B
Bullitt
Guest
Did he? Really?
Once Flood went off I seem to recall England going off the boil.
Once Flood went off I seem to recall England going off the boil.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
C
Cerlach121
Guest
I don't think they did, i remember one nice dummy and switch between Wilko and Cips. But then again i was probably looking through some rather thick beer goggles by that point lol.
I still think that if Wilko remembers that a rugby ball can be passed aswell as being held onto, he would make a deadly sub to bring on in the last third of the game, especially a Wilko in form.
I still think that if Wilko remembers that a rugby ball can be passed aswell as being held onto, he would make a deadly sub to bring on in the last third of the game, especially a Wilko in form.
B
Bullitt
Guest
he'll never be "in form" again. Wilkinson has a superb work ethic, but when he was "the best in the world" he was sitting in a comfy armchairbehind that legendary England pack with Mike Catt nursing any mistakes he made. The way he made constant mistakes for Newcastle is testamant to this.
Over the past couple of seasons, Flood has carried him only for the Tabloid favorate to take all the headlines.
Keeping him about is being far too nostalgic. He's shown he can't cut it any more at the top level and he's only good for pulling in crowds at Twickenham who know sod all about rugby - "ere', I saw that WILKinson t'other day. Ee kicked it!"
Over the past couple of seasons, Flood has carried him only for the Tabloid favorate to take all the headlines.
Keeping him about is being far too nostalgic. He's shown he can't cut it any more at the top level and he's only good for pulling in crowds at Twickenham who know sod all about rugby - "ere', I saw that WILKinson t'other day. Ee kicked it!"
G
gingergenius
Guest
You spout subjective opinions as if they were gospel.
For starters, Mike Catt hardly played. In fact I can only ever remember him being a good England player during the years 2003 & 2007. The rest of the time he was a waste of space. The centre pairing was Greenwood and Tindall.
Next, if Wilkinson was so reliant on a good England pack, why was no other England fly half able to establish themselves? You're too harsh on him, accept that he was a great fly half, with a fantastic kicking and defensive game, with the ability to create chances in the backs (though that wasn't always in the gameplan). If you would have preferred a Michalak or Spencer at 10, so be it, but for what he offered JW was outstanding. Now, he's less consistent. No, I wouldn't pick him for England. Yes, I would keep him around the setup because he still has something to offer.
B
Bullitt
Guest
You'll find Grayson was well established back then and Barkley was also making a name for himself. You also remember Tim Stimpson? He made a good use for himself back then.
Don't give me this bullshit that there were no other 10's, or did you get your research from The Sun?
And on the Mike Catt front, may I point you towards the Wales match in the 2003 tournament.
Don't give me this bullshit that there were no other 10's, or did you get your research from The Sun?
And on the Mike Catt front, may I point you towards the Wales match in the 2003 tournament.
C
cyRil
Guest
You spout subjective opinions as if they were gospel.
For starters, Mike Catt hardly played. In fact I can only ever remember him being a good England player during the years 2003 & 2007. The rest of the time he was a waste of space. The centre pairing was Greenwood and Tindall.
Next, if Wilkinson was so reliant on a good England pack, why was no other England fly half able to establish themselves? You're too harsh on him, accept that he was a great fly half, with a fantastic kicking and defensive game, with the ability to create chances in the backs (though that wasn't always in the gameplan). If you would have preferred a Michalak or Spencer at 10, so be it, but for what he offered JW was outstanding. Now, he's less consistent. No, I wouldn't pick him for England. Yes, I would keep him around the setup because he still has something to offer.
[/b][/quote]
Most of what you say I can agree with.
But without Catt coming on against us in 2003 you would have lost.
D
DMac
Guest
Well I just hope Cipriani's still on form after that ankle injury....
DMac
DMac
S
stormmaster1
Guest
You spout subjective opinions as if they were gospel.
For starters, Mike Catt hardly played. In fact I can only ever remember him being a good England player during the years 2003 & 2007. The rest of the time he was a waste of space. The centre pairing was Greenwood and Tindall.
Next, if Wilkinson was so reliant on a good England pack, why was no other England fly half able to establish themselves? You're too harsh on him, accept that he was a great fly half, with a fantastic kicking and defensive game, with the ability to create chances in the backs (though that wasn't always in the gameplan). If you would have preferred a Michalak or Spencer at 10, so be it, but for what he offered JW was outstanding. Now, he's less consistent. No, I wouldn't pick him for England. Yes, I would keep him around the setup because he still has something to offer.
[/b][/quote]
Most of what you say I can agree with.
