Are the 2013 All-Blacks the best team of all time. Question mark.

[Big Ewis]

This is almost impossible to measure, you can't compare amateurs to professionals therefore it's impossible to know. I think we will know more this season coming, I don't see them losing anytime soon.

I do believe we can compare both eras for sure, but that's another debate.
And about the part in bold: England hasn't won a game there since the glory 2003 days with Wilko securing victory on a windy windy day that changed nothing to his deadeye precision...but who knows, they'll get 3 attempts. And Ireland took them *that* close at home, with a struggling France a hand-in-scum too many from perhaps drawing, and England squad that came all the way back to claim the lead late in the game...

NZ weren't nearly unbeatable. Many teams knew they could beat them. But they still managed to secure the win each one of those 14 matches in 2013...again, huge props to them.

 

[Toby Sweeney]

I do believe we can compare both eras for sure, but that's another debate.
And about the part in bold: England hasn't won a game there since the glory 2003 days with Wilko securing victory on a windy windy day that changed nothing to his deadeye precision...but who knows, they'll get 3 attempts. And Ireland took them *that* close at home, with a struggling France a hand-in-scum too many from perhaps drawing, and England squad that came all the way back to claim the lead late in the game...

NZ weren't nearly unbeatable. Many teams knew they could beat them. But they still managed to secure the win each one of those 14 matches in 2013...again, huge props to them.

England don't have a good enough back line to beat them, Ireland had a very good start which would be key, just don't think England are ready yet to beat them, you never know come 2015 what they'll be like though. In 2003 new zealand had an inferior team to what they have now so it would take a far bigger effort.

 

[Big Ewis]

England don't have a good enough back line to beat them, Ireland had a very good start which would be key, just don't think England are ready yet to beat them, you never know come 2015 what they'll be like though. In 2003 new zealand had an inferior team to what they have now so it would take a far bigger effort.

sure but interestingly (well not so much...) England didn't use their backline to win in NZ in June 2003...but anyways, we'll see when it happens. Yes NZ have a better team now that they did in 2003, and I'm just saying I wouldn't be blown away if England manage one win out of three attempts. France came *this* close in test 1 last summer, Picamoles catches that low bad pass and makes two steps all by himself scores the second try for France...and we weren't nearly an established, accomplished team at all as the world knows. England have enough consistency and a well established, simple gameplan at this point so I feel in 3 tests hard work and big forwards alone might get em one. They don't need to be creative. And their backs are playing muuuuch better this year than in all of 2013.

 

[SimonG]

The standard of the six nations is pretty diabolical. Scotland and Italy are non entities, France have never been worse, England don't have a single stand out player, and Ireland are a team a good five years past our best (and now with a pretty ordinary kicker). The only exception are Wales, although their pack is still a weakness.

On radio five live, Ronan 'O Gara (who now works in France) was speaking to Denis Hickie, and says he was astounded how poor the French league is. The flair and free flowing game has gone, it's now bish bash kick, and this is reflective in the national team.

As Shane Horgan stated, England won today by playing a basic, uninventive game (which meant few errors). The sport is going backwards fast.

The fall of the game in Australia is possibly the most alarming. Do they not give a tosh about the sport? I keep hearing of Rugby league hotbed of QLD and NSW, the AFL hotbed of Victoria and WA, and now football is taking a firm hold (I don't see 95,000 showing up at the MCG for any Union side, or a record breraking tv audience for any Wallabies test). From Eales, Gregan, Roff, Horan, Larkham, Burke, Smith, Finnegan..over 10 yrs ago, and before that Lynagh, Campese, Farr Jones and co...to what they have now.

The Lions that played Australia in 2001 had a prime; Martin Johnson, Keith Wood, Brian O'Driscoll, Jason Robinson, Jonny Wilkinson, Richard Hill....you could make an argument for all six being in the greatest XV in the pro era...and that team lost. An infinitely inferior Lions outfit last year just smashed Australia in a record breaking loss.

