Is Wilkinson still wild ?

[Salamo]

Wilkinson has played a reasonable amount of years for England,
but now my question is: Is he still good enough ? He may be a good
kicker ,but England have developed many new and young players
which can takes his place. Is he good enough to help England win
the world cup ? Injury as also a factor and if he is not good enough,
who is ?

 

[McAlister]

O.Barkley is good

 

[Tin]

wilkinson is still a great player, just a bit off form, then again so would most after the amount of injuries he has had.

barkley is a good flyhalf but lacks the ability to take a drop goal in a pressure match i think.

Sadly thats all the flyhalf's BA included, otherwise cipriani has looked good for wasp's and so has flood, yet everyone hates flood :S or atleast no-one seems to think he has the ability to play international 10.

if geraghty was a better kicker i would include him no doubt but sadly he doesnt kick accurately enough to win those tight matches

 

[stormmaster1]

Barkley is good but not consistent. Wilkinson always used to be so consistent, but was generally pretty good on his off days. His goal kicking is not in question on his return. His general play as a flyhalf used to be world class. Since his return v scotland we have seen little game controlling from him. Is he still good enough? I don't know. He has the ability, but hasn't played enough for any real judgement on his current ability to be made. In the 6N his running and kicking from hand was worse than pre-2003. That may not have any bearing on the world cup though.

 

[Kalium]

Watch Wilkinson in th RWC he is going to suprise us.

 

[McAlister]

Wilkinson is a world class player give him some time to get back on track

 

[Caledfwlch]

Wilkinson is a world class player give him some time to get back on track [/b]

Correction: Wilkinson was a world class player

 

[feicarsinn]

ehhhhhhhhhh injured for 6 weeks

 

[RC]

Q: Is Wilkinson still wild
A: Was he ever wild? Middle class english boys...they don't understand the concept of "wild".

 

[Bullitt]

wilkinson is still a great player, just a bit off form, then again so would most after the amount of injuries he has had.

barkley is a good flyhalf but lacks the ability to take a drop goal in a pressure match i think.

Sadly thats all the flyhalf's BA included, otherwise cipriani has looked good for wasp's and so has flood, yet everyone hates flood :S or atleast no-one seems to think he has the ability to play international 10.

if geraghty was a better kicker i would include him no doubt but sadly he doesnt kick accurately enough to win those tight matches [/b]

3 points to raise;

1, Barkley is a **** fly half and doesn't have enough sense to take a drop goal when needed, hense Gomersall having to take over the job at France because the shitty little poofball thug wouldn't make the call.

2. We all love Flood, I have no idea where you get the idea we think he's not goood enough.

3. If Gerathy went, either Catt or Farrell would be playing 12, of whom which one would take over kicking duties.

 

[Substitute]

I am an advocate of Barkley as a good FH. I believe he offers good attacking options, good passing, good kicking out of hand, good (but not as good as Wilko's) defence plus more. What I like most about him is he is not conservative. Sometimes he doesn't have his head screwed on - usually outside of the game though. And punching that Sky guy was for the fans - we've got twice as many live games a last season.

Whenever I argue with my sister (ironically also a Northampton fan) that Barkleys good enough she always says, "well Wilkos a better kicker." I honestly don't believe he is. His range is poor, his placekicking is worse than Paterson's :huh: and his dropkicking is nothing spectacular (although his two-footed ability is a nifty trick). Chris Malone could nail them from halfway whenever he wanted. All he has is the ability to slot goals under pressure. Don't get me wrong there's noone else I want tasked with a last minute pressure kick but do not think that because he kicks drop goals he is a good player. Waht he is above nyone else is massively conservative. He is not the best kicker ever, more that he willingly trusts his boot more than his hands. 5 points is always better than 3 and Wilko has missed some golden oppurtunities. My point is Wilko is not a good player because he kicks drop goals. He is a good player because he defends fiercely and will not buckle under pressure - the same cannot be said of Barkley. Just I don't think Barkley is far behind Wilko and I'd prefer to see Barkley in the SA game - we might score a try then.

I don't have a problem with Flood except he seems more of a Dan Parks than a Dan Carter to me.

And god save us if both Barkley and Wilko get injured. We'd have Mike "Carlos Spencer" Catt kicking, or worse, Farrell playing... because he's needed to kick. It wouldn't have been so tough to have brought Geraghty or Flood now would it?

 

[Bullitt]

Are you Brian Ashton? :blink:

 

[Substitute]

Are you Brian Ashton? :blink:
[/b]

I wish... Farrell would be gone.

I am an advocate of an attacking game though. I don't like the idea of tryiing to edge yor way past sides, a bit of bad luck and it could spell the end of your chances. I'd rather see some precocious youngsters than some solid experienced guys. That might be because I'm young, or the fact that experienced at my local club means fat and slow.

I guess I do agree with a lot of Ahston's principles. I want attacking rugby, but not just backs moves, I want spontanaiety and variety. I'd rather a backline had a deep understanding and knew each other inside out than the predictable procession we have now.

