as he wasn't taking goalkicks suggests he had a tweak, with that in mind he had a solid game.

We all know how good he is under Sinfield's bombs!

But a great attacking threat. Sam is hardly solid under the high pressurised kicks either but we allow that for the positives he brings. Sam has made some howlers at full back. Give the kid a break.

So he drops a bomb and should never get a shot again? Apart from that drop he had a very good game that night. Whilst I appreciate the drop was crucial the kid is a much more natural modern fullback than Richards.

As I said I thought Richards was solid tonight, but his lack if pace and vision really shuts down our attacking options.

Our entire attacking game is based around the second phase play. Richards at fullback takes that out of our game and against a good defence it costs us games.

I think firstly we should be looking at the fact we made poor metres in the forwards battle for 70 minutes tonight, we really did struggle to break out of our forty due to Leeds line speed and stopping us dead. Neither Murphy / Hampshire would have altered that.

I can understand Wane's thoughts on Richards at FB tonight as the alternative would have been peppered all night with bombs. Instead Sinfield know's Richards will field those all day long and arched them to Ryan Hall instead.

Let's face it, tonight was a good effort but could have really been on the back of a hammering due to the amount of possession against us (Ryan Hall should have had a hat-trick in the first half but for sloppy last passes).

Then we need a plan B for when Sam is injured given, as I understand it, Hampshire just doesn't play FB and Sinfield would have thought it was Christmas if Murphy had been able to be recalled from loan.

In fact we need to vary things more than we do anyway IMO. We need the half backs particularly Smith to take the line on more themsleves so we offer a more varied threat than we do. It's a bit too predictable when Sam does play and trying to play the same way when he doesn't isn't going to work.

Given the alternatives Richards was the correct choice. That wasn't the problem. The tactics were.

Spot on. The forwards did a pretty good job defensively, but as you say they weren't making the hard yards, and we were too often kicking from inside our own half.

His change of pace these days is ridiculously slow. Never beat the first man last night on any occasion. The attempted tackle for the first Leeds try was embarrassing aswell.

Ask on the Salford board what they think of Murphy. He's been shoved out onto the wing for them and last night against Warrington he was by some distance the worse performer on the pitch.

Richards would seem the only relaistic option to fill in at full-back if Tomkins is missing.

I think it's safe to say without Sam playing and now Hock's gone, any creativity and attacking threat is long gone. Too predictable, how many times did Leeds close down the 'second phase play' because it's clear they trained to do that all week, because sadly that's all we have to offer in attack

I think he hurt himself tackling Watkins early on. After the first try he received all manner of strapping while the kick was being taken.
He then was clearly unable to run it in for a good 15 minutes or so. There was one point where he could have made the break down our right but just gave it to Goulding because he didn't have it in him.
He's solid as anything though, certainly compared to someone like Murphy so at present, I'd have him there if Sam isn't available for a big game.

Don't get this at all.
Richards wasn't kicking goals no doubt due to a fitness problem of some kind.
Anyone at fb who's not fully fit isn't going to come into the attacking line at full pace. Pat nullified Sinfield's kicking so much so he then went after Charnley where he found more success.

pat was by far the 1st choice fullback last night due to sinfields kicking threat.pat maybe old school but solid as a rock.

Richards is solid at FB. Ok not as fast or dynamic in attack as Sam but far better under the high ball and defensively

Leeds would have bombed Sam all day long and come out with something from it, so Pat at fullback completely took that attacking option away, although they did target Josh

Pat to me had a groin injury picked up around 5 minutes into the game yesterday as he was walking around holding the groin area and obviously wasnt kicking later in the game

it may have been a better attacking option to have Josh play FB, and nullified the attacking kicks to his wing, but thats only in hindsight

It was reported on Sky that Richards had a groin strain, hence no goal kicking.
Why did he play, out of position, if he wasn't fit??

Richards was a poor choice at FB, doesn't link up in the line on the second phase, we only ever really play out the back door rugby under Wane, so having no one out the back door was hard to understand.

Charnley should have played there with Richards on the wing.

But Charnley played fullback against Huddersfield and had the exact same problem. He didn't link with the attacking line well and didn't really know what was expected of him. We just ended up with a flat attacking line rather than having the fullback dropping deep and causing uncertainty. Richards was slightly better because at least he understood the role and his positioning wasn't bad.

Neither are great options as modern fullbacks but unfortunately Murphy is showing at Salford that he isn't good enough and Tierney probably isn't considered to be ready for the step up yet. I do think the club should consider sending Tierney to South Wales to see how he copes playing against men rather than boys as I think we're really lacking at fullback when Sam is out.

You cant have gone to the Huddersfield away match then because Charnley was far worse than Richards in that regard. Based on his performance in that game I would never pick Charnley at full back again as his reluctance/inability to pass cost us the game with overlap after overlap being squandered.