Jonny W vs Dan Carter

[munstermuffin]

Lads was at a talk tonight with Keith Wood, Tana Umaga and Donal Lenihan when an interesting topic came up. Who was the greatest 10 in world rugby at there peak. When it came down to answers these 2 it seemed were miles ahead of everyone. So I'd put question to ye.
Who was greatest 10 of all time at peak of powers?

 

[dasNdanger]

Gut reaction is to say Carter, because his 'peak' lasted longer. Jonny had a great run early on, but it was cut short by injury and other setbacks, and I just don't feel he really ever reached his full potential.

However, in his defense, I have to add that just before he started to have problems I lost my rugby coverage for a while, so I'm not sure what all he was able to accomplish during that time. But when I got my coverage back, Jonny was by then an afterthought, while Carter still seems to remain at or near the top of his game.


das

 

[nickdnz]

I think it's Carter by a landslide in my opinion.

 

[admartian]

At peak- has to be DC; for the simple reason that he has/had a more complete game, especially a sharper attack. Kicking wise; it's close; but I'd give the nod to Wilko.

Everything else; from steering the ship; to leading comebacks, line breaks, etc- I'd have to go with DC.

 

[irelandfan123]

Lads was at a talk tonight with Keith Wood, Tana Umaga and Donal Lenihan when an interesting topic came up. Who was the greatest 10 in world rugby at there peak. When it came down to answers these 2 it seemed were miles ahead of everyone. So I'd put question to ye.
Who was greatest 10 of all time at peak of powers?

Sounds like the start of a really odd joke.

I always think Carter because he has more caps and points but then I remember that Wilkinson was out of 4 years of international rugby I mean on six nations alone that is 20 games! And he got injured after his peak as well so he couldn't really build on that. Two very different types of Stand off and when Wilkinson was on top form he was behind a great pack and Carter (be it as crusaders or the AB's) is always behind a great pack whereas when Wilko returned after 03 the pack of England just didn't function as well.
Put Carter behind the pack of England '03 with Johnson and arguably the best back row of the modern game and he would have tore **** up. Wilkinson is back in his prime because toloun have a great set of forwards and no offence to Newcastle I'm sure he really didn't strive behind them. If you ask me which one you would rather have behind a decent pack verses a better pack it would be Wilko cause if you go down into there half you are almost sure you'll leave with at least 3 points.
Also Carters drop goals never strike me as very convincing they almost seem choppy. Can't really picture many times that Carter has saved all blacks by scoring with 5 minutes or less apart from the Ireland test last summer and he needed two cracks at it.
Although to be fair I only really watch NH club and international union so I wouldn't really know.
Overall I'd say as long as you have the best pack you are going to be the best flyhalf e.g Sexton for Leinster he is the best in Europe as they have a class pack and then Madigan looks fine as well on the ERC stage behind that pack and if you watch Paddy Jackson against Castre the start of the season behind the better pack he racked up 20+ points, then put him in Ireland and he can't get 20 in two games.
A tens as good as there pack so it is hard to choose
My bet Wilko behind the pack of 03 or Carter behind the pack of 05 are both pretty equal

 

[irelandfan123]

Also think Wilinson doesn't get enough credit as an attacking play watch games from 2000-2003 and he is stepping and breaking the line all the time

 

[nickdnz]

Carter still averages more points than Wilkinson in international rugby. He's scored over 100 more points than Wilkinson in fewer international games (so that 4 year argument doesn't work at all). Daniel Carter has also scored more test tries than any other 10 in history with 29 (equal with Giteau, but many of Giteau's weren't at 10).

 

[Zed]

You have to remember that Carter has been playing for the two best teams in the world for most of his career - the All Blacks and the Crusaders. So his job is made that much easier when he is surrounded by world class players. JW did play in successful England teams, but also played with them when they were sh*t. It's much harder to shine when your team is pretty average. Stick Carter at 10 for Italy and Scotland and then see how he goes. Just an interesting thing to consider really. I still think Carter is the better 10. He's quick and that really adds an extra dimension to the way a back line plays, you see it with all quick 10s like Cooper, JOC, Cipriani etc that extra pace allows them to do stuff most 10s can't and that's where JW falls down. He was never particularly quick - deceptive runner though and had a good step, but didn't have that acceleration to make those line breaks or half breaks.

 

[admartian]

You have to remember that Carter has been playing for the two best teams in the world for most of his career - the All Blacks and the Crusaders. So his job is made that much easier when he is surrounded by world class players. JW did play in successful England teams, but also played with them when they were sh*t. It's much harder to shine when your team is pretty average. Stick Carter at 10 for Italy and Scotland and then see how he goes. Just an interesting thing to consider really. I still think Carter is the better 10. He's quick and that really adds an extra dimension to the way a back line plays, you see it with all quick 10s like Cooper, JOC, Cipriani etc that extra pace allows them to do stuff most 10s can't and that's where JW falls down. He was never particularly quick - deceptive runner though and had a good step, but didn't have that acceleration to make those line breaks or half breaks.

