Jonny Wilkinson

Thought I'd post this here as it doesn't really go in either int or club column...

I'm having a discussion on another forum regarding who was the best 10 to ever play the game.

my view is that it is probably Carter, fighting off from Bennet, John, Larkham etc... however I am taking pretty heavy fire for not agreeing that Jonny Wilkinson is no doubt, single handedly the best 10 ever to grace the field.

Now I've tried reasoning like statistics, awards, and acheivements, and tried debating ability and consistency etc.. however I am clearly wrong, deluded or trolling. It doesn't help that I am on that forum as a specific nationality in order to play the game despite not actually from there but playing there.

Is it me or is Jonny Wilkinson just missing too many attributes, consistency and performances without an armchair ride, or am I underestimating him.

He's clearly likeable, a model professional, and a very hard working and talented player, he was at the odd occasion one of the best around, but can he really be claimed as superior to the likes of Dan Carter?

I'd be interested to see a link to this other forum discussion as most English fans don't think Jonny was the best 10 ever.

Please post up the link.

Not sure why, it's not a forum, it's a forum on a game.

I'm asking what a very knowledgable group of people think on here, as i'm genuinely worried maybe i'm underestimating Wilkinsons abilites in certain areas.

There are plenty of threads discussing this before. Just check those out. I think you started several of them. I doubt there's much new to discuss unless you want to just wum.

How convenient re. the forum. You really are Walter Mitty

Cyril wrote:There are plenty of threads discussing this before. Just check those out. I think you started several of them. I doubt there's much new to discuss unless you want to just wum.

How convenient re. the forum. You really are Walter Mitty

Have no idea what your talking about, I was hoping you'd have grown out of this by now, either comment on the thread topic or it's time out for you again...

I've already commented on the thread topic.

Sigh, I'll repeat it.

Jonny isn't the best 10 there has ever been. That answers your question. I very much doubt anyone on here will say he was.

I think you need to find a better games forum.

Its always hard to compare generations as the game has changed so much, for me Wilkinson in his prime was the best in the World for a fair few seasons and wuld certainly figure in any top 10 of best ever but for me he wasn't 'the' best ever.

Then again who do people think was? Again always difficult.

The best defensive fly half ever, the most dedicated and professional ever, possibly the best kicking fly half ever but not the best all round fly half that mantle was passed in the lions 2005 to carter. He is and always will be England's rugby hero though and that will make him a lot of peoples number one no matter what...to be honest I'd have him at 10 in my greatest 15, he is more of a legend to me than carter is.

Wilko best ever No10?

Yes.

Although I agree around the 2003 mark he was regarded as one of the best, i just can't get to grips with his lack of distinction on the international stage since, he has been dropped for Flood, moved to 12 for Cipriani, and then retired after being dropped from the squad alltogether.

He was a superb player 10 years ago, and has highlighted that in his Toulon form, but part of me thinks he can only perform with an armchair ride, which in 2003 and 2012 he got.

Very good guy, and model professional, although I wouldn't call him the most dedicated and professional ever, I keep hearing rumours about some of these welsh boys who are totally obsessed and 1 rumour about Warburton actually being able to count the grams of saturated fat he had consumed in a season, training 3 times on xmas day, and only allowing himself the odd chocolate bar/biscuit as his treats, not touching alcohol etc...

Scrumpy

If your answers yes please provide us with an argument, this is a debate forum after all, I really am open to ideas, in case I am missing something, I am not the font of all knowledge re Wilkinson.

This 'armchair ride' is almost as boring as the NZ 'virus' argument.

By the same token you can discount Carter as being that special because he was surrounded by the best team in the world for the most part.

That would be silly though, wouldn't it?

Neutralee wrote:
Scrumpy

If your answers yes please provide us with an argument, this is a debate forum after all.

It stopped being a debate forum many months ago dear chap.  

Cyril wrote:This 'armchair ride' is almost as boring as the NZ 'virus' argument.

By the same token you can discount Carter as being that special because he was surrounded by the best team in the world for the most part.

That would be silly though, wouldn't it?

Well in reality they are valid points both, Wilkinson has excelled when he has what has been perceived as world class packs in front of him, both the packs in 2003, and Toulons were regarded as the best around. Wilkinson found nowhere near the same form when he played for Newcastle, and the England post 2003 team.

And the NZ camp talked symptoms pre and post game, with some true horror stories, not that it will change the record books.

