I suppose it is a generalisation, but one I still stand by. I think they are exceptionally important in the modern game, hence the reason the very best clubs have always had the best there is. Cafu and Maldini at Milan, Carlos at Madrid, Zambrotta at Juventus and Barca. Chelsea have spent £15m+ on Ferreira, Bosingwa and Cole, as well as a fair bit on Wayne Bridge and Glen Johnson, so it's obviously an area they are desperate for quality in.
I'm not trying to purposely have a go at you here, but I'm always one looking to find the truth in any statement, so don't take me the wrong way. However I think you are stating the obvious by stating the importance of fullbacks in the modern game. Each time has 11 players on the pitch at any one time, and so each and every one of those positions contributes from the quality of the team equally.
To generalize the importance of fullbacks in the modern game is a mistake. The only way you could substantiate the argument that say 'fullbacks are of more significance than other positions' is within the context of a certain tactical system. So once more take the example of Liverpool's 4-2-3-1, where you could argue that they are more important than they are in other systems for reasons x, y and z.
Nonetheless, whilst you could probably put forward a sound argument for fact that certain positions are of more importance than others in a said system, that extra degree of importance is probably on the whole minor or insignificant if it even exists at all. After all a football team has 11 players on the pitch, and I believe that any one of those players in any position has the same capacity to have a positive or negative effect on the team. For instance, you could have two world class fullbacks and a great team all round, only to have somebody in goal of my quality and you'd be shit.
I'd say that the important thing is the overall quality of the team you put out and ensuring that your worst player doesn't stray too far below the average level of quality. So imagine you could quantify the different attributes of all players and give them an overall average rating based on the attributes important to their position. Say the average came out at 7/10, you'd want all of your players to be within say one below that average at most. So if in one position you are playing players who are further below this for most games, then that is the weakness in your team. I'd suggest that for us it is the fullback positions alongside the wide positions which are those we could make the greatest improvement in towards the overall quality of the first team. Therefore insofar as this is the case, in the context of Liverpool at this point in time improvement of the fullback positions is very important to improving the overall quality of our first team.
In relation to you bringing up Wes Brown, I'd say that this proves my point. No one position is of such greater significance than another, and it is the quality of the players in those positions which defines how much that position contributes to the team. Nonetheless, in terms of the idea of a quality average and players who drop below it then I'd say Brown/RB is probably one of the main areas they could improve.
