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 ?

Cowshot wrote:chuckle. The funny side is that just doing what they do is a backhanded compliment: we still matter that much...

Thing is though, they can spoil a perfectly good thread

For the record, whenever someone mentions JW I always think of his chip and take to score against NZ at Twickers.

Made it look easy.

slartibartfast wrote:Hay all youre missing the point...
Jenkins best kicker of his day
Jenkins is now a kicking coach
Farrel has shown fantastic kicking so far
Johnny was a brilliant kicker

That's the comparison!!!! They're playing in different positions!!!! It's not about the running, tackling etc.

If you think Jenkins is playing mind games... Well... That's probably one of the best compliments I've ever heard for they guy!!!

Ps. I love Jenkins.

First off jinks is a legend but anyone who has had pleasure to meet and spek with him will know he's not the sharpest tool in the box so to say he knows how to play mind games is a compliment even he would laugh at.

tatterd wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:I don't think any one is questioning that he was the greatest player ever in the game, and is still the bechmark for comprises a perfect 10.

"the greatest player ever in the game".
And you are CONSTANTLY accusing Welsh posters of "arrogance".
Dear God, the mind boggles, the hypocrisy is astonishing.

Tattered, the day a Welshman becomes the top point scorer in world rugby and single handedly wins a world cup after sitting the so-called SH giants on their backsides 17 times in a row, I'll be here to praise his abilities.

Now be fair, JW took the world by storm, along with a host of other world class players and one of the greatest coaches in the history of the game turned England into the greatest side ever to play the game. That is all just facts, not conjecture or speculation.

The mark of his greatness is we/he never had the need to say "On our day..." or celebrate coming fourth.

For the record, whenever someone mentions JW I always think of his chip and take to score against NZ at Twickers.

Made it look easy.

If he hadn't had that appalling run of injuries after 2003 we might really have seen something. I swear he'd been taking tips from Jason Robinson. But that's how it goes, sadly.

Best I can remember is Phil Bennet. To me he will always be what every other FH aspires to be. It's not a matter of stats, it's the magic he wove on the pitch. As opposition, you just never knew when he'd conjure magic from seemingly nothing and run through your hands like quicksilver and there'd be JPR coming up on the rails like a thoroughbred...

"It's not a matter of stats" ! Classic. Yes, actual achievements come a distant second to Welsh self-promotion clearly!

Sad how the run of unstoppable Welsh greats was cut short by that meteor strike that prematurely ended so many of their careers and coincidentally extinguished the dinosaurs.

I'm English. Which I suspect is more than you can honestly say. If you are English, I find your rudeness embarrassing.

Supporting my team doesn't mean I can't appreciate great play or great players from other teams. Even Bath. Watching Phil Bennet run rings round us is among my earliest Rugby memories - family round the tv and all that - and he just had a magic about him. I'm just sorry you don't seem to have had that fairmindedness as part of your upbringing. Wherever it was.

We just have different opinions, and different ways of viewing the world Cowshot. I'm not going to cow-tow to the propaganda that the Welsh players of the '70's were the greatest ever. That's just misty-eyed sentimental twaddle. In their day they might have been something, but those were amateur days and not comparable to the harsh world of professional rugby.

Now JW was a stand out globally in the professional era, took his country to the top of the world and hosted the world cup. No team prior to this years Kiwi crop have repeated that feet.

I'm not failing to be magnanimous here, and I'm sorry you find my praise of Wilkinson offensive (wherever you're from), but there are those who won't accept his greatness, and that's not because they don't know deep in their hearts that he was exactly that, it's because he was English. A popular belief on these boards is that the English cannot ever produce a world's best, even when all evidence points to the folly of this perspective.

miteyironpaw wrote:We just have different opinions, and different ways of viewing the world Cowshot. I'm not going to cow-tow to the propaganda that the Welsh players of the '70's were the greatest ever. That's just misty-eyed sentimental twaddle. In their day they might have been something, but those were amateur days and not comparable to the harsh world of professional rugby.

Now JW was a stand out globally in the professional era, took his country to the top of the world and hosted the world cup. No team prior to this years Kiwi crop have repeated that feet.