Carter has played in some fantastic teams, but I've seen games where NZ's pack has been matched if not beaten and Carter has been the difference, thinking about the SA game 2010 (think).

I would agree with your points in certain aspects, Carter of course has enjoyed front foot ball for the majority of his career, but his ability to adapt when he hasn't is probably the difference between him and Wilkinson.

I'd also agree with other players who are claimed to be world class but have a huge advantage in the teams they play, Read being one of them, very talented individual who benefits from being able to showcase his skillset because of the players around him, whereas the likes of Parisse seems to force his performance off his own back.

I think this all proves that it's practically impossible to compare players properly and have a 'best', especially not across eras as there are too many variables.

Re. the 'virus', I don't think the NZ camp is really a reliable source in terms of these 'horror stories'. They certainly witnessed horror when they were put to the sword on the field though.

Out of interest and without scrolling back through old posts etc who was voted best 10 of all time?

Big Phil Vickery.

Not sure, can't see beyond Carter myself though...

lol, he's just retired hasn't he?

I saw Big Phil on Countryfile last night.

He seems to have a lot of time to go round farmers' markets and cook for John Craven considering he's a full-time rugby player in his prime.

Don't ever retire, Phil...

Sadly Sean pre 2003, and kinda highlighting my point that he was top class back then.

Is anyone saying that Wilkinson is superior to Carter?

Carter is a better all round 10.

No offence to Newcastle fans but it damaged Wilkinson's body and overall legacy staying there. For winning silverware, more lucrative deals it would have been better to move though I can understand why he stayed.

Let's not forget that Wilkinson helped inspire a relatively mediocre England side to a RWC final in 2007 and the final was no walkover.

Wilkinson has been a massive inspiration for whichever team he has played for. I would personally say he lifts a team more than Carter but that's open to debate.

Wilkinson is practically a deity in two countries. Carter is an admirable player but outside NZ he does not have the same image that Wilkinson does in England and France.

Ah 2007, the forgotten final!

In 50 years time Wilko will still be talked about in England and Toulon, Carter will be replaced and forgotten in NZ by another great No10 (marketing tool).  

2007
 
England played the following team vs. SA int he group stage which ended 0-36 (-36 diff).
 
 
Robinson, Lewsey, Noon, Farrell, Sackey, Catt, Perry, Easter, Rees, Corry, Kay, Shaw, Stevens, Regan, Sheridan.
 
 In the final they played the following team vs SA which ended 6-15 (-8 diff).
 
Robinson, Sackey, Tait, Catt, Cueto, Wilkinson, Gomersall, Easter, Moody, Corry, Kay, Shaw, Vickery, Regan, Sheridan.
 
Those highlighted in bold did not feature in the first game. Tait, Moody & Gomarsall all came on as subs in the first game.
 
Out of those 3 players Vickery was the captain but was often inter-changed with Stevens throughout the tournament as they were seen as almost equal. Cueto was an injury replacement to Lewsey from the SF. Wilkinson was the main diff.
 
He dragged that team over in the QF, dragged them over in the SF and gave them a real fighting chance.
 
How big a diff was he in that tournament.... half crocked still you could argue he was the main reason for the points diff dropping by 28.... and they were a sniff from taking the lead in the 2nd half too. Thats the true mark of the man...
 
Half injured, hardly fit yet he took a team which lost by greater than 5 converted try scores to one which had its finger tips on the world cup final with the same team, against the same opposition only a few weeks later.
 
Others played their part but Wilkinson added the steel and for me 2007 was his defining moment as one of the top 3 professional players the game has ever seen.
 
PS
 
who didn't do it with a huge pack? 
 
Are people trying to tell me that the SA teams of 95 & 07 didn't have a huge pack? That the AUS team of 99 didn't have a huge pack and that NZ in 2011 didn't have a huge pack?
 
Carter behind an inferior pack would be as effective as Dan Parks... just like everyone else.

How about Dan Parks behind a current NZ pack?

with bergamasco at 9 to boot.
 
Still probably beat all bar SA and England, maybe AUS now (they're starting to look good again).

Wow that was emotional...

Although the same can be said of Pallison in 2011, took France from a 4 try drubbing in the group stages to have a finger on the RWC 2011 because he started playing in the knockouts.

Wilkinson was good, and he was a standout figure but to say he took the team near single handedly to the RWC final. In reality Australia and France were better teams who underperformed because of the occasion and the great resilliance shown by the English tight 5.

