Best textbook overall team ?

[Big Ewis]

hey guys.
Here's the thing:
rugby is a ridiculously demanding sport in terms of building a truly excellent textbook team, what with the number of positions it requires, all the different kinds of bodies, builds and skill...

What I mean is, I find it pretty surprising that an international side could show up with an entire XV (plus replacements) of pro quality.
You need pro props, a true hooker, a pair of solid locks, flankers etc...all the way to your fullback. Each with a very specific required build+ skills.

Out of your own knowledge, what international side in particular would you say has had the best textbook structure ?
Dominant scrum, excellent forward work overall, excellent backs and playmaking, excellent kickers, excellent wingers...etc...

Because in retrospect, good sides usually excel in one or two of those categories but never really all...

Which side would you say sticks to that description the best ?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

The All Blacks.

 

[Feicarsinn]

I don't even....

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Rothmans Rugby Union Annual!

 

[Big Ewis]

okay...great...sarcasm. Very nice...

Anybody got something constructive to say here ?! Obviously I'm talking about a specific int'l side from a specific year or interval of years.
What side...had...the best...blehr.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

England 2002/3 - Holla!



Though I am actually being relatively serious as they were pretty superb in every aspect.

 

[nickdnz]

1996-1997 and 2005-2006 All Blacks. Difficult to pick an area in either team where they weren't the best.

 

[Big Ewis]

^ yeah I was waiting for that one !!

You'll get mad for sure, but though that England team was fantastic it still was more centered around the set-piece+kicker Wilko. Sure Robinson was awesome in the backs, and some mention Lewsey...
but I like the 2007 era Boks over that team. I think besides a killer setpiece, there's Habana in his prime (player of the year in fact), Montgomery kicking and other excellent backs...I think they looked more fundamentally close to my original description of the perfect textbook team.
I may be wrong man, but I've seen quite some games from both teams and those Boks man...
like, at this point I'm not even saying one would beat the other or vice versa, from a purely logical standpoint in theory one team could be closer to textbook perfect but still lose 3 tests in a row to another which has perfected like 2 or 3 aspects only...
But in terms of every position filled adequately, it seems those Boks were more fundamentally sound. Of course, they've come a long way since !!...

 

[nickdnz]

2007 era Boks over that team. I think besides a killer setpiece, there's Habana in his prime (player of the year in fact), Montgomery kicking and other excellent backs...I think they looked more fundamentally close to my original description of the perfect textbook team.
I may be wrong man, but I've seen quite some games from both teams and those Boks man...
like, at this point I'm not even saying one would beat the other or vice versa, from a purely logical standpoint in theory one team could be closer to textbook perfect but still lose 3 tests in a row to another which has perfected like 2 or 3 aspects only...
But in terms of every position filled adequately, it seems those Boks were more fundamentally sound. Of course, they've come a long way since !!...

I dispute South Africa of 2007 as a textbook team. For a start - Butch James was starting Fly Half and the loose forwards were hardly well balanced (Dannie Rossouw at #8 with Wickus van Heerden the replacement...) I actually thought the 2009 Springbok team was considerably better - they dominated the game even if they didn't play a balanced game.

The 2003 England side was actually a pretty well ballanced team. There wasn't a position they didn't have a talented player in - although I agree they didn't use it as well as they could have. Ben Cohen, Josh Lewsey and Jason Robinson were all very good wingers - Ian Balshaw and Dan Luger weren't remarkable admittedly - but they also had guys like James Simpson-Daniel who didn't get a look in the 2003 team. In fact - of the starting line up the only players who I don't think were especially great were Ben Kay and Mike Tindall (who fitted the game plan well). But I think you're right in that they didn't play the most expansive game and the other teams were all pretty avaerage (which to be fair, is the same thing for this AB team now).

 

[racingmetrofan]

France has a textbook team in them and a full strength 2011 NZ team had everything!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Did someone say England were a 10man team?

 

[Big Ewis]

I dispute South Africa of 2007 as a textbook team. For a start - Butch James was starting Fly Half and the loose forwards were hardly well balanced (Dannie Rossouw at #8 with Wickus van Heerden the replacement...) I actually thought the 2009 Springbok team was considerably better - they dominated the game even if they didn't play a balanced game.

