WILKOWATCH

Has he been spotted at Charles de Gaulle yet or has anyone seen James Hook chatting to Gatland yet?

What's the goss?

He had almost as bad a game as Farrell yesterday and lost Toloun the T14 final.

Just to keep some balance in contrast to the anti-Wilko/anything English nonsense!

"Wilkinson kept Toulon in the match with two more penalties but would have been ruing his misfortune after watching two of his attempts hit the posts."

The commentators kept making excuses for Farrells Apalling handling and passing skills, but this lie about the conditions was made a mockery by the passing and handling skills on display from Many others (especially Roberts).

But my main question is how deep he was standing . If Gatland is going to align the 10 so deep, surely Wilkinson is more naturally suited to that game plan anyway? And Wilkinsons ability to drop the ball on a dime for the much used cross-field bomb is surely also imperative? This selection if Farrell is starting to look more and more nepotistic and politically tokenistic.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Just to keep some balance in contrast to the anti-Wilko/anything English nonsense!

"Wilkinson kept Toulon in the match with two more penalties but would have been ruing his misfortune after watching two of his attempts hit the posts."

Trev


Cut it out...! You are being pathetic.

I do not think Wilkinson is the be all, end all of rugby flyhalf play. That is no reason to claim I am anti-English. That is a disgusting accusation. If I see it from you one more time you will get reported.

maestegmafia wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Just to keep some balance in contrast to the anti-Wilko/anything English nonsense!

"Wilkinson kept Toulon in the match with two more penalties but would have been ruing his misfortune after watching two of his attempts hit the posts."

Trev


Cut it out...! You are being pathetic.

I do not think Wilkinson is the be all, end all of rugby flyhalf play. That is no reason to claim I am anti-English. That is a disgusting accusation. If I see it from you one more time you will get reported.

Biggar over Wilkinson for me

nathan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Just to keep some balance in contrast to the anti-Wilko/anything English nonsense!

"Wilkinson kept Toulon in the match with two more penalties but would have been ruing his misfortune after watching two of his attempts hit the posts."

Trev


Cut it out...! You are being pathetic.

I do not think Wilkinson is the be all, end all of rugby flyhalf play. That is no reason to claim I am anti-English. That is a disgusting accusation. If I see it from you one more time you will get reported.

Yes I thought it was rather amusing to.

MM - your posting history tells its own story report what you like but I will always be even handed unlike you.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

nathan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Just to keep some balance in contrast to the anti-Wilko/anything English nonsense!

"Wilkinson kept Toulon in the match with two more penalties but would have been ruing his misfortune after watching two of his attempts hit the posts."

Trev


Cut it out...! You are being pathetic.

I do not think Wilkinson is the be all, end all of rugby flyhalf play. That is no reason to claim I am anti-English. That is a disgusting accusation. If I see it from you one more time you will get reported.

Yes I thought it was rather amusing to.

MM - your posting history tells its own story report what you like but I will always be even handed unlike you.

trust me, his posting history is well known to mods including his libelous comments.

Anyways back to the rugby!

Wilkinson didnt play badly yesterday, but Kockott played better (world class performance) and Tales also had a great game for Casters.
I agree that Farrell didnt look comfortable and i think the poor performances for England against Wales and the two poor games for Sarries (in the HK and AP) really look to have undermined his confidence. Hope for the Lions sake that he rediscovers some of his mo jo over the coming weeks.

maestegmafia wrote:He had almost as bad a game as Farrell yesterday and lost Toloun the T14 final.

Giteau had a poor game but Wilkinson put in a similar performance to the Heineken Cup final. It wasn't him who butchered Toulon's try scoring chances. Where did you think he had a bad game, Maes?

To support Maesteg here (not that he needs it as mostly he is a fair and largely unbiased poster)

Wilkinson kicked three penalties but missed three more, missed a conversion, and got turned over late in the game when the try was clearly on.

Actually JW has a typical controlled game, unlucky to hit the woodwork twice both fairly difficult especially the last one. He did however butcher a late try scoring opportunity by being turned over.

I was a big advocate of JW going on the Lions tour, but yesterdays very disappointing final perhaps opened my eyes to the fact that whilst JW can control the game....... if he has left his kicking boots at home then he hasn't got a lot more in his armoury.

I would perhaps look at Biggar as the possible standby 10.

Knowing Gatland though he will go for the safe option

Will be interesting to see how Patchell goes in Japan...I would prefer hm to Farrell!

Agree Burns looks excellent and I would see him and Biggar as next two in line.

flyhalffactory wrote:... if he has left his kicking boots at home then he hasn't got a lot more in his armoury...

I disagree with your take on his game yesterday but you are right on that score, as England found to their cost at the last World Cup.

lauriehow wrote:Will be interesting to see how Patchell goes in Japan...I would prefer hm to Farrell!

Agree Burns looks excellent and I would see him and Biggar as next two in line.

Perhaps it will be Madigan, Patchell and Burns on the next Lions tour

Rugby Fan wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:... if he has left his kicking boots at home then he hasn't got a lot more in his armoury...

I disagree with your take on his game yesterday but you are right on that score, as England found to their cost at the last World Cup.

Rugby Fan
I am agreeing with you (as I am assuming you think he had a good game)........... IMHO JW has a good game generally, and its not his fault that his centres had "mares". However his game is based on his kicking under pressure, take that aware then he free falls down the list of appropriate standby 10s, and if that's the case Biggar is the "go to" half-back

Wilkinson said in an interview after the T14 final:

"If Warren wants to call me about joining up with the Lions, I will happily have that conversation with him..... The Lions did well today and I'm going to need a couple of days just to assess where I am. It always feels worse when you've just lost a big game. And I don't even know if Warren still wants me, but I'm certainly not going to rule anything out."

Gatland said in a recent interview:

"If we pick up an injury on tour, then maybe there's a conversation to be had."

flyhalffactory wrote:...his game is based on his kicking under pressure, take that aware then he free falls down the list of appropriate standby 10s, and if that's the case Biggar is the "go to" half-back

Yes, I think you're right again there. Ironically, even though Wilkinson is seen as a conservative option, he can be as high risk as any playmaker flyhalf. If the opposition plays reasonably well, and Wilkinson has an off day, the chances of losing increase substantially.

To his credit, he has fewer off days than most but a team needs to have some back-up when he struggles. In 2002 against France in the Six Nations, England had no fall-back. By the World Cup matches against Wales and France, Woodward had taken to using Catt to support him instead of the Tindall/Greenwood midfield.

There's no-one in the Lions squad to play a second receiver role, unless you envisage Sexton doing that. Since Sexton is the current first choice, he's presumably off if Wilkinson comes on. Regardless, I can't see how that fits with the kind of gameplan Gatland prefers to play.

The other way to get around Wilkinson on an off day is to provide more attacking threats up front or via the back three. Phillips showed he can do that from the base of rucks or set pieces but he's easier to defend, when he has Wilkinson outside him, because the Englishman doesn't distract defenders. The back three can only threaten effectively if they get the ball in the opposition half. This happens less often if the team keeps trying to use that territory to set up drop goals for Wilkinson. They end up having to try something from much further out, which has a lower chance of success.

It's not so much that Wilkinson loses you a game when he's off colour - that's too much blame for one man in a team sport. It's more that he restricts your chances of winning. On top of that, his team mates have such a high expectation that he'll keep them in a game, they also tend to droop when that plan seems to be going awry.