The memory can be a wonderfull thing, it really does perpetuate your common thoughts, instead of reality. Recent studies have proved that someone could remember a maximum of 40% of key incidents of a match less than 10 minutes after the final whistle.

Which in reality puts my claims to bed also so i'll shut up now lol

Neutralee wrote:. Recent studies have proved that someone could remember a maximum of 40% of key incidents of a match less than 10 minutes after the final whistle.

Which in reality puts my claims to bed also so i'll shut up now lol

What recent studies?
Link please.

If true then why do we keep spending money to watch sport live?  

recent studies is a pretty wide generalisation.... i.e. can be papers written by Harvard professors but also by those at that European powerhouse Bolton Poly.

or Barry college of knowledge!

To start read 'The experience of remembering as a function of attatchment style' peer reviewed and pretty upstanding book on the memory types etc...

Then studies such as 'Eyewitness recollection of sport coaches' which is peer reviewed from the Uni of Cardiff.

and 'The role of notational analysys in soccer'

Worthy point, both testing allowed for note taking and scores still ranged from 40 - 60% WITH NOTES, and the first was only 45 minutes of soccer!!!

Both studies were published in international or American journals.

Hope this helps, enjoy

20mins to look that up, not bad fella!   

Scrumpy wrote:20mins to look that up, not bad fella!   

haha If I'd looked them up i'd have provided links, they were saved to my laptop for study purposes.

If you go to google scholar however they should be pretty easy to find, it's where I picked them up originally (not the book I have that in hard copy)

PS if i'd conjured the whole thing I did hell of a job predicting the outcome didn't I, maybe I should change my doctorate lol

Ok, I've come round to the opinion that Jonny is the best.

Next!

Does anyone else think Big Phil isn't looking so big these days?

Regarding JW dragging England through the 2007 World Cup - pretty sure his goal kicking %s and drop goal accuracy in that World Cup were distinctly average - around the 60% mark I think.

I'd give more credit to the fact that the more negative sides: Argentina and England, were the ones that prevailed in that tournament. England picked a lumpen pack and played anti-rugby. It's what the rules permitted, with the benefit seemingly always going to the defending side. One try in 3 knock-out fixtures and a poor kicking ratio is hardly a ringing endorsement of Wilkinson. I'm not criticising England either - you do what you have do, and making that final was a huge success for a side inadequately prepared basically making it up as they went along.

The difference between the group game and the final was exactly that. Lack of pressure in the group game and pressure in the final. I personally don't think the switch between Catt and Wilkinson accounts for the points differential. More likely that a ragged England side got its defensive shape together as the tournament progressed.

My take on Wilkinson is that he was (and is) and extremely good fly half and will always merit inclusion in any discussion around who the top international fly halves are/have been. Ultimately it's a subjective/personal choice, and you can make arguments for a variety of players. In my lifetime as a fan I have yet to see a better fly half than Dan Carter - that's my opinion. His ability to create and make individual breaks was right up there with Stephen Larkham, but equally his defence and goal kicking is comparable to Wilkinson, ROG, Steyn and Jones. The closest "allrounder" to Carter was probably Mehrtens, another Kiwi who just seemed able to do everything. Again, all my opinion, and the mitigating points above about being able to play in the All Blacks/behind dominant packs are valid. Clearly in an All Blacks jersey Gregor Townsend would have been an even greater genius......

Anti-rugby   

It was my understanding that the old surviving heads from 2003 basically formed a Coup against Brian Ashtons Wishy Washy nonsense and reformed and coached the playing style during the tournament after the S.A drubbing. Johny Scored all the points against Australia, and was our tailsman but the role played by Dayglo off the field, and Jason Robinsons Miraculous recovery and performances after injuring his hamstring in the group stages and the influence of guys like Phil Vickery and Mike Catt can't be understated. The right team won in the end but the turn around from the group stage was legendary !!!

sirtidychris wrote:It was my understanding that the old surviving heads from 2003 basically formed a Coup against Brian Ashtons Wishy Washy nonsense and reformed  and coached the playing style during the tournament after the S.A drubbing. Johny Scored all the points against Australia, and was our tailsman but the role played by Dayglo off the field, and Jason Robinsons Miraculous recovery and performances after injuring his hamstring in the group stages and the influence of guys like Phil Vickery and Mike Catt  can't be understated. The right team won in the end but the turn around from the group stage was legendary !!!

