Controversial rugby opinions

[Saintjay]

Ok, i do see some trends.
I have to assume the ones dismissing Carter are trolling.

For those who consider Dupont the goat, i have to ask: how would you rate the likes of du Preez (another sh) or Bauden Barrett (non-sh)?
I always got the feeling that those two are massively underrated by NHers (and very well rounded!). Particularly du Preez. Kinda weird to present a two-time player of the year winner as someone underrated, but i do believe that to be the case. I dont think he gets the credit he deserves.

As a fully paid up member of the forwards union. I think Carter would have been a rubbish prop.

All joking aside the whole Goat things nonsense. Rugby is dominated by technique / task specific positions. The only reasonable solution is Goat by position in my view

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Rugby should have stayed shamateur.

Clubs didn't go bust, players drank beer and aftershave, no-one had heard of a TMO or Private Equity, more space as players were either big or fast but not both and there were hardly any subs, subscription TV wouldn't have been interested, the ball was put in straight(ish) to scrums and the fights were better.

(Actually this should be in the non-Controversial thread).

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

As a fully paid up member of the forwards union. I think Carter would have been a rubbish prop.

All joking aside the whole Goat things nonsense. Rugby is dominated by technique / task specific positions. The only reasonable solution is Goat by position in my view

I understand that different positions require different skill sets and that many are hard, if not impossible to compare. We can however, see some indications of where the priorities lie when the people who make the decisions have to pick: most clubs spend more on their fy's than they spend on other positions. This is across the board: nation, club, province, Europe, RSA, NZ, AUS, Arg, Japan, etc. Some exceptions here and there, but the trend is clear.
It's by no means exclusive to rugby. It happens in most team sports.
With that in mind, it would expect some positions to have a serious advantage over others when it comes to finding the 'best'. It's not a perfect parameter, course, but you'd expect some broadly defined rule of thumb. Of sorts.

This is actually interesting given we're talking a lot about dupont: if i recall correctly SH's where the lowest paid position in the premier las season.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Which is why DuPont stands out, it's a position that is pretty much run to ruck and then pass or box kick. He had a much more complete game than that.

and I don't think salary is a good way to judge a player as that's not how the economics of wages really work. Fly half is a top heavy position so you need to pay more for a quality one as the drop off between the one you have and their replacement is large. Whereas in other positions you can usually get 90% of the production for about 50% of the cost. The tight salary cap further forces you to focus money on players in top heavy positions.

 

[Weldit]

Rugby should have stayed shamateur.

Clubs didn't go bust, players drank beer and aftershave, no-one had heard of a TMO or Private Equity, more space as players were either big or fast but not both and there were hardly any subs, subscription TV wouldn't have been interested, the ball was put in straight(ish) to scrums and the fights were better.

(Actually this should be in the non-Controversial thread).

It still kind of is, but it likes to pretend it's not. The pretending part is really starting to hurt them though.

 

[ncurd]

Which is why DuPont stands out, it's a position that is pretty much run to ruck and then pass or box kick. He had a much more complete game than that.

DuPont has the quality of world class fly-half (distribution, decision making), whilst also being that as a scrum-half at the base of a ruck. That's why he stands, he's not just a quick clean scrummie with occasional dart.

As noted he also does some of skill sets of a forward as well not the same quality as his fly-half skillset but still.

 

[Derpus]

Rugby should have stayed shamateur.

Clubs didn't go bust, players drank beer and aftershave, no-one had heard of a TMO or Private Equity, more space as players were either big or fast but not both and there were hardly any subs, subscription TV wouldn't have been interested, the ball was put in straight(ish) to scrums and the fights were better.

(Actually this should be in the non-Controversial thread).

Also a greater variety of players and playstyles as a result.

 

[BrokenWing]

DuPont has the quality of world class fly-half (distribution, decision making), whilst also being that as a scrum-half at the base of a ruck. That's why he stands, he's not just a quick clean scrummie with occasional dart.

As noted he also does some of skill sets of a forward as well not the same quality as his fly-half skillset but still.

