Does Jonny Wilkinson hold th key for England's RWC

I didn't see the game live, only the highlights, which can often be deceptive. What's the common view of Wilkinson's performance against Wales? He seemed to play well - kick his goals (obviously), the two drop goals, and a nice play to set up the try for tuilagi, but how was his overall game?

In the recent past he's often failed to run the backline effectively and tended to kick aimlessly to the opposition back 3 - did he do this on Saturday?

Reports coming from France say he's been playing some great rugby for the past couple of seasons - running rugby, not just the kicking game.

As well as Flood played in the Autumn internationals and early on in the 6 nations, I can't help feeling that he'll never be truly world-class. I would love to see Wilkinson given some more game time in the warm up games, to hopefully play his way into the starting team.

It's knock out rugby at the RWC and kicking drop goals and penalties is so important in these tournaments - is there anyone better than Wilkinson at that?!!

He was pure class saturday. Made the difference between winning and losing in my opinion. Different man since going to France, seems to be playing with less weight on his shoulders, enjoying his rugby.

His drop goals were well taken, held the ball up and gave a good delayed pass for the Tualagi try. We didnt run to many attacking lines at his channel, his reputation alone dictated where we attacked. Flood will have to be on his best game come next saturday if hes to get the starting place at the World Cup. He could be the difference if England are to make the final again, so in answer to your question, i believe he does indeed hold the key to English world cup success.

Thanks - it's good to read your review. i think most opposition teams in the world cup would prefer not to see the name Wilkinson in the England team list!

Even though he's been playing well in France, since 2009, he still hasn't always managed to transfer his good club form to his England form, hence the reason why Flood is currently first choice.

Will be interesting to see how Flood gets on this weekend, as he'll surely start - but it must be tempting for Johnson to start Wilkinson in the come the world cup.

In a tight tight game in world cup rugby there is still no outside half in world rugby that I would rather have in my team that Wilko, and I include Can Carter in that. Wilko knows when to keep the scoreboard ticking over and his ability to strike drop goals almost at will from both feet is worth his weight in gold.

wrfc1980 wrote:In a tight tight game in world cup rugby there is still no outside half in world rugby that I would rather have in my team that Wilko, and I include Can Carter in that. Wilko knows when to keep the scoreboard ticking over and his ability to strike drop goals almost at will from both feet is worth his weight in gold.

Thing is he just hasnt been doing that for years for England untill Saturdays game. It was a vintage WIlkinson performance with a high tackle count too.
Rediscovering the drop goal threat is huge. But lets not forget just how inspid England were at times with Wilko at 10, and the revelation to Englands play that came with Youngs Flood and the running threat.
Its wrong to assume that Wilko is the sole key to suddenly revolutionising England inmto a world cup winning force though. The second string just narrowly beat a Wales team which is in a mess, its getting a bit ahead to start talking world cup wins.
Flood will be given a chance in the next game to prove why hes the number one option. His flakey performances at the end of last season will have to change, or we may see Wilko back as the starter for the WC. Either way having two players in the squad with distinctly differeent playing styles is very good news, it allows England to make tactical shifts if the game isnt going according to plan. Wilko has been used as a game closer, if Flood were relegated to the bench he could be used as a game winner to inject some more dynamism into the backs play.

Good performance from Wilko, one game. Can anyone remeber the last time he strung together two in a row as a starter for England?

I'm a bigger fan of Care and Wilkinson than Youngs and Flood.

I agree with what's been said. I don't think one good game from JW make him back to his best - or England into a world cup winning team - but I do think that he will always be a better option at 10 - especially for knockout rugby.

World cups are generally NOT about who plays the best attaking rugby, but rather about who ahs the best defence and goal kicker. For this reason it is very possible that Johnson will go with JW at 10 - and hape/Tindall at 12/13. Lacking creativity yes - but also hard to beat.

I think sometimes Wilkinson takes the wrong option with the drop goal, taking 3 points when there are 7 on offer if he could take the blinkers off and see the space around him.