When Australia, France and England are a pale shadow of what they were, three of the five competitive teams in the sport, it means you face little or no opposition. While NZ can only beat whats put in front of them (and you have to applaud them for maintaining their high standards), the lack of quality teams in the sport is pretty shocking.

 

[Big Ewis]

Flair has most definitely left France as a whole, on a national level (Top 14) or international test level. No doubt. The French backs have enough athleticism to produce pretty Rugby though, but it's been coached out of the team as a whole, most certainly there's no point discussing this.
But that doesn't mean teams are no good, that they don't have flair anymore. It's just with the sort of game that's played these days, power alone brings so much to the table and is a tried and tested way to win. The free-flowing game from the olden days was magnificent, much prettier than what you see today, but defenses, again, have never been this tight.
The most attractive/popular players are power players, the list is enormous but just look around. Players have never been this huge. The average world class third rower is like 105 to 110 kg. A majority is taller than 190cm in that category.

The guy who's making the most noise Rugby has heard in a long time is Sam Burgess. What does he do ? He smashes opponents with huge tackles and drives right into them to score tries. That says it all.

We're looking for versatile first rowers, even second rowers now. The more active they are on the field, the better. They're not just setpiece now. They carry, help out at the breakdown big time...it's a sport of pure strength.

And Australia may have had their worst year, but they're not "bad" either now. They got brutally outmuscled by the Boks twice and beaten by the record setting AB. The Lions are better now because all the British Isle teams are better, and world Rugby has leveled. The Wallabies aren't bad, look, they beat everybody in Europe and even England won illegally.

I bet you'd be surprised by how teams today would beat the older teams...man, wingers are picking up defenders on their backs, tackling 118kg no.8's into touch...guys are HUGE and defense has never been this tight.

One of the only teams that is objectively worse is France, but that's because we have the worst coach in Tier 1 Rugby. Our players aren't "a pale shadow of what" old French players were: we never had a Fofana at center. We never had a monster ball-carrier like Picamoles. Guitoune or Fickou are on their way to become world class backs.

 

[Mumbles119]

Flair has most definitely left France as a whole, on a national level (Top 14) or international test level. No doubt. The French backs have enough athleticism to produce pretty Rugby though, but it's been coached out of the team as a whole, most certainly there's no point discussing this.
But that doesn't mean teams are no good, that they don't have flair anymore. It's just with the sort of game that's played these days, power alone brings so much to the table and is a tried and tested way to win. The free-flowing game from the olden days was magnificent, much prettier than what you see today, but defenses, again, have never been this tight.
The most attractive/popular players are power players, the list is enormous but just look around. Players have never been this huge. The average world class third rower is like 105 to 110 kg. A majority is taller than 190cm in that category.

The guy who's making the most noise Rugby has heard in a long time is Sam Burgess. What does he do ? He smashes opponents with huge tackles and drives right into them to score tries. That says it all.

We're looking for versatile first rowers, even second rowers now. The more active they are on the field, the better. They're not just setpiece now. They carry, help out at the breakdown big time...it's a sport of pure strength.

And Australia may have had their worst year, but they're not "bad" either now. They got brutally outmuscled by the Boks twice and beaten by the record setting AB. The Lions are better now because all the British Isle teams are better, and world Rugby has leveled. The Wallabies aren't bad, look, they beat everybody in Europe and even England won illegally.

I bet you'd be surprised by how teams today would beat the older teams...man, wingers are picking up defenders on their backs, tackling 118kg no.8's into touch...guys are HUGE and defense has never been this tight.

One of the only teams that is objectively worse is France, but that's because we have the worst coach in Tier 1 Rugby. Our players aren't "a pale shadow of what" old French players were: we never had a Fofana at center. We never had a monster ball-carrier like Picamoles. Guitoune or Fickou are on their way to become world class backs.

Maybe a 'weights class' system a la boxing could be brought into use.

Keeping weights at set levels to ensure the differing sizes and shapes across a rugby team seen now only at amateur level. This could mean more of an open game, with David vs Goliath moments. Not only Goliath vs Goliath.

