To McLennan: Yes, I do think defensive solidity is first but as someone else said it shouldn't be without a significant nod to their attacking capabilities. Not going to turn this into a Wellens thread, but despite my perceived increase (slight mind) in his errors, he still defends very well and he still provides something in attack. Admittedly what he provides is support of many breaks (if and when make any!) rather than the breaking of the line or broken running like Tomkins.
To No1 Saint: Maybe it is an outdated idea (or at least becoming more so). Again someone else has said that it may be in Tomkins case, and those defending around him, that they are well drilled so as to be able to cover any cracks in his defence. Once they are covered and defending well, his undoubted attacking and eye for a break can be readily employed.
My view (and this may be tainted by my old fashioned thoughts) is that there are defensive frailties to Tomkins game, but it may be that these frailties are no longer something to worry about if they can either be dealt with within the make up or defensive systems of the team and/or the vogue is for all teams to employ this more offensively minded approach at full back. If every body else does it, one's excellent defensive but quiet going forward full back looks useless.
Regarding Tomkins, he is an excellent player and this isn't meant to single out the individual but use him as an exemplar of my ramblings.....