But Carter has also played the consistent Top 2 sides (Boks and Wallabies) forever. Where the Boks have a stifling pack and are excellent defensively; and the Wallabies have faster/flashier backs to try and defend against or attack.

Just watch the Crusaders of 2013 - arguably a very average team on the whole. Now watch the 2013 Crusaders without Carter; to that with Carter. Compare results.

Case in point last night's game.

 

[Zed]

But Carter has also played the consistent Top 2 sides (Boks and Wallabies) forever. Where the Boks have a stifling pack and are excellent defensively; and the Wallabies have faster/flashier backs to try and defend against or attack.

Just watch the Crusaders of 2013 - arguably a very average team on the whole. Now watch the 2013 Crusaders without Carter; to that with Carter. Compare results.

Case in point last night's game.

True. I was just really making a point that sometimes it's hard to compare players when one is playing in the best team in the world and the other in a team that's 4th or 5th. JW would be even better playing in the current ABs side. That said, I still think Carter is the worlds best 5/8. If Cooper learned to tackle and stopped acting like a dysfunctional 14 year old he would be challenging Carter. His reading of the game, passing and general attack etc is right up there.

 

[Peat]

Zed is completely right.

It should also be remembered that Wilkinson's peak lasted a rather short period, what with injury and all, and it hasn't been seen in quite a long time. Most of his career's been played past it.

I'm going to pick Carter. Carter's retained his physical peak long enough to add the know-how and cool of experience, he is a more complete package through that then Jonny was around 2002, 2003. Close though. Shame Wilkinson's body couldn't take what he put it through in his younger days, and a shame he couldn't spend his entire career behind a pack as good as 2001-03 England; who knows what may have been.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Ugh!

These threads are getting tiresome. Just another typical NH vs SH thread. and like all the other "who is the best flyhalf in the world" past/present, what makes this one different?

I think most people would agree that it's Carter, with some defiant NH opposing this.

Fact of the matter is, you need to look at the stats. And clearly there, DC is the winner. Both have had the best forward pack for a long time which won them each a World Cup. Both had injuries (JW more than DC, coz he's a bit of pussy). Both had up-and-down seasons. Both played for a french team.

But based on stats, and stats alone, nobody comes close to DC.

So please, can we just move on to new and better threads?

 

[munstermuffin]

It a tough 1 but again I suppose what will the eras of peak be?
Wilko 00-03???
Carter 04-??

 

[ratsapprentice]

These threads are getting tiresome. Just another typical NH vs SH thread. and like all the other "who is the best flyhalf in the world" past/present, what makes this one different?

I think most people would agree that it's Carter, with some defiant NH opposing this.

Fact of the matter is, you need to look at the stats. And clearly there, DC is the winner. Both have had the best forward pack for a long time which won them each a World Cup. Both had injuries (JW more than DC, coz he's a bit of pussy). Both had up-and-down seasons. Both played for a french team.

It's not really been a NH v SH thread until this post though, has it?

In what way is Wilko a pussy?

 

[profitius]

I'm a JW fan but Carter is hands down the better player. Its not even close. They were players like Larkham too. I've heard some great things about past players also.

 

[dasNdanger]

I feel there was also much hype surrounding Wilko's rise to fame. He was to be England's savior, or something. At the time I was getting Rugby World mag (very NH-slanted), and nearly every issue was about Jonny's greatness...or his soon to be greatness once he returned to the game. The expectation was so great that Jonny's 'legend' has always been bigger than he ever was. Even with the injuries there was this feeling that Jonny would come back and save the day. So that has always been my impression of the man, a legend that lives on despite a greatness that never quite was.

As far as I can remember there was no such hype with Dan Carter. I remember chatting with a pal from NZ about Justin Marshall moving to the NH to play, and they said something like 'there's no need for the All Blacks to worry because all the ladies still have Dan Carter.' I think that was the first time I really 'noticed' Carter, and obviously not for the right reasons (granted, rugby coverage here in the mid-2000s was spotty, at best, especially internationals, and I wasn't reading a SH-biased magazine). It took me awhile, and without anyone telling me so, to realize that Carter was a really good all-round player with a fantastic boot.

Fame (and greatness) seemed to sneak up on Carter, whereas it was thrust upon Wilko. At least that's how it feels to me.





das

 

[munstermuffin]

Das I'd agree with alot of that. Great post.

 

[dasNdanger]

Lads was at a talk tonight with Keith Wood, Tana Umaga and Donal Lenihan...

Sounds like the start of a really odd joke.

Keith Wood, Tana Umaga and Donal Lenihan walk into a pub. I'm pretty sure they never come out.

(Sorry, that's all I could come up with before 7 am. )

Das I'd agree with alot of that. Great post.

Thank you.


das

 

[sifplay]

Stephen Larkham by a long way

 

[ZeFrenchy]

For me Wilkinson and Larkham are close for the second best. The best one is obviously Cristophe Lamaison. Just kidding, DC is hands down the best. I don't think he was the best at every single aspect of the game though. Wilko was the best ito tactical kicking and defense, and Larkham edges it ito linebreaks at first receiver. Dan Carter excells at pretty much everything, while being the best by a long, long way in backline playing.