But at the end of the day I guess we all want heads up attacking rugby but would rather a win. In a final I'd still pick Wilko - because he won't buckle under the pressure. I'd rather see Barkley but pragmatism dictates I go for the win - which can be the only explanation as to how the italian twat got picked. In my eyes though a good FH is not one who makes a drop kick but one who doesn't have to resort to a drop kick and in that respect Spencer was always special. And I think Barkleys the closest to Spencer we got.

 

[stormmaster1]

I am an advocate of Barkley as a good FH. I believe he offers good attacking options, good passing, good kicking out of hand, good (but not as good as Wilko's) defence plus more. What I like most about him is he is not conservative. Sometimes he doesn't have his head screwed on - usually outside of the game though. And punching that Sky guy was for the fans - we've got twice as many live games a last season.

Whenever I argue with my sister (ironically also a Northampton fan) that Barkleys good enough she always says, "well Wilkos a better kicker." I honestly don't believe he is. His range is poor, his placekicking is worse than Paterson's :huh: and his dropkicking is nothing spectacular (although his two-footed ability is a nifty trick). Chris Malone could nail them from halfway whenever he wanted. All he has is the ability to slot goals under pressure. Don't get me wrong there's noone else I want tasked with a last minute pressure kick but do not think that because he kicks drop goals he is a good player. Waht he is above nyone else is massively conservative. He is not the best kicker ever, more that he willingly trusts his boot more than his hands. 5 points is always better than 3 and Wilko has missed some golden oppurtunities. My point is Wilko is not a good player because he kicks drop goals. He is a good player because he defends fiercely and will not buckle under pressure - the same cannot be said of Barkley. Just I don't think Barkley is far behind Wilko and I'd prefer to see Barkley in the SA game - we might score a try then.

I don't have a problem with Flood except he seems more of a Dan Parks than a Dan Carter to me.

And god save us if both Barkley and Wilko get injured. We'd have Mike "Carlos Spencer" Catt kicking, or worse, Farrell playing... because he's needed to kick. It wouldn't have been so tough to have brought Geraghty or Flood now would it? [/b]

the reason a running fly half is needed is because our backline is so poor at the moment. As for Wilko and pressure: he doesn't always do it. He missed kicks for Newcastle in cup finals and missed 1 or 2 drops in the world cup final. I'm not decided on Wilkinson. When he's on form his distribution and running can be pretty good (although not magical like Spencer) and his kicking is brilliant in all respects. We just haven't seen enough performances from him to know if he is still class or not.

 

[Bullitt]

And I think Barkleys the closest to Spencer we got. [/b]

How? I must've missed some really important games where, but when has Barkley ever been a running fly half, let alone a 1st 5/8? All I've ever seen out of him is a reasonable ability to kick it out of hand, ballsed up goal kicking and a complete inability to command a game or unleash a blatant overlap.

The closest thing to Spencer a-la 5 years ago England have is Shane Gerethy - He's he only running 10 we have. Of course, he plays for the wrong club so hasn't been selected, but that's a completely different debate.

 

[Substitute]

I don't think he is a bad running FH but that's not really what I'm on about. I think Barkley is less conservative than Wilko and thus offers better attacking prospects. He is good kicking out of hand but doesn't rely on it like Wilko. He's also a surprisingly good passer (I think he learnt alot fro Catt) just look at the Saxons - Maori game for proof. Plus he is quite a creative player - with Chris Malone you need a bloody good creative IC if your going to craft 4 tries against Bristol, Leicester (which we did last season).

At the end of the day I don't think you can rely on our defence to win us games - it's too poor to acheive that. Thus we need to score trys. Ask me who was more likely to get us tries, I'd say Barkley. Wilko has his strengths but he is not an attacking FH. Personally if he was more experienced I would have Geraghty, but like you said he is at the wrong club and he is probably too new to the game. I really hope he is given his chance.

 

[McAlister]

When will he be back?

 

[Substitute]

Thank god Barkley played as well as I spoke of him highly. I know he can be a bit of an idiot but he is a good attacking FH.

I think it will be best for England if Wilkinson isn't fit for the SA game, saves the dilemma of who do you drop for him. Too much emphasis is placed on Wilko and he is not even the best player in the team on current form, possibly not even the best FH.

This country seem to have an obsession with Wilko, he is virtually untouchable. If Wilko is fit, Wilko will start. No doubt what he did at the last world cup was superb but if they aren't playing well enough they should be dropped. Players shouldn't be picked on past glory.

And I know this sounds like I'm chairman of the Barkley Appreciation Society but he's the better FH on current form and because out-of-form players shouldn't be picked on past glories. I still think Geraghty should be our no.1 FH come the next world cup - unless we get the kind of dynamic pack that wilko can keep marching forward.

 

[Bullitt]

Why drop either? Catt was pathetic and Panface always has been crap, so I'd begrudgingly say put Wilko at 10 and move the football thug to 2nd reciever (provided he hasn't got himself arrested before the game that is).

 

[Triniquint]

Q: Is Wilkinson still wild
A: Was he ever wild? Middle class english boys...they don't understand the concept of "wild".
[/b]

and middle class Welsh boys do? That's it, keep perpetuating the myth.