Additionally, my personal ideals align to the original idea of rugby being Union and open to all, of all shapes and sizes. I think it is essential to ensure this important tradition and ideal of Rugby Union is maintained and helps makes our game what it is, and why it stands out from others sports too.

 

[SimonG]

So in other words...any skill the game did have has gone out the window, now it's whoever can down the most protein shakes gets the gig. Knew this anyway, and it's this that has lowered the standard of the sport. When it becomes less about talent and more about brute size, it's a game now for neanderthals.

The NH has never been this bad (well in my lifetime anyway). England haven't been good for a full decade and look no closer to becoming good. Can anyone name one stand out quality player?. Have a go..there aint one. The backline is pitiful. Regards France, I have sympathy for Saint-André as he is having to work without the tools. The flair he embodied is gone from the French game, so the way France now play is alien to him. Sacking him would be pointless. The next fella will have the same problem. Shane Horgan (although himself a bit of a brute) lamented the style of play now on show.

 

[Mumbles119]

So in other words...any skill the game did have has gone out the window, now it's whoever can down the most protein shakes gets the gig. Knew this anyway, and it's this that has lowered the standard of the sport. When it becomes less about talent and more about brute size, it's a game now for neanderthals.

The NH has never been this bad (well in my lifetime anyway). England haven't been good for a full decade and look no closer to becoming good. Can anyone name one stand out quality player?. Have a go..there aint one. The backline is pitiful. Regards France, I have sympathy for Saint-André as he is having to work without the tools. The flair he embodied is gone from the French game, so the way France now play is alien to him. Sacking him would be pointless. The next fella will have the same problem. Shane Horgan (although himself a bit of a brute) lamented the style of play now on show.

I don't agree with how strongly you make the case of there only being poor rugby and poor players. I understand why you are saying this though.

My view is there still is space and time in professional rugby matches for skill and talent to be shown or be the factor that makes the difference for a score.

However, the margins of this available time and space can be tiny, especially in the most competitive games at international standard. Which, as a rugby purist, I feel can actually make the games more tense and therefore more enjoyable. I.e the England v Ireland game yesterday.

But if these margins if space and time become too small, there might be danger to the game being watchable, enjoyable and even playable at the highest levels.

My idea about setting weight classes for players, was said as partly serious piece of musing. Not something needed now, but if force, size and strength (and MASS Ewis) took over completely, maybe something to consider in the future.

 

[SimonG]

I'm making the case strongly because of what's on view. The bulking up of players is to the detriment of the game. The thought of watching South Africa play regularly would make me want to scoop out my eyeballs. Pienaar is an obvious exception...a class act.

I wanna see skill, flair, creativity..the best aspects of sport. The weight class suggestion is very new to me, and it's something I'd be in favour of. At my school, the teams (football and rugby) were picked based on talent, not who has piled on the most pounds. Australia have quite a few flair players but they stand no chance in today's game of the brutes. France have seen this and have changed their game to the basic limited tripe that we now see from them (both domestic and international). Wales are the one team in the NH who are trying to play the game the way it should be.

 

[Big Ewis]

Mumbles your idea of distinct weight classes is something to study at least. Heavyweight boxers don't fight the lightweights do they...
but at the same time it's cool if you have some ***ans in the game, the only problem is when coaches/Rugby authorities start to understand it's all about power and strength, which they are more and more. As I keep saying, just look at the most popular centers, 2nd rowers or third rowers right now. Blindingly obvious. Even props are sought after for their work in the loose, two most popular looseheads right now: Beast and Healy. Muscle, power. Period.

In a perfect world, you have the All-Blacks vs the Springboks: ultra-technical, creative and flair-laden VS pure brute strength. The Blacks can withstand the ultra physical forward-driven teams like South Africa or England, but they're the only ones who can. All other teams will be subjected to a team like the Boks because of their enormous muscle collectively. Even Australia got destroyed by muscle and pure mass this year...twice, incl. at home. And they've got gorgeous Rugby in them. Power beats creativity 9/10 times, and unless you're ingenious with your attack AND can meet or at least somewhat contain power up front, you've lost.