Eggchasers have made the observation that in France, the playmaker tends to be the scrum half rather than fly half and that if Dupont was English, he'd probably wear 10. Which he indeed has and didn't look out of place. I don't watch enough French rugby to concur that this is across the board mind you.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Eggchasers have made the observation that in France, the playmaker tends to be the scrum half rather than fly half and that if Dupont was English, he'd probably wear 10. Which he indeed has and didn't look out of place. I don't watch enough French rugby to concur that this is across the board mind you.

He started off at flyhalf then they moved ntimack into starting lineup.

Champions Cup - Match report Leinster vs Toulouse, le 21/04/2019

Match report Leinster - Toulouse : lineups, points, stats...

all.rugby

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

On Dupont all you can say is he's the best scrum half of his era. He's redefined the position to an extent, but in an era when players are routinely expected to go beyond the traditional. Comparisons with other eras and positions are fun, but impossible.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

GOAT debates in general make consuming sports less fun imo. Always just lead to whining and fanboying and people get way too ******* emotional.

That's my controversial opinion. Just have fun, sit back, and enjoy the game.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Which is why DuPont stands out, it's a position that is pretty much run to ruck and then pass or box kick. He had a much more complete game than that.

That is true, but that ain't my point. My point is that although he has a lot more to offer than run to the ruck and then pass or box kick, so did others.
Some here make it sound as if the likes of Gareth Edwards, du Preez or Gregan could just run, pick up the ball from a ruck and pass it on to a scrum half. They are making specific statements about him being a great defender while not even mentioning Joost vdW? 'Runs like a winger'. I'd bet the house he is not faster than du Preez at his prime.
All of this sounds weird to me, that's all.

And I don't think salary is a good way to judge a player as that's not how the economics of wages really work. Fly half is a top heavy position so you need to pay more for a quality one as the drop off between the one you have and their replacement is large. Whereas in other positions you can usually get 90% of the production for about 50% of the cost. The tight salary cap further forces you to focus money on players in top heavy positions.

I disagree with you (rare!) and if you dont mind my boldness, have you watched moneyball? That is how sports teams work. That and selling t-shirts, commercials, media exposure, brand blablabla, etc.
For the lack of a better phrase, teams tend to spend money on players that grant them a better point difference (players that increase your chances of scoring points and/or reduce the chances of the opposition from scoring points against them). Whether those points come from SH's, flankers, scrums, mauls or set plays is anecdotal at best. In rugby these things are quite hard to estimate as it is crystal clear who puts the ball on the ingoal or kicks the ball over the posts, but it is not always that transparent who created the opportunity for that to happen.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

yes I have read and watched moneyball.

Teams spend money on players in the same way that all goods and services are priced. Based off of supply and demand. There is a shorter supply of quality fly halves means the price is higher than other positions but that doesn't mean that the fly half is more important than other positions.

Moneyball boiled down to two things: 1. those with less resources need to look for market inefficiencies and 2. baseball focused on the wrong thing when it came to evaluating talent.

The rest is just my theory on rugby.

Rugby and the sports like it (soccer, hockey, basketball kind of) are way too chaotic to boil down to numbers, which makes talent evaluation very hard. I do think that people tend to over credit fly halves cause they often are the ones kicking for posts and making a pass. Loose forwards (and the best locks, a good lock pairing is key . . . okay and some centers) are the ones that win penalties and prevent your team from winning penalties. They slow down the opponents ball and guarantee you quick ball. They allow your scrum half to breathe and they make the other team's half back pairing absolute hell. They determine if you are on back foot or front foot. The part of the game that I shard to quantify is played by the loose forwards.


Anyway, I get people love fly halves (I mean dan biggar is my favorite player) I just think they are overvalued.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I find GOAT debates a bit pointless, too many other variables to ever do a fair like for like comparison except for 2 players in the same team at the same time with the same opportunities. Dupont has come in at a time when the French have had a massive resurgence. Had he been around 10 years ago, would we have instead been talking about him more like Parisse?

I think the thing that can be said is he has no glaring weaknesses and a lot of strengths. He would walk into any side in the world IMO.