I'm not failing to be magnanimous here, and I'm sorry you find my praise of Wilkinson offensive (wherever you're from), but there are those who won't accept his greatness, and that's not because they don't know deep in their hearts that he was exactly that, it's because he was English. A popular belief on these boards is that the English cannot ever produce a world's best, even when all evidence points to the folly of this perspective.

No one is saying he's not great. Just that he's not the greatest.

You will find that most here are quite able to acknowledge great England players, as long as it isn't rammed down their throats. You do far too much ramming.

Sure there are some berks. There's b-all you can do about it and behaving like some weird caricature of an overblown jingoistic Englishman only feeds their prejudice.

Regarding Wilkinson, he was very proficient at all areas of his game with the exception of that magic in attack, which we only ever saw glimpses of. What made him one of the all time greats imo was his spirit. The sheer determination that took him to that WC in 2003 and THAT drop goal and back from injury after injury in the years that followed. The complete commitment that has the Toulonnais turning up at games with banners reading "Merci Jonny".

slartibartfast wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:We just have different opinions, and different ways of viewing the world Cowshot. I'm not going to cow-tow to the propaganda that the Welsh players of the '70's were the greatest ever. That's just misty-eyed sentimental twaddle. In their day they might have been something, but those were amateur days and not comparable to the harsh world of professional rugby.

Now JW was a stand out globally in the professional era, took his country to the top of the world and hosted the world cup. No team prior to this years Kiwi crop have repeated that feet.

I'm not failing to be magnanimous here, and I'm sorry you find my praise of Wilkinson offensive (wherever you're from), but there are those who won't accept his greatness, and that's not because they don't know deep in their hearts that he was exactly that, it's because he was English. A popular belief on these boards is that the English cannot ever produce a world's best, even when all evidence points to the folly of this perspective.

No one is saying he's not great. Just that he's not the greatest.

And yet we're supposed to believe that some amateur era Welshman was "the greatest". Nonsense and piffle. 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. That's clouding a lot of judgements. Frankly there were a lot of people who revelled in his decline and use that as a shield to conveniently forget how astonishing he was at the height of his ability.

I'm not "ramming" anything down anyone's throat, I'm merely giving credit where its due and expressing an opinion. I'm entitled to mine as is everyone.

Man, you are a fraud. Given away. If you were really English and knew anything about Rugby you would know that the England player on the shortlist for THAT title is Richard Hill.

Ugh. Suddenly I feel the need for a shower.

If you've got so excited that you need to take a shower and think of Richard Hill, then be my guest. I don't think you need to share the urge with the rest of the posters here though.

Can't believe you've suggest I'm being parochial by picking an Englishman as the best player of all time; then you've gone on to suggest a different Englishman. For goodness sake, it's utterly laughable.

miteyironpaw wrote:Tattered, the day a Welshman becomes the top point scorer in world rugby I'll be here to praise his abilities.

Hullo? It's already happened, NJ was the record points scorer long before Wilky was and he achieved that playing for a pish poor Welsh side in contrast to the good England team Jonny was a part of.

So whenever you're ready with that praise.

Yes, undoubtably a good player. But usurped by greater talents following him. He didn't get a world cup winners medal though, did he?

miteyironpaw wrote:

slartibartfast wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:We just have different opinions, and different ways of viewing the world Cowshot. I'm not going to cow-tow to the propaganda that the Welsh players of the '70's were the greatest ever. That's just misty-eyed sentimental twaddle. In their day they might have been something, but those were amateur days and not comparable to the harsh world of professional rugby.

Now JW was a stand out globally in the professional era, took his country to the top of the world and hosted the world cup. No team prior to this years Kiwi crop have repeated that feet.

I'm not failing to be magnanimous here, and I'm sorry you find my praise of Wilkinson offensive (wherever you're from), but there are those who won't accept his greatness, and that's not because they don't know deep in their hearts that he was exactly that, it's because he was English. A popular belief on these boards is that the English cannot ever produce a world's best, even when all evidence points to the folly of this perspective.

