Inevitable JW comparisons

First topic message reminder :

just had a small glance at an article on the beeb with Neil Jenkins comparing Owen Farell to Jonny Wilkinson
IMO OF is a different kind of 10 to JW, plays the ball through hands more often and doesnt sit as deep. Whilst i rate Farell, i think that JW is possibly the greatest FH England have had and the media have a horrible habit, of comparing any 10 we get to JW. Cipriani got the same treatment, and it affected his career. I like Farrell, think hes a good player but what has he done to justify the tag as 'the next JW' - is this some sort of mind game that Jenkins is trying to pull ahead of the england clash, why does he need to do that? why cant an up and coming English FH be himself, why does he have to be the next JW ?

Damn, you're up early Taylorman! Hope you're well?

Yeah, Wales have to be favourites and rightly so, they're playing some really exciting stuff and I just hope it drags England along a bit.

I don't think Lancaster is conservative by nature though, he's just about getting results with a fairly young, inexperienced and new(ish) England. I guess he hasn't had the players to do anything else as yet, he may have them at his disposal for the weekend, but it would be a bit foolish to try and beat Wales at their own game at this stage in England's development.

Wales by 7-10 I reckon.

Yep all good. I start work early so up before family and dogs. Well...try to be.
Our big match is my blues vs crusaders sxv this weekend so back to sky sport all weekend i hope. Its good that all matches north and south are at night time.
Can do the resposible things by day then get my rugby fix at night. Plenty to take in this weekend.
England are hard to guage at the moment. Are they a sleeping giant or are they still remnants of last year. Mostly the same squad but has the team culture evolved into a more stable unit?

Mitey we had 17 losses between 98 and 2003 while still at 71% too many big match losses to oz. The boks were awful after their run in 98 so oz were stronger through that period from our perspective. The pre Henry Mitchell era was not a happy one and although we were competitive 2003 the cracks were there.

The same England side would have found NZs 2004-5 side a much tougher prospect as the dual team grand slams and lions series showed.

Haha! Are you sure that your win ratio wasn't knocked back to 71% by all the losses to England? And don't go dragging 1998/99 into it. We're talking about the hey-day of English dominance, circa 2002-2003. Let's talk about the NZ record in that period only. And then take a look at that team that faced England, quite a few household names in it as I recall.

Don't forget either that it was a team honed to play by the rules of the time. I think by the law interpretations of the day, the 2003 England side would have comfortably accounted for the 2011 All Black team.

In that period?...2 losses to Oz, two to England and one, at home to France- for 80%.

England? 2 losses to France at 90%

So you're comparing THE best England period to a mediocre NZ period. All good and the difference is the 2 wins.

I could rattle off SEVERAL AB periods superior to that and believe me it wouldn't include 2 and 3 point wins against England, or losses to France during it...

But you know that already...2002-03 has probably done more harm to English rugby...and JW... in the last 8 years than anything else. Elsewhere it didnt seem to phase us.

'Comfortably' accounted for the AB 2011 team? When in history has 'comfortably' ever happened?

Anyway, not knocking the 2003 efforts as much as trying to provide a perspective...

But wait, didn't the 2011 All Black team lose twice to Oz? And aren't they celebrated as one of the greats of all time for their RWC win and #1 ranking? especially for their 80% winning record?

It's quite sad to write off a great team, which achieved the ultimate, as simply the best of an average bunch. Doesn't really surprise me though. I recall how the NZ press, after England won in NZ prior to the '03 RWC, focused on how ugly our pack were, and how we only won because the AB's weren't really trying blah blah blah.

How about since our Eng 2003 loss- 38 consecutive wins against the home unions including a Lions sweep and 3 away grand slams?

How about not a single world cup loss against a home unions side in world cup history? Thats absurd...

France do tend to hold the fort up there don't they? Though its still 11 from 13 since England 03 here.

..any more?

Enough said on my part mitey...this my dad is bigger than your dad (even though he is ) reaks of the old 606 debacles. 2003 is gone, so is JW, England face Wales so I'd rather focus on that...

Fair enough. Not trying to get into that, just challenging your assertion that England only looked good because everyone else was so poor at the same time. Unusually weak argument for yourself to have come out with.