But without Catt coming on against us in 2003 you would have lost. [/b][/quote]
Wilko had a nightmare against Wales that day, but the rest of the team was good enough to carry him in the end. One poor game doesn't really mean anything i think.
G
gingergenius
Guest
so I said he was only a good England player in the years 2003 & 2007... <_<
Stimpson was a fullback from memory, and not a great one either. Matt Perry shoed him out the team easy.
Grayson was a decent flyhalf but nothing on Wilkinson. And Barkley isn't a fantastic 10 now so I don't see how he could have been any better pre 2003.
Who else? Hodgson? injured, and the only time I've ever seen him play well for England was against Romania. Which says it all. Goode? Far too inconsistent. I've seen him play some games this season where he's run things and looked world class. Then I've seen him play others where he's missed kicks, fallen off tackles and been generally shite. I'm struggling to think of any more English 10s who were remotely capable of playing at international level...
B
Bullitt
Guest
Stimpson was mainly a full-back, however if you remember the infamous South Africa match of 2002, after Wilkinson crocked himself (Shock! Horror!) Stimpson came onto the field at 10 and played an absolute blinder.
Saying Grayson had nothing on Wilkinson is rubbish and you know it it. As a goal kicker, Larry remained constantly at 90% for nigh on a decade (edit: Thinking about it, during 2001/2002 Grayson was the England kicking coach), only missing out because he missed that half a yard of pace (which, interestingly, Wilkinson never had either). There certainly wasn't this huge gulf in talent between the pair as you suggest - Or are you also from the "Bracken was better then Dawson" camp?
Barkley looked to be coming good during the summer of 2001/2 (whichever year it was) when he made his debut and was touted as the next big thing worldwide. Sadly, his gobshite-come-footballer-come-thug attitude hindered his progress and he never turned out to be the player everybody hoped. His age and experience was also considered against him.
There weren't many/any others back then, and overall Wilkinson was probably *just about* the best overall for the job, but he is only remembered for kicking the ball... That "wonder-try" when there wasn't a full-back against the All Blacks was a one off (and if we were to single a player out, it was Ben Cohens efforts, especially in defense, which won that match anyway).
Rewind to 2003. Take Wilkinson off during the final when he injured himself early then replace him with Grayson. Larry plays with his head up and spins it right to Cohen who goes under the posts instead of left to Robinson who heads for the corner. Easy conversion, insurmountable lead, England still win.
Instead, Wilko scores a dramatic drop goal and forever will be talked up day-on-day to be so much better then he really was.
Saying Grayson had nothing on Wilkinson is rubbish and you know it it. As a goal kicker, Larry remained constantly at 90% for nigh on a decade (edit: Thinking about it, during 2001/2002 Grayson was the England kicking coach), only missing out because he missed that half a yard of pace (which, interestingly, Wilkinson never had either). There certainly wasn't this huge gulf in talent between the pair as you suggest - Or are you also from the "Bracken was better then Dawson" camp?
Barkley looked to be coming good during the summer of 2001/2 (whichever year it was) when he made his debut and was touted as the next big thing worldwide. Sadly, his gobshite-come-footballer-come-thug attitude hindered his progress and he never turned out to be the player everybody hoped. His age and experience was also considered against him.
There weren't many/any others back then, and overall Wilkinson was probably *just about* the best overall for the job, but he is only remembered for kicking the ball... That "wonder-try" when there wasn't a full-back against the All Blacks was a one off (and if we were to single a player out, it was Ben Cohens efforts, especially in defense, which won that match anyway).
Rewind to 2003. Take Wilkinson off during the final when he injured himself early then replace him with Grayson. Larry plays with his head up and spins it right to Cohen who goes under the posts instead of left to Robinson who heads for the corner. Easy conversion, insurmountable lead, England still win.
Instead, Wilko scores a dramatic drop goal and forever will be talked up day-on-day to be so much better then he really was.
G
gingergenius
Guest
Gospel right there <_<
B
Bullitt
Guest
No sunshine, just facts.
S
stormmaster1
Guest
Just facts.
great or not, Wilko was an integral part of a great English side. He contributes to the whole, and the whole was good enough to win a world cup. Right now, he wouldn't be part of the team, but he wasn't as bad as people are making out.
B
Bullitt
Guest
Maybe not, but he certainly wasn't nearly as good as the others make out either.