 

[Ddanno]

I just feel privileged to watch him play, and that takes nothing away from anyone else mentioned in here

 

[BPM]

yes I have read and watched moneyball.

Teams spend money on players in the same way that all goods and services are priced. Based off of supply and demand. There is a shorter supply of quality fly halves means the price is higher than other positions but that doesn't mean that the fly half is more important than other positions.

Moneyball boiled down to two things: 1. those with less resources need to look for market inefficiencies and 2. baseball focused on the wrong thing when it came to evaluating talent.

The rest is just my theory on rugby.

Rugby and the sports like it (soccer, hockey, basketball kind of) are way too chaotic to boil down to numbers, which makes talent evaluation very hard. I do think that people tend to over credit fly halves cause they often are the ones kicking for posts and making a pass. Loose forwards (and the best locks, a good lock pairing is key . . . okay and some centers) are the ones that win penalties and prevent your team from winning penalties. They slow down the opponents ball and guarantee you quick ball. They allow your scrum half to breathe and they make the other team's half back pairing absolute hell. They determine if you are on back foot or front foot. The part of the game that I shard to quantify is played by the loose forwards.


Anyway, I get people love fly halves (I mean dan biggar is my favorite player) I just think they are overvalued.

Some interesting bits in here.

Rugby is a complex game with so many different factors and variables. I think it's a lot harder to quantify than something like baseball, which has a lot more individual stats (it might be a team sport but when a player steps up to bat, or pitch, he's on his own).

I'm not proclaiming Dupont as the greatest of all time. However, I do think he is the single most influential player in world rugby right now and is probably the best player I've personally watched in 35 or so years of watching rugby.

He's still only 28 and he maintains his level of performance for the next 3 or 4 years, he'd have to be in the conversation. Even more so if he can win a RWC.

My initial challenge to @Cruz_del_Sur was on the 'ludicrous' comment, not whether Dupont is currently the GOAT.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Half backs get their hands on the ball more than anyone else so it's 'easier' to look good and obviously influence the game.

Dupont's brilliant. But in terms of all time Goatness, he's nowhere near McCaw who was consistently brilliant over 90 more matches than Dupont has racked up and was a double RWC winning captain. Dupont's so far got 60 ish caps - McCaw skippered 110 of his. Different era, different positions, but you can't speak of them in the same breath, at least not yet.

 

[Which Tyler]

He's still only 28 and he maintains his level of performance for the next 3 or 4 years, he'd have to be in the conversation. Even more so if he can win a RWC.

My initial challenge to @Cruz_del_Sur was on the 'ludicrous' comment, not whether Dupont is currently the GOAT.

That's more-or-less where I am.
He's earned the right to be in the conversation. But then, that's all it ever is - a conversation.
There's never going to be an actual answer to GOAT - hell, we can't even get an answer for tennis, which is 1 on 1, with really convincing arguments based on stats, and 3 of the main contenders with overlapping careers.
GOAT is about so much more than stats anyway - it's about greatness, not "most winningest" or "best stats" - which makes it entirely subjective at the end of the day

Dupont's brilliant. But in terms of all time Goatness, he's nowhere near McCaw who was consistently brilliant over 90 more matches than Dupont has racked up and was a double RWC winning captain. Dupont's so far got 60 ish caps - McCaw skippered 110 of his. Different era, different positions, but you can't speak of them in the same breath, at least not yet.

Except that you obviously can, because people do, and it's entirely subjective.
Objective measures like caps, caps as captain, wins, points scored etc etc can inform the conversation, but they can never rule it.
In a conversation about subjective opinions, people can disagree in good faith, and consider contenders that you or I would think silly.

Didn't we have this conversation about GOATs a few years ago? in specific sports and across all sports?
Ultimately, different people have different opinions, and that's okay.
Even on the internet.

 

[Ddanno]

Even on the internet.

 

[Saintjay]

Meet Shenkin. Rugby's greatest Goat. For all your caps, stats and points you'll never be the GOAT. Debate over!!!