• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Wilkinson or Patterson?

Blatently Patterson.

He's also a far superior player in every other aspect of the game.
 
All of that sadly wasted because he never ever plays in position.

All of that sadly wasted because he never ever plays in position.
 
Patterson is kicking better, but it's the only aspect of the game that he beats johnny in... Kepp underestimating wilko... I can't belioeve that...
 
Wilkinson has a kick, half way line, to the right, wet windy day. He kicks for the posts misses. 0%



Patterson has the same kick. Line out.

Stats lie.
 
So, in other words Wilkinson takes on an overly difficult kicks, misses and throws a chance away. Patterson gains teritory and creates a scoring opportunity.

Again, who's the better player?
 
cant believe you slaging off paterson for not attempting kicks wilko would - part of being a good kicker is knowing your limits, and knowing when kicking to touch is the favourible option for you team! whats the point attempting a 50 yard kick and missing, if you could kick to touch and get an attacking line-out?
 
I think it's an unfair comparison - what annoys me is people critiscising Scotland for kicking their way to victory over Italy. Ultimately, if Aus or NZ had a kicker of Paterson's percentage on the field, then they could have reversed their results.



At the moment, Paterson is a better place kicker, but Jonny is better at getting his team the win in close games. Both are matchwinners - in completely different cases.
 
I think it's an unfair comparison - what annoys me is people critiscising Scotland for kicking their way to victory over Italy. Ultimately, if Aus or NZ had a kicker of Paterson's percentage on the field, then they could have reversed their results.



At the moment, Paterson is a better place kicker, but Jonny is better at getting his team the win in close games. Both are matchwinners - in completely different cases.

[/b]



Nail on head. Both are great kickers. Paterson has a better percentage, but less range on boot. Wilkinson may miss more, but he gets the ones that matter.
 
Wilkinson has a kick, half way line, to the right, wet windy day. He kicks for the posts misses. 0%



Patterson has the same kick. Line out.

Stats lie.
[/b]

Wrong.

Scotland has a kick, half way line, to the right, wet windy day. PARKS kicks for the posts. Gets It. 100 %

Paterson takes the shorter kicks, whereas we have the sheer power of parks to supplement it.
 
<div class='quotemain'>
Wilkinson has a kick, half way line, to the right, wet windy day. He kicks for the posts misses. 0%



Patterson has the same kick. Line out.

Stats lie.
[/b]

Wrong.

Scotland has a kick, half way line, to the right, wet windy day. PARKS kicks for the posts. Gets It. 100 %

Paterson takes the shorter kicks, whereas we have the sheer power of parks to supplement it.
[/b][/quote]



well said that man!



and as for poeple complaining about scotland kicking to victory over Italy - did these people watch the last world cup? Scotland may have had to rely on the boot of peterson, but we will be the first to admit Italy are probably just as good as us. England, however, seem to believe they are much better than any other team in existence. if this is the case, how come they have to rely on wilko for points?
 
Die Hard, I would reckon without Jonny, they are probably 36 points worse than South Africa =P
 
So, in other words Wilkinson takes on an overly difficult kicks, misses and throws a chance away. Patterson gains teritory and creates a scoring opportunity.

Again, who's the better player?
[/b]

Well, if Wilkinson gets 3 of those harder ones, while Scotland lose their lineouts, and England win by 3 penalties, Wilko.

Plus, did anybody watch Scotland vs NZ? Patterson was great.
 
Patterson better kicking at goal and running with ball in hand. About the same passing ability. Wilkinson better at everything else.
 
It's a bit difficult to really compare them well because they are such different players, have completely different roles within their side and never seem to compete on an equal footing. The only easy comparison is their goal kicking where PAterson wins at the moment.
 
Paterson is the best goal kicker in the world, stats don't like.

Wilkinson is the better kicker from hand and defensive player.

They both get the backline moving well and are excellent commanders and leaders and both have handling and service.


Really, the each have their strong points and weak points.
 
<div class='quotemain'>
So, in other words Wilkinson takes on an overly difficult kicks, misses and throws a chance away. Patterson gains teritory and creates a scoring opportunity.

Again, who's the better player?
[/b]

Well, if Wilkinson gets 3 of those harder ones, while Scotland lose their lineouts, and England win by 3 penalties, Wilko.

Plus, did anybody watch Scotland vs NZ? Patterson was great.
[/b][/quote]



aye, but scotland win said line-outs and potentially you could be looking at 21-9 ;)



and as for NZ game, Parks is our best tactical kicker!
 

Latest posts

Top