Jonny Wilkinson was a kicking flanker. When I first started playing rugby in 2009, I heard this adage and was immediately in awe of a man that could not only kick goals, but could flatten even the largest of men running into him.
I had never paid the oval ball much notice before that year, so the drop-goal of the 2003 Rugby World Cup was something that I remembered hearing about but had never actually seen.
In the time that has passed, I have come to see the aforementioned phrase as not just an insult to the man himself, but a marker of how hearsay can become so ingrained in the perception of a sportsman that it ends up being taken as fact.
The reality is that Jonny Wilkinson was so much more than just a metronomic left boot and the uncommon ability to tackle above his weight.
As a “Pom” whose fixation with the Wallabies has been the cause of many an argument with friends and teammates, the idea that Wilkinson was just a kicker comes from the relatively small number of people that watch the Premiership in SANZAR nations.
This points to a broader issue that I hope to touch on later.
Wilkinson started his career with Newcastle Falcons, and at the age of 18 was sparring with Inga Tuigamala (a 19-cap All Black) for a starting berth at 12. To say he was ridiculously talented is an understatement, and the fact that he often played ahead of Tuigamala is a massive point for Jonny, because he was not even kicking for Newcastle at this point. Rob Andrew was.
It’s easy to see why Wilkinson was picked, even without his kicking, if you watch a few videos of him at this point in his career. He was absolutely electric, and his footwork was reminiscent of a young Jonathan Davies, although admittedly not of the same lofty standard.
In fact, Wilkinson’s first cap for England came on the wing, as a replacement for Mike Catt. He had been selected for the England squad as a centre, not at 10, in his first season of professional rugby.
It was only when Rob Andrew retired that Wilkinson moved into fly half, both for club and country.
His first start at fly half was certainly memorable. The occasion was made even more intriguing because the opposition 10 was also extremely new to the position, playing only his second Test there.
I am of course talking about the 76-0 rout of England by the Wallabies in 1998, whose 10 that day was none other than the great Stephen Larkham. Wilkinson missed two penalties in this game, but as the article written for the BBC at the time put it, the game was a simple case of boys against men.
The years between the ‘tour of hell’ and ‘that’ drop goal were a period of growth for the England side, which during this time was often chastised for playing ‘boring’ rugby.
A common explanation for this view is that England has terrible weather, therefore mauling and scrummaging are often more important than running and passing. There is definitely a shred of truth in that. Our weather can at times render the silkiest of passers a tighthead prop, but what people often forget is that the England team of 2003 could win a game in so many different ways that beating them was not a feat easily achieved.
This, then, was a side reminiscent of the All Blacks in the decade gone by.
What was the point, I’m sure someone must have asked, attempting to beat up the Springboks? Or match the guile of the Wallabies? Why not beat the Wallabies up, and run rings around the Springboks?
The England side that is so often called boring were simply pragmatic. They did what Ewen McKenzie strives to do with the Wallabies and did with the Reds in 2011 – they won games by changing to suit the opposition.
The idea that a backline containing Will Greenwood, Jason Robinson, Josh Lewsey and Austin Healy can be described as boring is ludicrous.
I may have digressed a tad, but he point is England were not the one-trick ponies that they have been perceived to be.
According to Stats Guru, Jonny Wilkinson won every game bar one he played in an England shirt between the 10 November, 2001 and 10 February, 2007. The game he lost was naturally against the French, in 2002.
This period for Wilkinson is blighted by an injury run that makes Wycliff Palu look like iron man, but even taking that into account the duration for which Wilkinson won games is an incredible feat.
The second stat is that for this period of six years and four months, 38.6% of the place kicks that Wilkinson hit were conversions, not penalties. Over his career for England, this percentage actually increases to 40.4%, and these become 34% and 37.1% respectively if you include drop goals.
Now I’m not sure how this compares to other fly halves, but over a third of your kicks at goal being conversions suggest to me that the England sides that Wilkinson played in could score tries as well as anyone.
People in the southern hemisphere hardly watching the Premiership, possibly becasuse it is A) seen as a version of Jakeball with smaller players and B) on TV at stupid times for all in the Southern Hemisphere but the South Africans.
Not much can be done about B, but I think A is extremely worrying indeed.
Rugby union fans watch a sport that can truly be called global, with a World Cup in which more than three nations contend for the title, so neglecting to watch rugby in a different country, regardless of its quality, is a massive waste. The Southern Hemisphere can learn just as much from the North as the North can from the south.
In terms of quality, I challenge anyone to watch this year’s Aviva Premiership final and say that any Super Rugby team would have anything but an incredibly hard time against Saracens or Northampton.
In terms of attacking flair, hopping up and down in England tends to lead to being clattered, and so the stepping is usually of the Jason Robinson variety – simple and fast.
And in the Premiership, the running line is king. Centres that can bisect defensive lines without being touched a la Larkham are far more common up here than they are in Super Rugby.
