I honestly can't see why you'd call his committment into question - I'd be interested to see his stats from yesterday.

On your final point you may well be right, and I think that's a debate that can and should be had when his contract is finishing.

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.

We will always be welcomed at Craven Park with open arms.

I really wanted you lot to win and much as I know you don't want to hear it. Wigan just played the better rugby. It wasn't about any one player.

But if you don't want JW any more send him home

It's very easy to be a Luxury player in a Team of World Class players at their Peak.
As Saints have stood still (not sure if i've worded that right but Basically losing Scully and then Long/KFC/Wellens/Gidley getting older and not being the Dominant team in the Comp) then Wilkin has gone Backwards because he isn't the type of player that makes a Team Play well, He's a player that plays well on the back of a Team Playing well.
Not so easy to be a Good un when you aren't playing with the same quality week in week out.

My opinion (FWIW) ask JLM23 (A saints fan who posts on here) and He will tell you that he's never been more than Good SL player who looks ok when things are going well but doesn't mix it when the going gets tough.
I can see, with your half backs being out, why he is getting in but would be no more than Bench player for me and surely Clough would be a better "Starter" for the team?

I cannot tell you enough How close to the Mark you are with that Statement!
Well observed!

At the end of the day Wilkin was playing a role thats not his primary one, he isn't a half but can fill in on occasion.

He was poor yesterday especially defensively but was far from the worst Saints player on the pitch and if anyone had a shocker who was connected to Saints it was Mick Potter

He was named at 6 but he didnt play there. He played in the back row mainly and he was still poor.

TBF, he's never played for hull. Although they were gutted he chose Saints instead of their own club when we were in NF1.

Saying that, like many Rovers fans would love to see him back at Craven Park.

For rugby related reasons !!!

I spoke to a few Saints fans when I was working over in the area a while back and they all seem to say he was not liked much for 'non rugby' related behaviour.

It mostly comes from nostalgia in my opinion, while I disagree that he is a 'rubbish' RL player as defined on here, he is not better than what we have at the moment. When we lose Galea at the end of 2011, I am hoping we can bring a kid through from the 21's (like taylor), rather than pay over the odds for someone like Wilkins, even though he could count as club trained as he came through our academy.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.