That said it's a massive boost for England and a psychological blow for the opposition to know that everytime England get within range that Wilko is will almost certainly kick 3 points, particularly in a tight game.

I think Flood is more instinctive than Wilkinson and thus more dangerous with the ball in hand but Wilkinson is much stronger psychologically and more likely to deliver when the pressure is on for England in my view.

The only thing sadder than the persistence of the predictable Welsh side-to-side back line attack, is that it yielded three tries against an English defense who surely must have known what was coming.

Conversely the only thing sadder than the less than imposing English forward pack was that the Welsh allowed them to navigate the ball into a position for JW to drop a goal, twice.

This test was almost like watching a punch and judy show, the same old protagonists running through their same old repetoir, both convincingly feigning shock when the same old gambits appeared.

At the end of the day the curtain came down and I surely wasn't alone in wondering why I bothered watching.

How is any of the above relevent to the article topic of whether JW hold's the key for Englands RWC, GG?

Get on topic please

roddersm I can understand but your point of view but most of the time England didn't really look like scoring a try. Better to take some points when you have a lot of possession than take nothing.

Thegreyghost why did you watch the match if you dislike England so much?

Is it because you work in a Walkabout pub and can't avoid the rugby?

Jonny Wilkinson is a great player to have in the England 22 even if he doesn't start. He might not be as exciting as Carter but if you want to close out a match or keep the scoreboard ticking there is none better.

Is he the key? Who knows? He's certainly someone opposition have to watch carefully as he will punish any lapse in concentration.

For me on the weekend JW, was superb with all of his kicking, but for me he still doesn't get the English backline working enough. there were a few times on Sat where he just looked a bit hesitant and unsure of what to do. You had strong runners all across the backline on Saturday but very rarely were they brought into the game. I think Flood is much better at getting the best out of your backs then Wilkinson is.

Sorry was I too cryptic? I mean the 10 man and a drop goal plan (which would be the one that JW would be essential to) would require a re-think of majority of the England team surely.

At the moment the traditional juggernaught forwards have been displaced by slightly more mobile versions, and England have introduced running options in the outside backs.

England have shown against New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland and to a degree France and Scotland that they can be out muscled and intimidated, put off their game by physicality. That wasn't the case when England kicked their way to a RWC 3 points at a time.

I was also suggesting that for some reason Wales failed to spot the pattern.

It would be easy for England to fall into another wave of rapture about how JW's drop goals saved the day again. But honestly, it was a predictable Wales side who executed poorly and seemed to be determined to play to a set plan rather than attack the obvious weaknesses. If England are tempted to take that old game plan into the RWC with this team, they'll be destroyed.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Sorry was I too cryptic? I mean the 10 man and a drop goal plan (which would be the one that JW would be essential to) would require a re-think of majority of the England team surely.

At the moment the traditional juggernaught forwards have been displaced by slightly more mobile versions, and England have introduced running options in the outside backs.

England have shown against New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland and to a degree France and Scotland that they can be out muscled and intimidated, put off their game by physicality. That wasn't the case when England kicked their way to a RWC 3 points at a time.

I was also suggesting that for some reason Wales failed to spot the pattern.

It would be easy for England to fall into another wave of rapture about how JW's drop goals saved the day again. But honestly, it was a predictable Wales side who executed poorly and seemed to be determined to play to a set plan rather than attack the obvious weaknesses. If England are tempted to take that old game plan into the RWC with this team, they'll be destroyed.

What he said.

TheGreyGhost wrote:
It would be easy for England to fall into another wave of rapture about how JW's drop goals saved the day again. But honestly if they take that game plan into the RWC with this team, they'll be destroyed.

Destroyed is possibly a bit of a strong word but I see what you mean. I think JW's style of play can suit England in close games but I think if they want to have any chance of doing really well in this WC they need to play someone who can utilise the English backs, who have been their main strength over the last year or so.

England have made some good progress over the last couple of years.

The "living in the past" plan of JW and a set of ogres in the pack lingered on through the last decade and never really worked though did it?