......... By unanimous decision, aaaaaannnnd STILL Southern Hemisphere champion of this thread is......







































Taaaaaaaaylooooormaaaaan, Taylorman.



Well done fellas.

I let it go. I could make the point that it was Taylorman who started the "my Dad's bigger than yours" debate and then tried to end it prematurely when the cards were turned over by attempting to be too big and mature for the argument he started. But sometimes, it's best just to let these things lie and realise the person probably took away the point you were trying to make, quietly and will think about it in their own time. And not come out with such inflammatory and patronising remarks in the future. Just quietly.

miteyironpaw wrote:I let it go. I could make the point that it was Taylorman who started the "my Dad's bigger than yours" debate and then tried to end it prematurely when the cards were turned over by attempting to be too big and mature for the argument he started. But sometimes, it's best just to let these things lie and realise the person probably took away the point you were trying to make, quietly and will think about it in their own time. And not come out with such inflammatory and patronising remarks in the future. Just quietly.

Pssssst, over here. (I reckon you had him really, but you know what them there Southerners are like when they don't win something, right? You did the best thing Mitey, it takes a real man to walk away from these things.)

PJHolybloke wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:I let it go. I could make the point that it was Taylorman who started the "my Dad's bigger than yours" debate and then tried to end it prematurely when the cards were turned over by attempting to be too big and mature for the argument he started. But sometimes, it's best just to let these things lie and realise the person probably took away the point you were trying to make, quietly and will think about it in their own time. And not come out with such inflammatory and patronising remarks in the future. Just quietly.

Pssssst, over here. (I reckon you had him really, but you know what them there Southerners are like when they don't win something, right? You did the best thing Mitey, it takes a real man to walk away from these things.)

Well, frankly the whole thing bores me to death. Folks from the southern hemisphere are never going to admit out loud that England in 2003 were a little too much for them to handle. But the proof is in the results, I don't need to argue to make a point that is unavoidable. I feel a little sorry for them really. I can admire NZ, the style they play, their enviable record and feel genuinely satisfied that they were the best team in 2011 and fully deserved their home win. It must be very uncomfortable to sit in a place so insecure you have to STILL make such blind excuses on the one occasion you were bested by someone else, such a long time ago...

[/quote]Wilkinson is unfortunately remembered more for his exploits in a failing team at the end of his career, rather than at the height of his ability when he *was* the greatest player ever.
[/quote]
how can the greatest player ever be past tense, surely if he is no longer the greatest player ever, he wasnt at the time? maybe my interpretation is different, but ever would imply that he is the greatest player of all time :S

.

Yeah. I didn't think that one through, apologies all. I wasn't referring to the terrible earthquake tragedy at all when I wrote that. I dawned on me later that it could be taken the wrong way. Honest apology. I've modded the original post.

Fair dos, I'll remove my post quoting you.

Now that you've done that, this thread makes no sense at all.

You say that like it's a bad thing!

On a different note, that Sky TV ad about their dedicated home moving team making everything so easy? where the happy smiling family move into their new house and the Sky guy is there plugging the box in? and they all sit down on the sofa and start watching a movie?

Complete rubbish.

I'm fairly sure the Sky TV home moving team only exist to think up new and unlikely obstacles to actually ever getting Sky services working in your new house, ever.

I think that most NZ's are clear that in 2002 England were definitely too good for us. Not so sure about 2003.

Even after those defeats I FELT that NZ would be able to be England in the WC if we met in the final as expected. I also thought that if any bugger would trip us up it would be those Aussies.

I don't think JW's living and breathing rugby would in any way make him greater (except for the obvious improvements in his game) and that MJ's not playing on Sunday because of his religious beliefs made him less great. The opposite in fact. If MJ had played on Sunday's for professionalisms sake I think that would have been a terrible indictment on the weakness in his belief. Note I don't personally believe in God etc.

I think the thing about JW that annoys most people is English fans insisting that he is great and probably the greatest.

Do kiwi's go on about Carter as much as English go on about JW? - this is a question probably best answered by non English and non Kiwis
May be I have rose tinted glasses

Why are are people slagging off Neil Jenkins, he's paying OF a compliment and only saying what half of you on here agree with.