And finally, in terms of the incessant scrummaging and the clueless refereeing of it, the situation is not quite as bad as it is said to be, and is certainly not much worse than it can get in Super Rugby.
So there we have it. Jonny Wilkinson was much more than the greatest goal kicker that the world has ever seen, and English rugby is not boring in any sense of the word.
Jerry
Guest
I doubt it - Henry and Hansen are viewed as pretty arrogant (with good reason IMO) and haven't been as bad as Woodward. They wouldn't been given the same blowtorch in the NZ press but that's the nature of local press.
Birdy
Guest
Not suggesting Woodward didn't have rough edges - simply that if an Aussie or NZ coach had said the things he did it would have been viewed as 'giving it straight' and 'telling it how it is' etc.
Jerry
Guest
Oh Woodward definitely fostered an 'under seige' atmosphere and attitude and it unquestionably worked for him and his teams. I'd also point out he did a pretty good line in graceless himself from 'we did what counts, we won' to 'we're still the world's best' in 04 to 'never mind the Lions series, what counts is the RWC' in 05.
Birdy
Guest
Thinking back to what I was reading, I think what really got under the SH media's skin is that when the usual tired rubbish was hurled at England Woodward didn't react defensively like previous England coaches but made it clear that he didn't give a rat's wobbly bits whether the SH 'respected' England or not. Personally, I think he knew full well the nature of the press campaign that would be waiting at the WC so created a 'they don't like us, we don't care' attitude amongst the squad. He was right - the systematic campaign of vitriol against England at the WC saw many journos disgrace their profession (including Spiro - I remember it well). This culminated in the Aussie Prime Minister literally hurling the winners medals at England in still the most graceless official act ever seen at a major sports event. In fairness, many Aussies also criticized Howard for this. My favourite was David Kirk, the former AB, the day after the final, writing that it was irrelevant that England won, what mattered was how they played in the following two years - they were an old team and therefore wouldn't be able to justify being 'champions'. It all came across as vaguely unhinged.
Jerry
Guest
"The Aussie and Kiwi press launched a 2 year campaign of ‘arrogant and boring’ England because they, rightly, feared that side and swallowed the myth that England lost the 1991 WC final by reacting to Campese’s taunts about being boring by changing their style in the final." I don't think that was why they did it. I think they called them boring cause journalists are lazy and fall back on tired old cliches. I think they called them arrogant cause they were coached by Sir Clive Woodward who makes Graham Henry and Steve Hansen seen unsure of themselves.
Bakkies
Guest
Most teams in the Premiership bar say Newcastle play an open style of Rugby. The problem is that with England Lancaster gets conservative at times and that doesn't suit the players he has particularly in the centres.
Bakkies
Guest
Eh Brian the Sharks lost to Saracens this year on a synthetic pitch in north London that suited The Sharks. Sarries also beat the Boks the same year that Leicester did. Toulon have beaten the Brumbies.
Bakkies
Guest
Or watch the games. I am sure the 6 Nations games from that period are available online.
soapit
Guest
not to mention a team that played well around him for most of his career earning penalties, creating chances for runs etc. england really only were any good for about 2 or 3 years of wilos run. mind you they played the bulk of their matches in the 6n so that likely evens things out
ChrisT
Guest
Apology accepted Brian, thanks. You raise an interesting point and a common one in this kind of debate – but as often found in other things, the sum of the logic doesn’t always represent the reality. First of all, assuming NH rugby is simply a depository for out of date goods is simply naïve. Players like Britts and Giteau are playing some of the best rugby of their careers and selection policies aside, would likely take their respective International places. The argument also seems to assume they’re regarded as the superstars of their respective teams. They’re not. They’re carefully selected components of a whole that makes sense and predominantly includes current and local world class. This isn’t Japan. However, perhaps more pertinent, is the reality that great club sides are not International sides. They are club sides. They operate in completely different environments, with completely different selection requirements, in completely different competition environments. They are worlds apart. To make a direct connection between the success of a composite International side and the multi-faceted clubs they play for makes no sense. There often is no connection making the conclusion you arrive at nonsensical. It’s because of all of this I think your argument fails – but unfortunately we’ll never really know. One thing we do know, the SH always comes second to the NH in atmosphere and fanaticism on the big occasions. No one parties the big games like the NH.
Julian Manieson
Roar Rookie
It was his first start there but he came on as a sub at 10 against the All Blacks in 1997
Birthday Suit
Roar Rookie
I apologise ChrisT, you definitely were responding to a comment above. I was on my phone and the formatting was a bit weird so I somehow missed it. Regardless, my dads side of the family is English and I watch a fair bit of NH rugby when I can't get enough SH rugby for my fix. I personally disagree with the premise of this article - I find SH rugby to be much more entertaining, but that is subjective. What I think I can argue much more easily is that the quality of players in Super Rugby dwarfs that of anywhere else in the world. Apart from being made up of the best three countries in world rugby, when was the last time you saw a NH player past his prime being poached by a Super Rugby team?