S
savundra92
Guest
Im sure a lot of you would say that Wilkinson is amazing. He has a brilliant boot; but so does Cipriani. Wilkinson is too slow and is getting older and Cipriani is young and is an exciting prospect for English rugby. What I dont like is the press raving about him. Nevertheless Wilkinson has contributed well to England massively
I would want Wilkinson to be first choice fly-half this november so he can finally play against all black dan carter. it will be battle of 10s. I know carter is better but they have never played each other representing their own country. Cipriani is returning from injury so he will only be playing for the saxons, for now. I wonder if wilkinson will retire at the end of the six nations to make room for danny and shane geraghty
I would want Wilkinson to be first choice fly-half this november so he can finally play against all black dan carter. it will be battle of 10s. I know carter is better but they have never played each other representing their own country. Cipriani is returning from injury so he will only be playing for the saxons, for now. I wonder if wilkinson will retire at the end of the six nations to make room for danny and shane geraghty
S
stormmaster1
Guest
can't see Wilkinson retiring. Not sure i want him as our no10 on current form though.
G
Gavin
Guest
can't see Wilkinson retiring. Not sure i want him as our no10 on current form though.
[/b][/quote]
Jonny will never retire, he is like Peter Pan - never knows when to let the younger generation have a go.
B
Bullitt
Guest
:lol:
T
Thingimubob
Guest
Always felt sorry for Wilkinson, when England played well, it was all down to his brilliance according to the press, then they'd slate him if England had a bad game. It seems to be either Hero or Zero with him. What I always liked about him was that he was quite modest, like I always found him to be a bit embarrassed by the fact that he got most of the glory for kicking that drop goal. And the fact that he never moved away from Newcastle (who definitely aren't the best team he could have played for back then) after the '03 WC, despite the fact that plenty of the bigger clubs offered him plenty to move to them.
But yeah, teams shouldn't be picked on reputation (something that's happened for a fair bit in the England team over the last few years) but should be picked on form. So Cipriani will probably be the first choice no.10 for the Six Nations, depending on his form when he comes back from injury. Only thing I don't like is the hype in the press, and among the commentators and pundits (English one's anyway) about how Cipriani is the best in the world (OK, they're not quite saying that, but they're still going a bit OTT). I mean, it's things like the press going on about how Cipriani should be the first choice Lions 10 for next seasons tour, despite the fact that he'd only won 3 or 4 caps, only one being a start. Yes, he was superb against Ireland, but what about Stephen Jones and James Hook? They were a massive part in steering Wales to the Grandslam? But then again, trust the press to be daft and OTT, I mean the Welsh press do it with James Hook (who i felt didn't step up to the level he should be at) and it's just annoying. Cipriani is a great talent, and is a very positive prospect for the future, I just wish the press wouldn't build him up so much, he could end up being tossed away for the next new talent like Jonny was.
But yeah, teams shouldn't be picked on reputation (something that's happened for a fair bit in the England team over the last few years) but should be picked on form. So Cipriani will probably be the first choice no.10 for the Six Nations, depending on his form when he comes back from injury. Only thing I don't like is the hype in the press, and among the commentators and pundits (English one's anyway) about how Cipriani is the best in the world (OK, they're not quite saying that, but they're still going a bit OTT). I mean, it's things like the press going on about how Cipriani should be the first choice Lions 10 for next seasons tour, despite the fact that he'd only won 3 or 4 caps, only one being a start. Yes, he was superb against Ireland, but what about Stephen Jones and James Hook? They were a massive part in steering Wales to the Grandslam? But then again, trust the press to be daft and OTT, I mean the Welsh press do it with James Hook (who i felt didn't step up to the level he should be at) and it's just annoying. Cipriani is a great talent, and is a very positive prospect for the future, I just wish the press wouldn't build him up so much, he could end up being tossed away for the next new talent like Jonny was.
O
ollybarkley
Guest
I think the jury is still out on Cipriani from the international perspective. As Charlie Hodgeson and Andy Goode have shown, a great season in the Premiership doesn't mean a player is going to be a good international player.
Wilko is still the best #10 we have at the moment, but I think Cipriani is our 10 going to WC11. I agree that Wilko performs better when there are people with fly-half skills outside him, like Catt, Greenwood, Barkley. I don't think Toby Flood is an international #10 either. I rate him more as a 12. I think of him as a younger version of the way Mike Catt is now, very intelligent and level headed, but not terribly explosive.
Wilko is still the best #10 we have at the moment, but I think Cipriani is our 10 going to WC11. I agree that Wilko performs better when there are people with fly-half skills outside him, like Catt, Greenwood, Barkley. I don't think Toby Flood is an international #10 either. I rate him more as a 12. I think of him as a younger version of the way Mike Catt is now, very intelligent and level headed, but not terribly explosive.
