Johnny Wilkinson - Rugby Genius?
Discussion
FUBAR said:
rcarr said:
I was developing into a county/ Scottish schoolboy level player but I left school before I was selected.
So its your fault the sweaties lost on Saturday? Maybe you should dig the boots out again
No, its a shame that only 1 of my school mates was selected for saturday, considering there is another in the squad and 1 other is injured at the moment.
I haven't played at a high level since doing my back in 6 years ago, played for lower midlands league teams since. I shouldn't really be playing anyway coz of the state of my back.
esselte said:
With regard to your comments about how many points were scored by Wilko,is there a team who has a higher points scorer than their number 10?
Or more to the point is there a team who has a higher points scorer than their primary goal kicker. The kicker is usually the outside half, but it can be anyone. For example Scotland use Chris Paterson (wing/full back) and France frequently use Ellisalde or Yachvilli (scrum half). Back in the 70's, Wales often used John Taylor (Flanker) and Scotland used a second row whose name escapes me at the moment!
However, you're point remains a valid one - the highest points scorer will almost always be your primary kicker, and if JW hadn't been kicking the goals for England, then somebody else would have been.
I wouldnrt say JW is a genius but he is a very good player and he worries the opposition which has to be a good thing. From where I see it his key values to the team are:
1. He very rarely misses a penalty from anywhere in the opposition half. This means the opposition think twice about killing the ball as JW will kick the penalty. The result the ball comes back quicker and it only takes a fraction of a second to split a defence. With Hodgeson the opposition could kill the ball as he wouldnt kick the penalty as regularly - they could take the risk.
2. He worries the opposition. It has been seen over and over again, very often he pulls the centres inside so he gets whacked but it gives the outside players a bit of space.
3. He bosses the defence and is talking all the time - just what you want.
4. he can tackle, there isnt a weakness at number 10 anymore so opposition either go down the middle where the England pack are pretty reasonable or they have to go wide. With Tindale and Farrell in the side that is a big centre pairing so again there is a better chance of slowing the attack.
5. He's an inspiration to those around him. Simple as, you cant buy that.
By comparison to DC he's a different type of number 10. I think physically JW is better but DC distributes better. I'd be interested to see DC behind a weaker pack. Comparing either to Mackaw is stupid. As for Larkham, I've played alongside him in training matches and he is very very very good. Much faster than he looks on telly and bigger too. I think his best is passed him but at his best he is a match for any number 10 anywhere.
1. He very rarely misses a penalty from anywhere in the opposition half. This means the opposition think twice about killing the ball as JW will kick the penalty. The result the ball comes back quicker and it only takes a fraction of a second to split a defence. With Hodgeson the opposition could kill the ball as he wouldnt kick the penalty as regularly - they could take the risk.
2. He worries the opposition. It has been seen over and over again, very often he pulls the centres inside so he gets whacked but it gives the outside players a bit of space.
3. He bosses the defence and is talking all the time - just what you want.
4. he can tackle, there isnt a weakness at number 10 anymore so opposition either go down the middle where the England pack are pretty reasonable or they have to go wide. With Tindale and Farrell in the side that is a big centre pairing so again there is a better chance of slowing the attack.
5. He's an inspiration to those around him. Simple as, you cant buy that.
By comparison to DC he's a different type of number 10. I think physically JW is better but DC distributes better. I'd be interested to see DC behind a weaker pack. Comparing either to Mackaw is stupid. As for Larkham, I've played alongside him in training matches and he is very very very good. Much faster than he looks on telly and bigger too. I think his best is passed him but at his best he is a match for any number 10 anywhere.
Twit said:
I wouldnrt say JW is a genius but he is a very good player and he worries the opposition which has to be a good thing. From where I see it his key values to the team are:
1. He very rarely misses a penalty from anywhere in the opposition half. This means the opposition think twice about killing the ball as JW will kick the penalty. The result the ball comes back quicker and it only takes a fraction of a second to split a defence. With Hodgeson the opposition could kill the ball as he wouldnt kick the penalty as regularly - they could take the risk.
2. He worries the opposition. It has been seen over and over again, very often he pulls the centres inside so he gets whacked but it gives the outside players a bit of space.
3. He bosses the defence and is talking all the time - just what you want.
4. he can tackle, there isnt a weakness at number 10 anymore so opposition either go down the middle where the England pack are pretty reasonable or they have to go wide. With Tindale and Farrell in the side that is a big centre pairing so again there is a better chance of slowing the attack.