El Gamba
Roar Guru
I'd suggest you'll fail at both miserably as well, best of luck though, it is very noble of you :) Toodle pip!
ChrisT
Guest
Oh no, now someone doesn't understand the difference between a finer point and the bleeding obvious. Ah well, time to give world peace and a cure for cancer a go instead, it's been riveting.
El Gamba
Roar Guru
Excellent point and I think it is about time someone: a. Highlighted the finer points of forum etiquette and thread usage; and b. used this as a way to attack the point made by someone else rather than address their statement. My personal concern with Brian, and I hope that he addresses this in an appropriate thread response rather than his outlandish attempt above, is that he did not include the Force in his list of teams to "pump the best NH teams". Do you you perhaps feel that they would only win comfortably Brian?
Firstxv
Guest
Agree, you just have to look at the International sides the two comps feed into. The sxv provides 100% of the top 3 ranked sides (bar a handful of offshore boks) the premiership supplies what?..whoever they supply, they're not top 3. Sure its only 5 teams, but thats all it takes to create the top 3 sides. In lieu of any direct comparison, ie a cross tournament, that evidence is compelling.
ChrisT
Guest
Brian, my comment is completely relevant to the comment I'm replying to. It seems you don't comprehend how threads work in forums. With powers of perception like this, why would anyone presume you have any insight to something as demanding as proper rugby. Trust me, stick to Super Rugby.
Pete
Guest
Here are some stats from a study for all the internantional goalkickers from 2002-2011. Not surprisingly Morne Steyn was rated no 1 in the world. http://www.allblacks.com/News/24300/wellington-otago-dan-and-goal-kicking-study-completed-by-nzr
Brian
Guest
Mate your argument is fairly irrelevant to the article, but either way there is absolutely no question in any reasonable rugby fans mind that Super Rugby is the premier club competition in the world. Unfortunately neither I, or anyone else, is just going to 'trust you'. The Tahs, Sharks, Crusaders, Brumbies and Chiefs would be favorites to absolutely pump the best NH club teams. In fact the top NH teams would probably struggle against even the bottom Super Rugby teams.
Pete
Guest
2011 World Cup - WIlkinson kicked at 50% (10 out of 20) - not the best ever. 20 shots at goal is a big enough sample size to measure. Here are the stats here: Player Team Percentage Waisea Luveniyali Fiji 100% (1/1) Murray Williams Japan 100% (1/1) Stephen Donald New Zealand 100% (1/1) Florin Vlaicu Romania 100% (1/1) Ruan Pienaar South Africa 100% (6/6) Ruaridh Jackson Scotland 100% (1/1) Seremaia Bai Fiji 90% (9/10) Morné Steyn South Africa 87% (21/24) Stephen Jones Wales 86% (13/15) Morgan Parra France 85% (12/14) Ronan O'Gara Ireland 85% (18/21) James Arlidge Japan 81% (9/11) Berrick Barnes Australia 80% (4/5) Tusi Pisi Samoa 73% (8/11) James O'Connor Australia 71% (20/28) Toby Flood England 71% (10/14) Dimitri Yachvili France 68% (15/22) Kurt Morath Tonga 68% (17/25) Rhys Priestland Wales 68% (13/19) Dan Carter New Zealand 67% (8/12) Marcelo Bosch Argentina 66% (2/3) Malkhaz Urjukashvili Georgia 66% (2/3) Paul Williams Samoa 66% (6/9) Piri Weepu New Zealand 65% (15/23) Mirco Bergamasco Italy 63% (7/11) James Pritchard Canada 62% (8/13) Konstantin Rachkov Russia 62% (5/8) Dan Parks Scotland 62% (5/8) Chris Paterson Scotland 62% (8/13) Chris Wyles United States 62% (5/8) Merab Kvirikashvili Georgia 59% (10/17) Colin Slade New Zealand 58% (14/24) Riccardo Bocchino Italy 57% (4/7) Ionut Dimofte Romania 57% (4/7) James Hook Wales 53% (8/15) Felipe Contepomi Argentina 50% (8/16) Martín Rodríguez Argentina 50% (8/16) Quade Cooper Australia 50% (4/8) Jonny Wilkinson England 50% (10/20) François Trinh-Duc France 50% (1/2) Theuns Kotzé Namibia 50% (4/8) Aaron Cruden New Zealand 50% (1/2) François Steyn South Africa 50% (2/4) Valenese Malifa United States 50% (1/2) James Paterson United States 50% (1/2) Jonathan Sexton Ireland 44% (7/16) Ander Monro Canada 40% (2/5) Danut Dumbrava Romania 38% (5/13) Leigh Halfpenny Wales 33% (1/3) Shaun Webb Japan 25% (1/4) Yuri Kushnarev Russia 20% (1/5)