Just to be clear - just because a player scores all your points does not mean that player played well.

Scrumpy - the reference to "anti-rugby" should be read in the context of the rest of the post. I have no issue with teams winning ugly, none at all. Scotland's victories over England in the 2000s were all wonderful examples of negating the opposition rather than seeking to score tries. Tackle like demons, keep defensive shape, make not a single meaningful pass in your own half, hump the leather off the ball at every opportunity, move away from the set pieces as much as possible, scrap for everything and plan the scoreboard around penalty kicks. This has been an effective tactic for teams on numerous occasions and, given the game is about winning above and beyond anything else, perfectly justifiable. Ashton prepared the side poorly, the players performed a coup and decided to be as "pragmatic" as possible. Again, not issue with any of that. I do, however, think that Wilkinson is given far far too much credit for England reaching the final. He didn't perform particularly well in open play and his kick goal kicking was distinctly average in the tournament. Given the side scored only one try in the knockout rounds, it's hardly much of an argument in favour of Wilkinson to say he scored all the points!!

FES

I am sure when Scotland put in displays like this you wouldn't complain as long as they win.

More limited sides have to resort to these tactics to stand a chance against superior ones.

This England side was not a good one yet it managed to get to a final. It did better than it should have.

Wilkinson wasn't asked to play well in open play. Just need to make the tackles and help drag England over the line.

You could switch things around and say that England prevented the opposition from scoring enough points.

Did you actually read my post??

I have no issue with teams winning ugly, none at all. Scotland's victories over England in the 2000s were all wonderful examples of negating the opposition rather than seeking to score tries.

Ashton prepared the side poorly, the players performed a coup and decided to be as "pragmatic" as possible. Again, no issue with any of that.

Still, saying that "Wilkinson wasn't asked to play well in open play" seems very odd to me. Was he also asked to miss lots of kicks at goal and drop goal attempt? If so perhaps I've underestimated his contribution!

Wilkinson has done great things in an England jersey, but in my opinion he's given far far too much credit and praise for 2007. His performances in 2003 and prior were of a much higher calibre and considerably more influential, in part due to the presence of Will Greenwood at 12.

Without Ollie Barkley we wouldn't have beaten USA.

funnyExiledScot wrote:In my lifetime as a fan I have yet to see a better fly half than Dan Carter - that's my opinion. His ability to create and make individual breaks was right up there with Stephen Larkham,
but equally his defence and goal kicking is comparable to Wilkinson, ROG, Steyn and Jones.

Sorry mate.  Just read your comment and couldn't help myself.  The devil made me do it.......

Methinks the whole conversation about who is/was best in any team, position, or time period is kind of weird.  So much is subjective, so much depends of the team around one, coaching, style, oppostion, and so forth.  I neither worship at the altar of Daniel Carter nor do I see him as the best ever - very good in his prime, no doubts, but not above a smallish group of extremely good players.  

Jonny was a very good player. To me, that is fine.

No worries - it was more the "goal kicking" part of the equation I had in mind when referring to ROG, and the fact that in terms of hoofing the ball into the corners, a form of defence (at a stretch), ROG was pretty handy. I'll concede that in terms of one on one tackling ROG was a bit of a wuss.

doctor_grey wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:In my lifetime as a fan I have yet to see a better fly half than Dan Carter - that's my opinion. His ability to create and make individual breaks was right up there with Stephen Larkham,
but equally his defence and goal kicking is comparable to Wilkinson, ROG, Steyn and Jones.

Sorry mate.  Just read your comment and couldn't help myself.  The devil made me do it.......

Methinks the whole conversation about who is/was best in any team, position, or time period is kind of weird.  So much is subjective, so much depends of the team around one, coaching, style, oppostion, and so forth.  I neither worship at the altar of Daniel Carter nor do I see him as the best ever - very good in his prime, no doubts, but not above a smallish group of extremely good players.  

Jonny was a very good player. To me, that is fine.

+1 Without doubt

funnyExiledScot wrote:No worries - it was more the "goal kicking" part of the equation I had in mind when referring to ROG, and the fact that in terms of hoofing the ball into the corners, a form of defence (at a stretch), ROG was pretty handy. I'll concede that in terms of one on one tackling ROG was a bit of a wuss.

ROG never shirked a tackle. He might not have been a good tackler, but bearing in mind that neither Ireland or Munster had a backup outhalf for years, it was rather important that he didn't end up like Jonny Wilkinson - always crocked.

