: Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:22 pm  

Wilkin is a good solid player who can cover a number of positions well. If we are at the point of slating him we must be truely lucky to be watching this side. He would walk into almost every other team.
I do however expect him to leave us when he has done 10+ yrs and captain Hull KR who he happily admits he has supported since he was a nipper

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:04 am  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

It was always going to be a choice for him IMO, he had the potential to be a decent stand off or a decent pack man, Saints have turned him into a pack man and concentrated their efforts accordingly. However he suffers from a similar problem to Sinfield IMO, he's not really big enough to be a great loose forward, nor is he fast or skilful enough to be a great stand off.

I thought about this comparason yesterday which leads me to ask the question: 'If you took away Sinfields goal kicking, which of the two would you want in your team?' One who isn't afraid to pick up the ball and run it or one who is rarely seen taking a tackle in his own 20?

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:17 am  

Stirlingshire Saint wrote:

I'm not convinced by your assertions that Wilkin 'hits hard'. Based on what evidence? Through my own eyes I have seen him make many tackles and I dont recall seeing him make a huge hit, definitely not consistently.

I remember a game against Hudds at home. Every time Skandelis (the Giants' main forward) got the ball, Wilkin immediaty hammered him. Becuase of that, the Giants failed to get any sort of momentum from the off and we dominated the game.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:20 am  

wellensisno1 wrote:

I thought about this comparason yesterday which leads me to ask the question: 'If you took away Sinfields goal kicking, which of the two would you want in your team?' One who isn't afraid to pick up the ball and run it or one who is rarely seen taking a tackle in his own 20?

I'd take the Leeds man any day of the week.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:14 pm  

Agree with a number of things that have been said. Wilkin can become a lot better player and seems to be in a slump at the moment. I do not think anyone here is slating the guy we just think he has not yet reached his potential and we are all hoping that he is motivated enough to do so.

Maggenis, Ashurst and Dixon should provide some motivation for him.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:31 pm  

I am amazed at the so called 'potential' many seemed to think Wikin had in him. On what basis di dpeople think he was the next Scully?

His form was average when he first broke into the side, followed by a period of maturity in '06.

He always promised to be a very good club player and has largely delivered to this extent.

I realise that there are fans out there who seem to think the game revolves around some bruiser who smashes his way down the middle, but tha game is about more than that and that is why Wilkin is so important.

All this talk of bulk, winning a collision, and other such tripe should have died flat on it's booty with the case of Jamie Thackaray.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:40 pm  

eddiewaringsflatcap wrote:

I am amazed at the so called 'potential' many seemed to think Wikin had in him. On what basis di dpeople think he was the next Scully?

His form was average when he first broke into the side, followed by a period of maturity in '06.

He always promised to be a very good club player and has largely delivered to this extent.

I realise that there are fans out there who seem to think the game revolves around some bruiser who smashes his way down the middle, but tha game is about more than that and that is why Wilkin is so important.

All this talk of bulk, winning a collision, and other such tripe should have died flat on it's booty with the case of Jamie Thackaray.

Personally I'd say it was based on the fact that he had a very complete set of skills at a very young age - good hands, good defender, could kick and was athletic. He played a fair bit of stand off in the reserves and I think a few of us, myself included, thought he would develop into a matchwinner perhaps not quite in the same class as but in the same mould as Scully.

Unfortunately the more subtle elements of his game haven't developed as he seems to have concentrated on the more industrial side. I think he's a very good player, just not quite the player he could have been if he had gone down a different path earlier in his career.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:44 pm  

Dux wrote:

Personally I'd say it was based on the fact that he had a very complete set of skills at a very young age - good hands, good defender, could kick and was athletic. He played a fair bit of stand off in the reserves and I think a few of us, myself included, thought he would develop into a matchwinner perhaps not quite in the same class as but in the same mould as Scully.

Unfortunately the more subtle elements of his game haven't developed as he seems to have concentrated on the more industrial side. I think he's a very good player, just not quite the player he could have been if he had gone down a different path earlier in his career.

Thanks for the insight.

Do people actually remember Scully was already looking the dogs do-dahs in the Warrington team at 17, though? The same with Judas at the same age when he was at Saints, and again with Cunningham who began to look a star form 18 in a struglging outfit (circa 93/94).

You could tell they were a cut above.

It was a world of difference toa youngster carving his way in reserve rugby. OK you can point to late starters like Long, but generally you can tell who the 'real deals' will be as opposed to very good club players.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:24 pm  

eddiewaringsflatcap wrote:

Thanks for the insight.

Do people actually remember Scully was already looking the dogs do-dahs in the Warrington team at 17, though? The same with Judas at the same age when he was at Saints, and again with Cunningham who began to look a star form 18 in a struglging outfit (circa 93/94).

You could tell they were a cut above.

It was a world of difference toa youngster carving his way in reserve rugby. OK you can point to late starters like Long, but generally you can tell who the 'real deals' will be as opposed to very good club players.

Is it not harder for youngsters these days though, with the extra conditioning that the senior players have?

Also, those players were all very physically strong individuals.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:47 pm  

Stirlingshire Saint wrote:

I never said he was rubbish once. I don't happen to think he is anywhere near the player some supporters seem to think. In terms of replacing him,I wouldn't because British RL has such a dearth of quality that the only alternative is a foreigner which helps nobody.

Offensively he offers barely anything. Maybe the odd decent kick and the odd pass but these are nothing like consistent aspects to his game. He doesn't make millions of yards and to be perfectly honest, I am not going to get chuffed over some decent angled dummy runs, these are areas of the game where they could shove anybody there and tell them to run in a certain way.

Defensively he obviously makes more tackles than it appears however how many of these are third man in tackles ? How often does he make an impact and win the collision in defence ? I would suggest it isn't very often.

These are all opinions and everyone is entitled to theirs. Wilkin for me needs to buck up big time.

Complete waffle

You can't have team full of highly noticeable impact players and never will under the system of a salry cap.

Wilkin is a great player for us. Very solid and dependable. He compared well with other 13s in SL so what more do you want?