No one is saying he's not great. Just that he's not the greatest.

And yet we're supposed to believe that some amateur era Welshman was "the greatest". Nonsense and piffle. 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. That's clouding a lot of judgements. Frankly there were a lot of people who revelled in his decline and use that as a shield to conveniently forget how astonishing he was at the height of his ability.

I'm not "ramming" anything down anyone's throat, I'm merely giving credit where its due and expressing an opinion. I'm entitled to mine as is everyone.

How can you have those phrases in the same post?

How can you have those phrases in the same post?

Cos he's a fake, so no responsibility or need for internal consistency.

Can't believe you've suggest I'm being parochial by picking an Englishman as the best player of all time; then you've gone on to suggest a different Englishman. For goodness sake, it's utterly laughable.

I said:

the England player on the shortlist for THAT title is Richard Hill.

Note the word "shortlist". Attempting to divert attention, Mr Faker?

Now I really like this site....loads of good stuff and one or two who know what they're talking about. (many more who don't, but whatever).......but apparently there are strange creatures that inhabit t'interweb worl d known as trolls and flamers and other such fantastical stuff........might me mam be me pa......view to the porn channel......any other never have but wanna be....Is there an 'ignore' button so we can read and debate rugby without the nonsnse? (p.s I like banter as much as the next bloke, but not this sirt of rubbish)

Yeah there is a foe list. You add someone you want to ignore to your foe list and problem solved

Sorry.

Someone's going home with a bucket full of catches

I thought Johnson and Dayglo were the two most important players for England back then to be honest.

Any way greatest player of all time is Michael Jones.

ultra wrote:Now I really like this site....loads of good stuff and one or two who know what they're talking about. (many more who don't, but whatever).......but apparently there are strange creatures that inhabit t'interweb worl d known as trolls and flamers and other such fantastical stuff........might me mam be me pa......view to the porn channel......any other never have but wanna be....Is there an 'ignore' button so we can read and debate rugby without the nonsnse? (p.s I like banter as much as the next bloke, but not this sirt of rubbish)

Quite, Ultra. I find more and more that I can't come on here and express an honest optimistic or positive opinion about an Englishmen, playing or retired, alive or dead; or express optimism about England in an upcoming game without half a dozen trolling flaming WUMs leaping down my proverbial throat trying to nit pick grammar or spelling or spot some oh-so-clever "internal inconsistency" or accusing me of only pretending to follow England or accuse me of being "arrogant" or whatever. I'm tired of it. I just like to come here and discuss rugby, but it appears there are many amongst the members of this forum who are intent on picking a fight or indulging in some sort of nationalistic bombast, which I am not interested in, and try to rise above and avoid. But it's getting harder by the day.

Please, can we keep it about rugby, and leave out the personal attacks? Thanks.

You do make me laugh mitey, but I do miss the "other one".

nganboy wrote:I thought Johnson and Dayglo were the two most important players for England back then to be honest.

Any way greatest player of all time is Michael Jones.

He were quite a special player I agree with you there, but you don't think his religious inclination to avoid a rugby field on a Sunday might be seen as incompatible with both professionalism and that with his first priority not on the game itself, preclude him from the title of greatest of all time? Certainly you Kiwis were quick to question SBW over his Ramadan fasting and suggested it might have affected his performance in the world cup?

For me, it's simple. To be the best ever, one criteria is that the game has to be your meat and drink, your whole life and your religion. It's not a title awarded to part time preachers or those who might dabble in other sports. Look at JW in this context, the man lived and breathed the game, training himself into the ground.

miteyironpaw wrote:

nganboy wrote:I thought Johnson and Dayglo were the two most important players for England back then to be honest.

Any way greatest player of all time is Michael Jones.

He were quite a special player I agree with you there, but you don't think his religious inclination to avoid a rugby field on a Sunday might be seen as incompatible with both professionalism and that with his first priority not on the game itself, preclude him from the title of greatest of all time? Certainly you Kiwis were quick to question SBW over his Ramadan fasting and suggested it might have affected his performance in the world cup?

