Let me get one thing straight (and I am not suggesting either player is better here)



So people are suggesting slater is better because he has done it for Melbourne (the best nrl side for the past 5 years), Queensland (a by far better side over the past 6 years than NSW) and Australia (the best international team)



Yet the same people argue that McILorum cannot be classed as good as roby because McIlorum is playing in the best team in his competition.



I have no doubt that you put Tomkins in the melbourne, Queensland and Aus teams and he will be a much better player because those teams are dominant in aus.



All I am stating here is that people need to get their arguments straight, if you can call slater so much better (despite playing week in week out with some of the greatest players the world has ever seen) then why can't you state McIlorum is at a similar level to Roby despite playing in the best team in SL?

Slater > Inglis > B Stewart > Barba > Tomkins

I'd also be tempted to include Barba on that list.

It is a pleasure to watch sam tomkins play rugby league week in, week out. For me he is better than slater, he is nothing short of outstanding in attack and his defence is constantly improving. I think people are forgetting sam tomkins has been playing full back for about 2 years! For us to be even comparing him with billy slater just shows what a remarkable rugby league player he is.



On the international arguement, sam has been very good on this stage aswell. I remember his international debut at wigan when there was only him and kyle eastmond who put a bit of spark into england. I'd also like to point out how he performed against the kiwis and also the aussies at wembley, he made the initial break to put reed away resulting in halls try and he threw a lovely little flick pass for one of our trys in the second half. In the final he played behind a battered pack, any full back would struggle for space in a game like that.



Tomkins has the potential to be one of the great english rugby league players and I think the respect that the one and only billy boston paid to him on super league super men last week was praise of the highest order.

rather have paul wellens then either of these two

There's no real answer at the end of the day.



Slater is at the peak of his powers playing in the best club side in the best league in the world, he plays for the best international side and probably the best origin side ever. He's unlikely to improve but then if he does, good jesus he'll be on another planet.



Tomkins is an unbelievable talent who' the right side of 25 playing in a terrific Wigan side but in an international side that looks incapable of challenging the Australians. I'd say unlike Slater there's room for improvements and if he does make those then he 'could' become a player of even greater quality then Slater but then he'd need to prove himself in the NRL to convince people of this.



One thing I would say is swap Slater and Tomkins around and I don't think Melbourne, Australia or Queensland would be damaged too much if at all. I also don't think Slater could produce more for Wigan then Tomkins does and in a beaten England side I don't think he'd be the missing link to overtake the Australians.

Will be good to compare when Sam is at Souths after next year.

Many are saying Slater is the best fb who's ever lived, he could easily be an immortal.

Slater. Tomkins is great but not Slater great. It would be great to see Tomkins and Slater swap teams for a season.

Slater has the runs on the board over many years at top level.

He has made some mistakes true, but his positives far outweigh any negatives in the way he plays the game.



To compare them at Test level (the closest comparison available)

Tomkins has 5 from 10, 4 against Wales and 1 against the Kiwis.

Slater has 18 from 18, 5 against the Kiwis, 3 against Fiji, 1 against PNG and 9 against England.



Slater played his first Test in May 2008

Tomkins played his first Test Oct 2009