Apologies for criticising an Irish player.

Clearly ROG never shirked a tackle. My mistake. As you say, he was absolutely right not to be a good tackler, and well done him for being a bad tackler. Last thing you want from an international rugby player is to see him putting his body on the line.

Taking this debate at face value and not as a windup (which I am not sure it deserves), I would say that Carter is probably the best fly half to have played the game, but to suggest that Wilkinson is "just missing too many attributes, consistency and performances without an armchair ride" is either deliberately inflammatory or just plain pigheaded.

First thing. I'm not going to try to compare between generations, particularly pre- and post-professionalism. You could make a case for plenty of players from the past. In terms of influence on the game, you have to go a long way to top Adrian Stoop, who invented the idea of distinct fly half and scrum half roles (and also introduced new standards in fitness and training). But none of us could ever have seen him play, so the debate's a bit meaningless.

I think it's enough to say that in terms of skill set last decade saw three of the most complete fly halves to play the game, in Carter, Wilkinson and Evans. For different reasons, only one of them had a full international career. But to put things in perspective, suppose the AB hierarchy had backed Evans over Carter in 2007. Would we now think of Evans as the standout candidate? I think it's quite possible. Certainly, Will Greenwood thought Evans was more naturally talented than Carter.

In comparing Wilkinson to either of them, he comes out ahead on defence. He redefined the defensive [note spelling] role of the fly half, and redefined how union players approached the tackle. I think it was Joe Lydon who said "Union players used to be told to look at league players to study tackling technique. Now the league players are studying Wilkinson."

In terms of kicking, there isn't much to choose. Carter has accumulated more points at a marginally higher rate per game, but in a team who have been consistently more dominant. All three have been excellent at kicking from hand. Likewise in terms of distribution - and you only have to watch some of Toulon's games to see that Wilkinson was still at the very top of the game in that respect right up to the end of his career.

Carter and Evans were both better attacking threats ball in hand. There's no question about that - Wilkinson's speed and running were never the standout aspects of his game. But I think the difference in attacking ability is nowhere near as pronounced as people like to make out.

It's well-documented now that the All Black's philosophy is (oversimplifying massively) is not based around dominating possession. Kick the ball away and put pressure on through the chase unless it's on. It's served them very well over the years, and other teams are only really catching up now.

Wilkinson played most of his international career in an era where the dominant philosophy was possession: keep hold of the ball long enough, and an opportunity will present itself. To add to that, a lot of teams playing against England adopted a philosophy of preferring to give away penalties rather than letting them develop an attack (As Martin Johnson said when challenged on why England kicked so many points, "It's not us who are choosing to give away the penalties.").

We see a higher proportion of good attacking play from Carter than from Wilkinson in part because the ABs ensure that a higher proportion of their possession is in good attacking positions. That's not to say that Carter isn't a better attacker, but that the difference is magnified by different team styles of play. It's hard deny Wilkinson was a strong attacker if you've seen his range of passes, chips and pinpoint cross-field kicks and the effectiveness with which he deployed them.

Final point. Consistency. It's genuinely ludicrous to claim that he wasn't consistent. Occasionally one aspect of his game might have been off - he had bad days on the tee, or was closed down in attack - but everything else kept working at the same high level.

His career was badly disrupted by injury but that's not the same thing as inconsistency. That would be like calling Carter inconsistent because he missed the 2011 RWC final. In fact, I can't think of any other player who has come back from injury more times and resumed playing at the same level from the first game. To take just one of many examples, I was there in 2007 when he came back into the England side to play Scotland after being injured in the first game of the club season, and having played a grand total of half a game for Newcastle in five months, two days prior to the Scotland game.

He was man of the match, scored 27 points, a championship record, including 5 penalties, 2 conversions, a drop goal and a try.

Who would have thought that a debate about who is best Carter or Wilko would end up talking about ROG!   

funnyExiledScot wrote:Apologies for criticising an Irish player.

Clearly ROG never shirked a tackle. My mistake. As you say, he was absolutely right not to be a good tackler, and well done him for being a bad tackler. Last thing you want from an international rugby player is to see him putting his body on the line.

What's your definition of 'wuss'.

This is my understanding: 'A person regarded as weak or timid and especially as unmanly.'

ROG was never timid or unmanly (whatever about being weak).

Now, why don't you explain to me why you think he was a 'wuss'?