There seemed to be fresh life in England recently, with a solid 6N win based on attacking, positive rugby, with Hape adding guile to the mid-field, Foden looking to counter-attack from deep and outside backs who are pacey and physically imposing.

I hope that they remember that this style brought them success despite the humbling by SA and Ireland, and that they take a step forward in addressing the issues that hampered them at the breakdown and the patterns that let them down from set phase attack, and don't take two steps backwards and at this late stage try to revisit '03. That would look like losing their nerve to me.

GG has a more realistic appraisal of this match as here we have a classic thread of a poor match in which Johnny is being eulogised against a welsh team in which his opposite 10 was making his full debut at short request. 3 trys to 2 again suggests the marshalling of the backline needs some tweaking!! This great running back line that Johnny set alight created 1 try - If anyone on here thinks that on that performance he holds the key to the RWC for England then I'm going for Henman to win Wimbledon next year, surely it must be his to lose

rugbydreamer I do agree with you to a certain extent but I think it is a little harsh to blame just Wilkinson for not running the backline well enough.

Flutey did very little in my opinion and as a player hyped up to the maximum I thought he fell flat on his face.

Danny Care should have done more to help out Wilkinson.

The lack of variety wasn't just down to Wilkinson in my opinion. At least once or twice he tried a little chip etc.

Wilkinson did afterall make the killer pass for Tuilagi.

I personally don't think Care got the ball out quick enough and the ball wasn't recycled quick enough in general.

TGG I see what you mean but England weren't recycling the ball quick enough. They were getting nowhere in attack so best to take the 3 pointers.

Completely agree with that GG.

Was talking to my dad on the phone yesterday (he's English), and he was happy with the win, but frustrtated that England didn't seem to get anything else out of the game. He said we all know what JW can do, so why not try something new? He was very frustrated at how little the English backs were included in the game.

It seems that Flood offers a better option for lubricating the back line because he's a more natural distributor and has a better tactical kicking game. It seems like the trend is to kick Flood for his "loss of form" which loosely seems to translate into "we lost to Ireland". I don't think the problems that day were born of Flood.

I liked the pattern of Flood doing 65-70 minutes and then Wilkinson being brought on if England were comfortably ahead to shut the game down. But this requires impact subs in the forwards to accomodate that pattern.

It was working last year. Not sure why MJ would change it now.

beshocked wrote:rugbydreamer I do agree with you to a certain extent but I think it is a little harsh to blame just Wilkinson for not running the backline well enough.

Flutey did very little in my opinion and as a player hyped up to the maximum I thought he fell flat on his face.

Danny Care should have done more to help out Wilkinson.

The lack of variety wasn't just down to Wilkinson in my opinion. At least once or twice he tried a little chip etc.

Wilkinson did afterall make the killer pass for Tuilagi.

I personally don't think Care got the ball out quick enough and the ball wasn't recycled quick enough in general.

TGG I see what you mean but England weren't recycling the ball quick enough. They were getting nowhere in attack so best to take the 3 pointers.

I'm not blaming just him, but I think as a FH, it's his key responsibility to get the backs working which I don't think he did. I don't think Flutey played well and apart fro his try I wasn't impressed with Tuilagi. I think the back 3 were only brought running onto the ball about 2/3 in the match (not counting their individual runs from the likes of Armitage) that I recall and that isn't good enough.

I think in the 2nd half you have a point about England not recycling the ball quickly enough, but in the last 20mins of the first half, when England had all that posession and were definitely on top, they just weren't doing anything with it, which I would find a bit worrying.

rugbydreamer wrote:Completely agree with that GG.

Was talking to my dad on the phone yesterday (he's English), and he was happy with the win, but frustrtated that England didn't seem to get anything else out of the game. He said we all know what JW can do, so why not try something new? He was very frustrated at how little the English backs were included in the game.

You realise that makes you qualified for the Change All Blacks.