My fear is that we enter an era where guys like Sam Burgess develop everywhere around the world, and it's just down to watching "sick" YouTube clips of how huge a tackle this or that guy made. If it ever came down to pure mass and muscle, to a consistent enough point in World Rugby, I'd likely stray away from the sport progressively altogether.

I'll always respect, in any field in life, the ones with creativity. In Rugby, I love watching the Wallabies for that, and the AB are unbelievable. So fluid, generous, aesthetically pleasing, gorgeous...and big hits are cool, and it's nice if a team has a couple of mastodons there, pure power is awesome too. But again, if it comes down to this, to the point where mass or pure power are at the core of the game, it's just stupid for me.
I don't mean to single out the Boks, but they're comically forward-based and the very paradigm of everything I've been describing. And in the backs, guys like JDV or Fourie are straight runners, they force their way over you and score the try. At that point, it's just a matter of who's stronger. Who's bigger. Eventually there's a bigger center who comes along, he'll run straight at those two and score the try himself...
Power doesn't need thinking, or variety.

I'll say this bit once again, then I gtg: Wenceslas Lauret said it last November himself before our last EOYT match: "the Boks will be 7kgs heavier per forward. We know how powerful they are in the rucks, and we'll contest a little bit to get a feel for them, but we don't want to waste energy, and if it's too overwhelming we'll just have to retreat to the defensive curtain and wait for their attack".


Lauret is excellent technically at the breakdown, and he's got monster biceps popping out, very strong guy:

But sure enough, the Boks had their way against us, and even though we secured our own rucks well, we couldn't interfere in theirs the whole match. That takes away an entire dimension of the game because your third row is fkn 95kg and 100kg, and theirs is 115 to 120kg. There you have it.

And it's always fascinating to me how some struggle with that thought, and I'm having fun on this forum with the whole Ewis and the MASS thing, and will continue to, but the argument is just clear as light of day. Is it a mystery or a coincidence why EVERY TEAM is getting MUCH BIGGER atm ? I ask the Einsteins of the world. A coincidence we're only looking for bulky guys atm, the most popular ones are 90% the cases the thick massive players ?

For the ppl who still want to exaggerate the content of this argument, yes of course there's the occasional Fofana at center, or Courtney Lawes at lock, or Hooper at flanker. Never said anything about those.

SimonG: I agree with a lot of what you're saying.

 

[nickdnz]

Not that I necessarly agree - but surely it would be easier to increase the size of pitches by an additional 10m in width - to create more space for smaller players while forcing bigger players to have to be fitter - than it would be to sort out rugby in terms of weight, which would spoil the game entirely..

 

[SimonG]

Not a bad suggestion. 15 players with the current field width means it's very crowded. Rugby 7s is a far more entertaining game (loved watching the Fijians). The goose step of Campese, the cuts of O'Driscoll, rampaging runs of Lomu, the game is lacking any of this. Perhaps it's Rugby purists who see things differently and like the "up the jumper" limited type of game on view now. The bigger brutes and bish bash kick has permeated the game in France to such an extant I no longer recognise the French. The off the cuff flair is no longer.

 

[Big Ewis]

yeah widening the field is one idea...it doesn't nearly solve the issue overall but it's got some sense to it.

 

[Icemn]

99-03

 

[Big Ewis]

99-03

yeah, that's gotta be the best AB side ever !..

 

[SimonG]

Guscott has been reading my posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26330558

 

[Big Ewis]

Guscott has been reading my posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26330558

interesting read. It's quite uncanny I was just expressing, just yesterday I think on this forum, how I'd like for the players to revolt a little à la Lievremont era against the order currently in place. I like when the author says: "Bonneval, Fofana or Huget can't be happy with the style France is playing". I'm sure the players must know very pertinently this isn't the right path.
Top 14 sides have the ability to score solid team tries, show good chemistry and continuity in their attack. Why, after months and months together, couldn't the French national side ? Gotta be the coach. Players are doing fine on their own playing hero-ball and saving France from another Spoon.