Like any of these 'greatest of all time' debates, you can't compare different players from different eras. You can only go by the impact each player has had. Although slater has been the best fullback of the last decade, he hasn't really done much different to the guy he took the mantle off, Minichiello. They play a completely similar style of game, slater probably took it to a new level but it wasn't anything revolutionary, and it looks like guys like tedesco will carry that on to the future . The thing in Inglis and Haynes favour is that they can both do things that only inglis and hayne can do, but they are still an evolution of the fullbacks that preceded them.
The thing that puts churchill over the line, is that before he came along fullback was purely a defensive position. In the 40 odd years that preceded churchill only a handful of test tries were scored by a fullback, now days thanks to churchills revolution fullback is usually a teams most vital attacking weapon. With his upbringing as a 5-8th churchill would instigate his team's attack. It could be argued that without churchill being the success he was we may never of seen the likes of langlands, eadie, Jack, Belcher, brasher, Mullins and our modern fullbacks