It may make more sense for England to swap the half back combinatons around. Use Wilkinson and Care 50-60 minutes when the game is structured and tight and quick ball is hard to come by, relying on the drop goal threat to not only keep the scoreboard ticking over but also force defences to take risks to snuff it out.
Then assuming the game follows the usual pattern as it starts to break down with tired players and one side chasing bring on Flood and Youngs to inject more pace and run into the space.

But as GG says the stodgy England pre the second test in Australia isnt likely to get them anywhere.

TGG fair play to you. Some very well thought out and reasonable comments. I agree.

Rugby dreamer I agree but I feel others like the scrum half and centres should shoulder some of the responsibility.

The point is we know what Jonny does and he does it well. Always nice to have the option to play someone like him in the side.

I agree he isn't the most attacking fly half but we all know that. In a tight World cup with 10 minutes to go he is the perfect player for the job.

Wilkinson is a big match player.

I think England are in a great position where they've got two sets of half backs that can play completely different game plans. This can only be a positive. The only difficulty is deciding which way round to play them. Personally I would prefer the starting with Youngs and Flood and finish off with Care and Wilko.

I was very glad Flood wasn't playing on Saturday, if he had I think our defence would have been much more under threat than it was.

I think many people are forgetting that Flood and Youngs were the key to are revival as a rugby nation with their high tempo game. When Care and Wilko the year before took us through a dreadfull 6N.

Yes both Wilko and Care have improved since then but still we can't just turn our back on the players that have been at the forefront of our recent success just after a bad defeat.

Too much is being laid at the door of wilkinson!

To me it was the forwards and centres that had a bigger impact on the game.

The fowards, played hard and fast from 20mins through to 60 mins but at the start and at the end of the game took their foot off the gas. They seriously need to wake up and get up to full match fitness quick or else away to wales could be embarassing.

The centres and back three failed to combine to produce any attacking plays, at times Wilko was fizzing out passes but then reapeatedly we'd close down our own space and run the ball off the pitch, or else try two or three offloads under pressure and knock on.

We looked rusty, which is what you'd expect after weeks off and no rugby to keep the guys focussed. And that is why we're playing these games.

To be honest the only players that looked genuinely good in that match were Wilkinson (at points), Shaw (again at points) and Stevens (in the scrums) the rest bimbled through for large portions.

To be honest i'd like to see the same team play next week. But with the following changes:

Easter for Haskell
Wood for Moody
Monye for Cueto
Lawes for Shaw
Ashton for Banahan
Foden for Armitage

bench:
Robshaw
Simpson
Flood
Armitage

beshocked wrote:rugbydreamer I do agree with you to a certain extent but I think it is a little harsh to blame just Wilkinson for not running the backline well enough.

Flutey did very little in my opinion and as a player hyped up to the maximum I thought he fell flat on his face.

Danny Care should have done more to help out Wilkinson.

The lack of variety wasn't just down to Wilkinson in my opinion. At least once or twice he tried a little chip etc.

Wilkinson did afterall make the killer pass for Tuilagi.

I personally don't think Care got the ball out quick enough and the ball wasn't recycled quick enough in general.

TGG I see what you mean but England weren't recycling the ball quick enough. They were getting nowhere in attack so best to take the 3 pointers.

#

Flutey did very little, this is true, but what can you do if the ball doesnt reach you?

he does hold the key yes.

I would start him ahead of Flood.

beshocked wrote:roddersm I can understand but your point of view but most of the time England didn't really look like scoring a try. Better to take some points when you have a lot of possession than take nothing.

Sorry Beshocked I should have made it clear I wasn't referring to this game with that comment. But generally speaking I've seen him do it a lot in the past. Clearly he had very good game on Saturday, although I only watched the highlights. I agree it's important to take points, and Jonny is great at this, but sometimes he'll take 3 points whilst straight in front of the sticks and he'll have a clear overlap outside him which he doesn't spot.

Care seemed off the pace, but how much of that was the forwards and rustyness?

It must be tricky playing fly half when the ball is either slow, or fast but at your head/feet.