5. He's an inspiration to those around him. Simple as, you cant buy that.
By comparison to DC he's a different type of number 10. I think physically JW is better but DC distributes better. I'd be interested to see DC behind a weaker pack. Comparing either to Mackaw is stupid. As for Larkham, I've played alongside him in training matches and he is very very very good. Much faster than he looks on telly and bigger too. I think his best is passed him but at his best he is a match for any number 10 anywhere.
1. He very rarely misses a penalty from anywhere in the opposition half. This means the opposition think twice about killing the ball as JW will kick the penalty. The result the ball comes back quicker and it only takes a fraction of a second to split a defence. With Hodgeson the opposition could kill the ball as he wouldnt kick the penalty as regularly - they could take the risk.
2. He worries the opposition. It has been seen over and over again, very often he pulls the centres inside so he gets whacked but it gives the outside players a bit of space.
3. He bosses the defence and is talking all the time - just what you want.
4. he can tackle, there isnt a weakness at number 10 anymore so opposition either go down the middle where the England pack are pretty reasonable or they have to go wide. With Tindale and Farrell in the side that is a big centre pairing so again there is a better chance of slowing the attack.
5. He's an inspiration to those around him. Simple as, you cant buy that.
By comparison to DC he's a different type of number 10. I think physically JW is better but DC distributes better. I'd be interested to see DC behind a weaker pack. Comparing either to Mackaw is stupid. As for Larkham, I've played alongside him in training matches and he is very very very good. Much faster than he looks on telly and bigger too. I think his best is passed him but at his best he is a match for any number 10 anywhere.
Well said. I agree with all these points. It's just the X-factor we get with this guy, you can't drill that on a training padock. The team is lifted, they know where they stand. The try out no. 10's we've had since the world cup, were just too unpredictable. Hodgeson clearly had some skill, but seemed to be very French in temprement. A confident Charlie was great, a 'the papers are getting to me' Charlie was a school boy to watch.
Very glad he's back. God we've missed him. Itially is a warm up, will be interesting to see how he fares at the millenium stad... then beyond to the big guns.
manc82 said:
johnny wilkinson---wanker
Sorry, you seem to have inadvertently stumbled into a thread full of literate people. Judging by the level of intellect displayed in your post, I can only assume you were looking for some kind of football thread? Thanks for your valuable contribution, but please don't come back again.
thegreatsoprendo said:
manc82 said:
johnny wilkinson---wanker
Sorry, you seem to have inadvertently stumbled into a thread full of literate people. Judging by the level of intellect displayed in your post, I can only assume you were looking for some kind of football thread? Thanks for your valuable contribution, but please don't come back again.
PMSL
well said
i still think JW is the best 10 in the world- and certainly the best for how england play their rugby- it would be incredibly interesting to see Carter and Wilkinson swap sides for a game as NZ and England play such different styles.
thegreatsoprendo said:
esselte said:
With regard to your comments about how many points were scored by Wilko,is there a team who has a higher points scorer than their number 10?
Or more to the point is there a team who has a higher points scorer than their primary goal kicker. The kicker is usually the outside half, but it can be anyone. For example Scotland use Chris Paterson (wing/full back) and France frequently use Ellisalde or Yachvilli (scrum half). Back in the 70's, Wales often used John Taylor (Flanker) and Scotland used a second row whose name escapes me at the moment!
However, you're point remains a valid one - the highest points scorer will almost always be your primary kicker, and if JW hadn't been kicking the goals for England, then somebody else would have been.
Yep,that's really what I meant...thanks.
He kicked his kicks... as all kickers should!
He DIDN'T score a try!
He was lucky not to get injured with some ludicrisly bad tackling... head was constantly on the wrong side of the body. Basically just putting his body in the way, which I suppose is to be commended.
A quality player but a long way from the worlds best at the moment. I'm sure he'll be up there with a little more match practice but there's no point in massively exaggerating at this early stage!
He DIDN'T score a try!
He was lucky not to get injured with some ludicrisly bad tackling... head was constantly on the wrong side of the body. Basically just putting his body in the way, which I suppose is to be commended.
A quality player but a long way from the worlds best at the moment. I'm sure he'll be up there with a little more match practice but there's no point in massively exaggerating at this early stage!
Edited by Ricardo G on Tuesday 6th February 22:09
Ricardo G said:
He kicked his kicks... as all kickers should!
He DIDN'T score a try!
