Didn't really work out that well for him did it. Ended up sharing the hooking role with a far inferior player for a poor club who are on the brink of going out of business. Still, he was captain

I think you have misread my post. He was the best player in the world for several years.

Just not the best full back or stand off - your exact words. So presumably there were at least two better players?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say thats not what he was meaning. If you define players in rigid terms of what makes a good fullback, or a good stand off, some exceptional players will fall into neither camp. Players like Burrow or Tompkins have flaws in their game which means they would probably not fit into the pre-defined role, but their abilities are such that you have to have them in your team.



A similar argumnet could be made about Sinfield as a stand off and a loose forward

Thank you Eagle. I even said in reply to Gareth, "to back up your argument", which was exactly what you are saying.

Lockyer WAS the best full back in the world. Not the best 'player' in some general sense (which I'm not even sure means anything). The best full back. Easily the best attacking fullback of his era, and not too shabby in defence either.



As a stand off, I'd argue he was the best in the world for a year or so, but never as dominant as he was at fullback. His last two seasons saw him lose his pace, but not his ability to control the attack.