For me, it's simple. To be the best ever, one criteria is that the game has to be your meat and drink, your whole life and your religion. It's not a title awarded to part time preachers or those who might dabble in other sports. Look at JW in this context, the man lived and breathed the game, training himself into the ground.

How do you know that?

Wow, I don't know whether to post again or not or just laugh at the sheer stubbornness of MIP's comments...

Facts, not conjecture or speculation...funny guy...possibly...

Just a quick question Mitey, will your next incarnation be The Scarlet Manuka

slartibartfast wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:

nganboy wrote:I thought Johnson and Dayglo were the two most important players for England back then to be honest.

Any way greatest player of all time is Michael Jones.

He were quite a special player I agree with you there, but you don't think his religious inclination to avoid a rugby field on a Sunday might be seen as incompatible with both professionalism and that with his first priority not on the game itself, preclude him from the title of greatest of all time? Certainly you Kiwis were quick to question SBW over his Ramadan fasting and suggested it might have affected his performance in the world cup?

For me, it's simple. To be the best ever, one criteria is that the game has to be your meat and drink, your whole life and your religion. It's not a title awarded to part time preachers or those who might dabble in other sports. Look at JW in this context, the man lived and breathed the game, training himself into the ground.

How do you know that?

His obsessive training is well documented. And in fact, the decline in his form also coincides with his own admission that he couldn't continue training at that level. 100% commitment, plus obvious natural ability is what makes a greatest in the world. I'm not really sure what else he could have done? Suggestions?

miteyironpaw wrote:JW took the world by storm, along with a host of other world class players and one of the greatest coaches in the history of the game turned England into the greatest side ever to play the game. That is all just facts, not conjecture or speculatiion.

That cannot be fact. There's no way of proving such a thing.

I meant, the greatest England side to ever play the game. Obviously not attempting to rain on anyone's national pride there. Can we agree on that?

Come on. Jeff Wilson didn't win the world cup.

miteyironpaw wrote:

tatterd wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:I don't think any one is questioning that he was the greatest player ever in the game, and is still the bechmark for comprises a perfect 10.

"the greatest player ever in the game".
And you are CONSTANTLY accusing Welsh posters of "arrogance".
Dear God, the mind boggles, the hypocrisy is astonishing.

Tattered, the day a Welshman becomes the top point scorer in world rugby and single handedly wins a world cup after sitting the so-called SH giants on their backsides 17 times in a row, I'll be here to praise his abilities.

Now be fair, JW took the world by storm, along with a host of other world class players and one of the greatest coaches in the history of the game turned England into the greatest side ever to play the game. That is all just facts, not conjecture or speculation.

The mark of his greatness is we/he never had the need to say "On our day..." or celebrate coming fourth.

Write what you mean in future.

I did, you just chose to interpret it incorrectly.

miteyironpaw wrote:JW took the world by storm, along with a host of other world class players and one of the greatest coaches in the history of the game turned England into the greatest side ever to play the game.

What did I misinterpret?

Stop trying to start a fight, I'm not here to WUM. You know what I meant. Now it might be a turn of my dialect to express myself in such a way that you might have easily misinterpreted, and it's easy for misinterpretations in nuance in a text based forum, but surely you can acknowledge the point I was making instead of trying to start another fight. Let's get on with discussing the game shall we and not bicker like children in a sand pit?

Fine, just don't tell me I 'chose' to misinterpret you when it was your fault for not making yourself clear.

Misunderstanding happen luckless. Now I'm sorry you got the wrong gist there, but it's hardly my fault any more than it is yours. It's just a misunderstanding. Can we just accept that I meant that JW and others comprised an England who were the greatest side we've ever seen as was my intention (obvious or not?) and get on with the issue at hand which is whether OF is likely to become the great that JW was?

What irked me here was the tired suggested line or argument that "Oh JW was pants, so if OF is pants he'll be just like him" which is a silly and inspid argument when clearly JW was a terrific player who is respected all over the world by anyone who actually knows about rugby and doesn't just have a tuppenny ha'penny resentment to peddle.

