Re: Jon Wilkin : Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:57 pm  

St pete wrote:

The real wilkin i knew was rough, tough, hard and very very commited, now it's just a case of putting the player down all nice and softy.

I think the fact he's stayed the same size while other players have grew bigger and stronger as also set him back.

Where did all his ball skills go ? his little offloads and short support play was a real highlight of his game, he had a great pair of hands but that seems to have gone.

In 2006 he was awesome and looked to be a very good player but every year he seems to have gone back.

I couldn't really say what his strength to his game is and what he gives the team.

Don't mean to harp on this, but a quick breeze over the stats shows that Wilkin averages 32 tackles a game. That's a lot of tackles, and as far as I can tell makes him the busiest defender at the club (moreso than Graham, Roby and, in a more directly relevant comparison, Chris Flannery). Obviously these stats don't take into account how many minutes a player is on the pitch per appearance, but if you can rely on one of your back rowers to put in 30+ tackles per game then surely the last you'd question is his commitment.

Re: Jon Wilkin : Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:59 pm  

I don't understand this criticism of Wilkin. It seems to me to be based on him not being a player he never was.

Wilkin isn't a big barnstorming second-row like Langley or Hock. He's a ball-player. He's best used as a wide runner, like Joynt was, as he's faster than most of the pack, and has a decent pair of hands for a forward. The reason people remember him as being good more than three years ago is that it was that long ago when we had a pack which actually went forward effectively and made the space for people like Wilkin to run.

Unfortunately, for at least 3 years now, we've had a fairly lightweight pack which struggles to get opposing defences retreating, and so Wilkin's had play as a more standard barge and bash second rower, which he's not physically big enough for, and which doesn't give him the opportunity to use his ballskills or speed.

I'm really quite hopeful that with the arrival of Perry, and hopefully a fit Soliola joining Puletua and Graham, then we might start getting dominant again up front and letting him start to shine again.

As for the argument that we have better kids, that's just guff. Our identikit second-rowers like Dixon and Clough offer no more go-forward or size, and less in the way of ball-play. And their defence is no better : one of Wigan's tries yesterday came as a direct result of Dixon missing a really soft tackle.

I just don't see this Wilkin-as-scapegoat thing. I'd have him as the best second-rower Saints have, ahead of Flannery, Clough, Dixon and the rest, until Soliola can play there full-time.

Re: Jon Wilkin : Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:16 pm  

Has any of these Wilkin-haters ever tried playing Rugby with their head up their ar$e ? Its not easy you know.

Re: Jon Wilkin : Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:55 pm  

Roy Haggerty wrote:

He's a ball-player. He's best used as a wide runner, like Joynt was, as he's faster than most of the pack, and has a decent pair of hands for a forward.

I totally agree with this. Wilkin could be used as a wide running back rower and I am sure he would benefit from decent ball from Pryce and Eastmond would provide. Playing in so many different positions doesnt help Wilkin at all.

Re: Jon Wilkin : Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:56 pm  

Roy Haggerty wrote:

He's a ball-player. He's best used as a wide runner, like Joynt was, as he's faster than most of the pack, and has a decent pair of hands for a forward.

I totally agree with this. Wilkin could be used as a wide running back rower and I am sure he would benefit from decent ball from Pryce and Eastmond would provide. Playing in so many different positions doesnt help Wilkin at all.