He was lucky not to get injured with some ludicrisly bad tackling... head was constantly on the wrong side of the body. Basically just putting his body in the way, which I suppose is to be commended.
A quality player but a long way from the worlds best at the moment. I'm sure he'll be up there with a little more match practice but there's no point in massively exaggerating at this early stage!
He DIDN'T score a try!
He was lucky not to get injured with some ludicrisly bad tackling... head was constantly on the wrong side of the body. Basically just putting his body in the way, which I suppose is to be commended.
A quality player but a long way from the worlds best at the moment. I'm sure he'll be up there with a little more match practice but there's no point in massively exaggerating at this early stage!
Edited by Ricardo G on Tuesday 6th February 22:09
I agree! He is good but no-way the best #10 yet, lets see in October see who actually deserves to be classed as "the best in the world."
I am realistic about Scotland's and Wales' chances, quarter finals hopefully, semis would be great!
My money is on New Zealand, I just hope they have't peaked too soon, I hope they continue to improve! I have always had a great deal of respect for the All Blacks and have always supported them fleetingly.
Ricardo G said:
He kicked his kicks... as all kickers should!
He DIDN'T score a try!
He was lucky not to get injured with some ludicrisly bad tackling... head was constantly on the wrong side of the body. Basically just putting his body in the way, which I suppose is to be commended.
A quality player but a long way from the worlds best at the moment. I'm sure he'll be up there with a little more match practice but there's no point in massively exaggerating at this early stage!
He DIDN'T score a try!
He was lucky not to get injured with some ludicrisly bad tackling... head was constantly on the wrong side of the body. Basically just putting his body in the way, which I suppose is to be commended.
A quality player but a long way from the worlds best at the moment. I'm sure he'll be up there with a little more match practice but there's no point in massively exaggerating at this early stage!
Edited by Ricardo G on Tuesday 6th February 22:09
He DID score a try! It shouldnt have been given but thats down to the referee.
Kind of agree about tackling but how many people who play week in week out can claim to be totally accurate with all tackles? I can't! By and large he's a good tackler, arguably the best tackling no 10, he's certainly not at his best yet, but given a full run pre WC he'll be there or thereabouts.
As for the WC, NZ have to favourites but there is so much pressure on them I'm not surprised they bottle it. I've played a few kiwi sides and the level and intensity at all levels is amazing. I'd not be surprised if they didnt win. As for the rest, Scotland will struggle to get to the quarters (and in this 6 nations I dont think they will win a game). Depending on the draw Wales could be a semi candidate though they may play England in the quarters which would be a bit of game. Its too soon to tell how England will go, wait til the end of this 6 nations. Ireland must be the favourite of the home nations but wales showed on Sunday how to play them. Australia will be there or thereabouts as always, as long as they can find a front row!
Who's going to bet against France in France? Aside from NZ they will be my choice!
Twit said:
Ricardo G said:
He kicked his kicks... as all kickers should!
He DIDN'T score a try!
He was lucky not to get injured with some ludicrisly bad tackling... head was constantly on the wrong side of the body. Basically just putting his body in the way, which I suppose is to be commended.
A quality player but a long way from the worlds best at the moment. I'm sure he'll be up there with a little more match practice but there's no point in massively exaggerating at this early stage!
He DIDN'T score a try!
He was lucky not to get injured with some ludicrisly bad tackling... head was constantly on the wrong side of the body. Basically just putting his body in the way, which I suppose is to be commended.
A quality player but a long way from the worlds best at the moment. I'm sure he'll be up there with a little more match practice but there's no point in massively exaggerating at this early stage!
Edited by Ricardo G on Tuesday 6th February 22:09
He DID score a try! It shouldnt have been given but thats down to the referee.
Kind of agree about tackling but how many people who play week in week out can claim to be totally accurate with all tackles? I can't! By and large he's a good tackler, arguably the best tackling no 10, he's certainly not at his best yet, but given a full run pre WC he'll be there or thereabouts.
As for the WC, NZ have to favourites but there is so much pressure on them I'm not surprised they bottle it. I've played a few kiwi sides and the level and intensity at all levels is amazing. I'd not be surprised if they didnt win. As for the rest, Scotland will struggle to get to the quarters (and in this 6 nations I dont think they will win a game). Depending on the draw Wales could be a semi candidate though they may play England in the quarters which would be a bit of game. Its too soon to tell how England will go, wait til the end of this 6 nations. Ireland must be the favourite of the home nations but wales showed on Sunday how to play them. Australia will be there or thereabouts as always, as long as they can find a front row!