My personal feeling is that just like the Lomu v North argument the comparison is invalid, for even if Farrell were an equally proficient player to JW, then this is rendered moot by the fact that the game has moved on. To have the same impact as JW I would conjecture that a player would have to be significiantly better or offer something similarly rare and unique in the current environment, which might make him an even better player.

In our eyes JW was a very good player but primarily as a goal kicker. His attacking skills were average and a 10 defensive effort is admirable but in context of a match largely negligible.

Englands wins over us in their golden period were a couple of close 2-3 point wins surrounded by a series of thrashings on either side so if all the greatest side in english history amounts to that for us then its not really all that impressive.

During that era none of the SH sides except perhaps oz coming off the eales era were very great so the english hit a good run there but even then were still dropping matches to their NH regulars.

No doubt a very good side but put in context rather stands out because no other NH side has.

The larger issue for england continues to be why it is now a flash in the pan, a one off. Lends more to the argument of the SH having poorer sides as much as anything.

One way of looking at it...

eirebilly wrote:Just a quick question Mitey, will your next incarnation be The Scarlet Manuka

Well that would complete the set Billy......

You've got to admire him, he's got plenty of dog.

Taylorman wrote:In our eyes JW was a very good player but primarily as a goal kicker. His attacking skills were average and a 10 defensive effort is admirable but in context of a match largely negligible.

Englands wins over us in their golden period were a couple of close 2-3 point wins surrounded by a series of thrashings on either side so if all the greatest side in english history amounts to that for us then its not really all that impressive.

During that era none of the SH sides except perhaps oz coming off the eales era were very great so the english hit a good run there but even then were still dropping matches to their NH regulars.

No doubt a very good side but put in context rather stands out because no other NH side has.

The larger issue for england continues to be why it is now a flash in the pan, a one off. Lends more to the argument of the SH having poorer sides as much as anything.

One way of looking at it...

Ah! Taylorman, the old "you were not great, we were average" argument.

You know, to be fair, another way of looking at it might be that England only beat NZ by 2-3 points because this one also one of the best All Black sides of all time! But just not quite good enough to beat the best England side of all time (so far). What do you think? I seem to recall NZ being quite dominant in the SH at that time too, no?

PJHolybloke wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Just a quick question Mitey, will your next incarnation be The Scarlet Manuka

Well that would complete the set Billy......

You've got to admire him, he's got plenty of dog.

miteyironpaw wrote:

Taylorman wrote:In our eyes JW was a very good player but primarily as a goal kicker. His attacking skills were average and a 10 defensive effort is admirable but in context of a match largely negligible.

Englands wins over us in their golden period were a couple of close 2-3 point wins surrounded by a series of thrashings on either side so if all the greatest side in english history amounts to that for us then its not really all that impressive.

During that era none of the SH sides except perhaps oz coming off the eales era were very great so the english hit a good run there but even then were still dropping matches to their NH regulars.

No doubt a very good side but put in context rather stands out because no other NH side has.

The larger issue for england continues to be why it is now a flash in the pan, a one off. Lends more to the argument of the SH having poorer sides as much as anything.

One way of looking at it...

Ah! Taylorman, the old "you were not great, we were average" argument.

You know, to be fair, another way of looking at it might be that England only beat NZ by 2-3 points because this one also one of the best All Black sides of all time! But just not quite good enough to beat the best England side of all time (so far). What do you think? I seem to recall NZ being quite dominant in the SH at that time too, no?

This is going to be fascinating, cancel the Sky subscription......

What time is it in NZ? We may have to wait a while for Taylorman to come back.... These will help.

I think its around 5am there now

See you around 9ish then Billy, same place?

Whoever's here first save a couple of seats?

Absolutely PJ

He he... Nothing like a good stirring of the pot this time of the morning!
Wouldnt want to spoil the warmup of an intruiging match this weekend mitey...hi ya pj...
Im still going for Wales at twickers because of their general style of play.
England will win through a largely defensive/ spoiling effort if lancasters largely conservative style is to continue. Twickers factor as well but us kiwis will usually back a style based on enterprise and wales have it in spades.

Morning Taylorman