The 2003 England side was actually a pretty well ballanced team. There wasn't a position they didn't have a talented player in - although I agree they didn't use it as well as they could have. Ben Cohen, Josh Lewsey and Jason Robinson were all very good wingers - Ian Balshaw and Dan Luger weren't remarkable admittedly - but they also had guys like James Simpson-Daniel who didn't get a look in the 2003 team. In fact - of the starting line up the only players who I don't think were especially great were Ben Kay and Mike Tindall (who fitted the game plan well). But I think you're right in that they didn't play the most expansive game and the other teams were all pretty avaerage (which to be fair, is the same thing for this AB team now).

Yes well I really meant "around 2007". Wasn't it 2009 that they hosted the Lions ? I remember those scrums !! But in 2007 specifically, the way they put 50 on England twice was just pure textbook execution...very balanced team. A big motor in front, and then rain pouring from all cylinders with the wingers and backs...plus some excellent kicking. They really did seem to have an excellent guy at each position; rather than just a good team with a good game plan overall, just generally...
Yeah England 2003 was great, but if you watch games like when they won in NZ like 13-15 I think in June that year, it's all excellent defense, a monster scrum, and WILKO...they didn't get a single try. That year in Twickenham against France, 6N, not impressive at all. They never looked threatening with their backs n wingers, and I think we get 3 tries to 1 that match. Even in the scrum they didn't dominate. Now I know they crushed us twice during that 2001-03 span, putting 40 on us...but just, overall, they definitely looked a lot more one-dimensional than other teams I've seen (circa 2005 AB's, 2007-09 Boks...and even France in patches has looked very deep and fundamentally sound at every position, on paper).

France has a textbook team in them and a full strength 2011 NZ team had everything!

* Yeah...I think France is a funny example. We do have very solid front rows individually and then excellent scrum halves, wingers etc...til fullback.

In fact it raises the question: despite obvious achievements throughout the years n decades (already 9 Grand Slams despite playing 30 less tournaments, already 3 RWC Finals appearances, very solid records against top teams...), have we under-achieved perhaps in a way, having such teams on paper ??...tough question. EVERYONE but french ppl will immediately jump on the occasion like starving piranhas on a 10kg sirloin steak and say "YESSSS !!! ABSOLUTELY !!!", but it's all really in a very meticulous notion of attentively weighing just how good the sides have been...but anyways, off-topic...

* Yes, individually at every position the RWC 2011 NZ team was...flawless ? mmmmm...well maybe the kickers...Weepu was fantastic all the way til the final but then (as we all know) choked during the final...they may have had a better boot-man......

 

[TRF_Olyy]

You didn't mention anything about tactics/how matches were.

Fact of the matter is England did have the set piece, did have the forwards and did have the backs.
You could cherry pick matches for any side in the world and say what you've said about them.

 

[McTallshort]

Interesting someone saying Ben Kay wasnt very good, thought he was an excellent 2nd row although his best world cup was in 2007 when he was arguably Englands best forward in what was a very good pack.

i did like the welsh 2005 GS team, they had all the flair you would expect but had some real dog too particuly against England and Italy. Their second half comeback against France was breath taking so I would say they had everything.

 

[Big Ewis]

You didn't mention anything about tactics/how matches were.

Fact of the matter is England did have the set piece, did have the forwards and did have the backs.
You could cherry pick matches for any side in the world and say what you've said about them.

Don't worry man, I'm not playing this game: i.e. trying to diminish the greatness of that England squad, it's just as you put it - "the fact of the matter is" I've seen other sides that look closer to my original description.
Of course I'm not saying England was just a scrum.....they also had Wilko kicking !

Nah England was fantastic...I'm too afraid to watch that match where England puts like 48 on France !!!!...I should gather the courage soon...
but from the matches I've seen that year, I should honestly say with no remorse or dishonest intention that it's really, on the bigger picture, fantastic defense+forwards+Wilko AND yes some good backs, but not like some AB's sides or that Boks era...or even other teams.

England was consistent enough to actually get everything done (beat European teams by superb margins, go undefeated against the South, win the RWC, 6N Grand Slam) which is huge, but I certainly wouldn't use them as the paradigm of the perfect textbook team in every single aspect, every single position.

 

[Peat]

2003 was not that England team's peak. 2003 was them grinding out the fitting denouement using any means necessary.

Some of the rugby produced in the preceding years - and at times in that year - show that all the talk of ten man rugby doesn't reflect the true story. An excellent creative force at 12 in Greenwood, two outstanding and varying strike runners on the wing... yeah. Time for my favourite video again I think! Highlights don't prove everything, but there's some beautiful pieces of back play here.