Who's going to bet against France in France? Aside from NZ they will be my choice!
I just looked for a photo of said try on google but can't find 1, maybe the IRB are going to have a say in this after all?
There was a great photo in the Sunday Times Sport section, it was photgraphic proof he had a foot in touch before crossing the try line.
rcarr said:
I just looked for a photo of said try on google but can't find 1, maybe the IRB are going to have a say in this after all?
There was a great photo in the Sunday Times Sport section, it was photgraphic proof he had a foot in touch before crossing the try line.
It was obvious from the replays that he was in touch. How the TMO gave the try I don't know, but he did, so the try stands. I'd have thought that all the IRB could do would be to reprimand the TMO. You can't start changing the in-match decisions after the event.
rcarr said:
Twit said:
Ricardo G said:
He kicked his kicks... as all kickers should!
He DIDN'T score a try!
He was lucky not to get injured with some ludicrisly bad tackling... head was constantly on the wrong side of the body. Basically just putting his body in the way, which I suppose is to be commended.
A quality player but a long way from the worlds best at the moment. I'm sure he'll be up there with a little more match practice but there's no point in massively exaggerating at this early stage!
He DIDN'T score a try!
He was lucky not to get injured with some ludicrisly bad tackling... head was constantly on the wrong side of the body. Basically just putting his body in the way, which I suppose is to be commended.
A quality player but a long way from the worlds best at the moment. I'm sure he'll be up there with a little more match practice but there's no point in massively exaggerating at this early stage!
Edited by Ricardo G on Tuesday 6th February 22:09
He DID score a try! It shouldnt have been given but thats down to the referee.
Kind of agree about tackling but how many people who play week in week out can claim to be totally accurate with all tackles? I can't! By and large he's a good tackler, arguably the best tackling no 10, he's certainly not at his best yet, but given a full run pre WC he'll be there or thereabouts.
As for the WC, NZ have to favourites but there is so much pressure on them I'm not surprised they bottle it. I've played a few kiwi sides and the level and intensity at all levels is amazing. I'd not be surprised if they didnt win. As for the rest, Scotland will struggle to get to the quarters (and in this 6 nations I dont think they will win a game). Depending on the draw Wales could be a semi candidate though they may play England in the quarters which would be a bit of game. Its too soon to tell how England will go, wait til the end of this 6 nations. Ireland must be the favourite of the home nations but wales showed on Sunday how to play them. Australia will be there or thereabouts as always, as long as they can find a front row!
Who's going to bet against France in France? Aside from NZ they will be my choice!
I just looked for a photo of said try on google but can't find 1, maybe the IRB are going to have a say in this after all?
There was a great photo in the Sunday Times Sport section, it was photgraphic proof he had a foot in touch before crossing the try line.
Have referees never made decisions in Scotland's favour when they shouldn't have?
What about the interference at the front of the lineout that lead to Scotland's first try? Try not to be a poor loser
ewenm said:
rcarr said:
I just looked for a photo of said try on google but can't find 1, maybe the IRB are going to have a say in this after all?
There was a great photo in the Sunday Times Sport section, it was photgraphic proof he had a foot in touch before crossing the try line.
It was obvious from the replays that he was in touch. How the TMO gave the try I don't know, but he did, so the try stands. I'd have thought that all the IRB could do would be to reprimand the TMO. You can't start changing the in-match decisions after the event.
I was very glad I wasn't wearing my England top in that pub at that point
I don't think we are as bad as England for making poor poor excuses for losing! We just celebrate a whole lot more when we do win.
As for refereeing decisions, we've had a fair share of bad decisions recently. How about Hogg's foot in touch to win against France a couple of years ago. I've yet to see a conclusive piece of footage to prove that!
As for refereeing decisions, we've had a fair share of bad decisions recently. How about Hogg's foot in touch to win against France a couple of years ago. I've yet to see a conclusive piece of footage to prove that!
Ricardo G said:
I don't think we are as bad as England for making poor poor excuses for losing! We just celebrate a whole lot more when we do win.
As for refereeing decisions, we've had a fair share of bad decisions recently. How about Hogg's foot in touch to win against France a couple of years ago. I've yet to see a conclusive piece of footage to prove that!
As for refereeing decisions, we've had a fair share of bad decisions recently. How about Hogg's foot in touch to win against France a couple of years ago. I've yet to see a conclusive piece of footage to prove that!
There you go again look,complaining about something that happened a couple of years ago....
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff