Re: Jon Wilkin : Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 am  

St pete wrote:

Pryce staying here but i'd swap wilkin for worrincey.

Come on Wilkin is not THAT bad.

Re: Jon Wilkin : Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:50 am  

get a grips Saints (again)

he is an important part of a team that has got you to the grand final (again) despite you not having your first choice half back partnership for a good portion of the season! FFS.

Re: Jon Wilkin : Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:52 am  

cjhatesunion wrote:

Come on Wilkin is not THAT bad.

he is mate, i would like to see him in handcuffs led away by the good rugby police

Re: Jon Wilkin : Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:53 am  

BackrowSaint wrote:

He's looked like Mr Average all year IMO.

He's looked below average for that last 3yrs.

He's not worth the wedge he will be getting paid, if hull kr want him then let him go.

Re: Jon Wilkin : Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:53 am  

Is it just me or has nobody pointed out what a pudding Flannery was. Was rounded twice by Tomkins and Leuleui. While he was also at fault in defence for the first try. He was definately targetted and exposed by Wigan.

Wilkin still seems to be stuggling with his shoulder/neck injury. I think he actually had a reasonable game given his poor form recently. I just wish that he would use the time he writes articles and blogging on becoming the player he should be. He is not a bad player but he should be a hell of a lot better at this point of his career.

Re: Jon Wilkin : Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:57 am  

Noel Cleal wrote:

Is it just me or has nobody pointed out what a pudding Flannery was.

I noticed, but he wasn't at fault for the first try. However, he probably played his worst game of the season last night.

Wilkin still seems to be stuggling with his shoulder/neck injury. I think he actually had a reasonable game given his poor form recently. I just wish that he would use the time he writes articles and blogging on becoming the player he should be. He is not a bad player but he should be a hell of a lot better at this point of his career.

Wilkin was better last week when he wasn't playing at 6. Why Potter continued to play him at 6 when he is not a 6 is something I don't even what to think about now. But while Wilkin hasn't found anything like his form prior to his injury, I do think he would have done a better job for us playing in the position he is made to play in rather than one he just can't play.

I'd like to see our new coach remind Wilkin of what a great little interceptor he used to be. We haven't seen him intercept for two seasons.

Re: Jon Wilkin : Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:33 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

I noticed, but he wasn't at fault for the first try. However, he probably played his worst game of the season last night.

Wilkin was better last week when he wasn't playing at 6. Why Potter continued to play him at 6 when he is not a 6 is something I don't even what to think about now. But while Wilkin hasn't found anything like his form prior to his injury, I do think he would have done a better job for us playing in the position he is made to play in rather than one he just can't play.

I'd like to see our new coach remind Wilkin of what a great little interceptor he used to be. We haven't seen him intercept for two seasons.

Lets hope next time he does intercept that andy coley ain't there to chase him down and catch him!

I thought he was classed as being pretty fast for a backrow!

So he's to small for the pack, average pair of hands and no pace but runs good lines.

Re: Jon Wilkin : Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:36 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Wilkin was better last week when he wasn't playing at 6. Why Potter continued to play him at 6 when he is not a 6 is something I don't even what to think about now.

Wilkin was named at 6 but clearly played second row/loose forward with Jonny Lomax at 6.

The excuse of 'not being a 6' isn't applicable for last nights performance.

Re: Jon Wilkin : Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:37 am  

Wilkin was far from our worst player, that goes to Lomax without a doubt, he just couldn't defend, and his defence in that first 20 minutes effectively cost us the game. I'm not saying you can blame one player for losing, but Wilkin was far from our biggest problem.

I thought Wilkin tried hard last night to make something happen, which is more than what can be said for a lot of them. Wellens, Wilkin and Roby all did OK, IMO.

Re: Jon Wilkin : Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:42 am  

saint billy wrote:

Wilkin was far from our worst player, that goes to Lomax without a doubt, he just couldn't defend, and his defence in that first 20 minutes effectively cost us the game. I'm not saying you can blame one player for losing, but Wilkin was far from our biggest problem.

I thought Wilkin tried hard last night to make something happen, which is more than what can be said for a lot of them. Wellens, Wilkin and Roby all did OK, IMO.

It's not just a case of last night with wilkin tho mate, he's been shocking for about 3/4 years now.