Worse Wigglesworth seemed even sloppier, so we have to hope Youngs/Simpson do better, or Care picks up the pace.

I thought Wilkinson played reasonably well in the circumstances, what with the team not playing much in the past couple of months. For me he confirmed that he is back to some good form at the things we always knew he was adept at. He doesn't provide the incisive running that Flood can, or bring in other runners as well.

Flood however, needs to add some of Wilkinson's nouse to his skill set. At times in the South Africa, Scotland and Ireland games Flood through some hospital passes trying to play his way out of difficulty. He looked profoundly lost on occasions.

What we really need is someone who can kick like JW, secure and accrue points like JW, but who can also attack the line and release running backs. We do have such a fly half in this country, he is even in the England squad at the moment but for some reason he isn't being given a start! And no his defence is not such a problem anymore!

yappysnap wrote:Care seemed off the pace, but how much of that was the forwards and rustyness?

It must be tricky playing fly half when the ball is either slow, or fast but at your head/feet.

Worse Wigglesworth seemed even sloppier, so we have to hope Youngs/Simpson do better, or Care picks up the pace.

I tend to agree that Care's passing was somewhat wayward on a number of occasions. Number one priority of a scrum half is to provide a decent pass to the first receiver. Hence Stringer's caps for Ireland when he has no threat with ball in hand whatsoever

screamingaddabs wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Care seemed off the pace, but how much of that was the forwards and rustyness?

It must be tricky playing fly half when the ball is either slow, or fast but at your head/feet.

Worse Wigglesworth seemed even sloppier, so we have to hope Youngs/Simpson do better, or Care picks up the pace.

I tend to agree that Care's passing was somewhat wayward on a number of occasions. Number one priority of a scrum half is to provide a decent pass to the first receiver. Hence Stringer's caps for Ireland when he has no threat with ball in hand whatsoever

Seemed like he was rushing it a lot of the time. Cant have been helped by the Welsh backrow being allowed to wander through the ruck legally and illegally by our forwards. The amount of times they let him get interfered with was far too high. We need to be more intense and precise with our breakdown play.

That is true, but I still feel too many passes were at people's feet/over their head/not near enough to them. Could well have been a bit rusty though I guess, I don't think he played awfully or anything, I just felt that if he plays another game before the WC I'd like to see an improved passing performance to set my mind at ease.

So what England learnt form this game is that Johnny Wilkinson is still Johnny Wilkinson and Danny Care is still Danny CAre, and that Manu Tuilagi is defiantly Manu Tuilagi.

Wales learnt that Swilliams still has it but he'll never be George North.

George North doesn't sleep, he waits.

George North doesn't wait, he exists in a quantum state of uncertainty until he is observed.

JDandfries wrote:

beshocked wrote:rugbydreamer I do agree with you to a certain extent but I think it is a little harsh to blame just Wilkinson for not running the backline well enough.

Flutey did very little in my opinion and as a player hyped up to the maximum I thought he fell flat on his face.

#

Flutey did very little, this is true, but what can you do if the ball doesnt reach you?

beshocked. flutey has in no way been 'hyped up to the maximum'. i think the feeling about him has been fairly balanced. you obviously think barritt should be in there on form. others (me included) think that flutey was a gamble worth taking as his 2009 form he was fantastic, and if we could get him back to that he would be invaluable. there have been very few people saying that he is brilliant - just that he was and that getting him back to that would be useful.

JDandfries. others would say that the reason flutey didn't get the ball is because he didn't position himself well enough and offer himself as an option. hard to tell without really watching him intently for the whole game.

I think the talk about JW is that in a tight game he can drop a goal for you.
If you are getting a bit of a shafting and need to get 15 points soon then he is not going to make that happen.
Can JW make it a tight game so the drop goal is useful or will his inability to get the team scoring enough tries mean that the drop goal is negated?
I think he has been a great servant to English rugby but in reality Martin Johnson and the loose forwards won the RWC etc for England not Wilkinson.