The All Blacks, are they 'That' good, or...

[Bada-Bing!]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...e-all-blacks-xv-how-many-of-the-current-crop/

Dreary Cleary of the UK Daily Telegraph has had a stab at an all time AB XV. Hard to argue with most of his choices, personally would have picked Christian Cullen at 15. Of the current crop he picks only Brodie Retallick.

 

[Makos]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...e-all-blacks-xv-how-many-of-the-current-crop/

Dreary Cleary of the UK Daily Telegraph has had a stab at an all time AB XV. Hard to argue with most of his choices, personally would have picked Christian Cullen at 15. Of the current crop he picks only Brodie Retallick.

That's a really good stab, I find myself agreeing with every selection. Fergie McCormick revolutionized the game at 15, so his selection is justified. By the end of his career I expect Dane Coles to have overtaken Sean Fitzpatrick. He should get the armband for a few seasons once Read retires.

 

[The Jones Boy]

I remember 'Super' Sid Going, he was kept longer than his use by date but he was great. I remember him being slow but strong.
No mention or place for Grant Batty, or Terry Wright or Brian Williams?
No mention let alone place for Bruce Robertson?
What about Graham Mourie, the man who revolutionised the number 7 role more than any other player revolutionised their positions. He created the modern no.7
No mention of Alan Hewson, John Gallagher or Cullen at full back.
Buck was a great captain but he wasn't a great number 8 in my book and he wouldn't have cut it in the modern game.
Zinny would have blitzed him and Read is another level.
Keith Murdoch or Gary Whetton at lock with Brad Thorne, Retallick on the bench
Carl Hayman everyday at prop; when Os Du Randt was asked who was the hardest prop you ever went against he said, "No question, Hayman." Says it all.
John Drake at prop, unforgiving and huge. Nod to Billy Bush as well.
Michael Jones at 7, yes, The Jones Boy, as he was known when he first appeared, remains the greatest rugby player who ever lived. An absolute phenomenon.

Carter at first five? Fair enough. He did ok.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I remember 'Super' Sid Going, he was kept longer than his use by date but he was great. I remember him being slow but strong.
No mention or place for Grant Batty, or Terry Wright or Brian Williams?
No mention let alone place for Bruce Robertson?
What about Graham Mourie, the man who revolutionised the number 7 role more than any other player revolutionised their positions. He created the modern no.7
No mention of Alan Hewson, John Gallagher or Cullen at full back.
Buck was a great captain but he wasn't a great number 8 in my book and he wouldn't have cut it in the modern game.
Zinny would have blitzed him and Read is another level.
Keith Murdoch or Gary Whetton at lock with Brad Thorne, Retallick on the bench
Carl Hayman everyday at prop; when Os Du Randt was asked who was the hardest prop you ever went against he said, "No question, Hayman." Says it all.
John Drake at prop, unforgiving and huge. Nod to Billy Bush as well.
Michael Jones at 7, yes, The Jones Boy, as he was known when he first appeared, remains the greatest rugby player who ever lived. An absolute phenomenon.

Carter at first five? Fair enough. He did ok.

When choosing Greatest teams/individuals I am reminded by the late great boxing writer Burt Sugar, when he was compiling his lists of greatest boxers who ever lived: "it is like comparing apples and oranges". How can we compare the likes of an Aaron Smith with a Sid Going or Colin Meads with Sam Whitelock? The current generation have advantages of speed, full time training methods and the laws are so different. It is interesting and good pub talk, but ultimately futile.

 

[RedruthRFC]

When choosing Greatest teams/individuals I am reminded by the late great boxing writer Burt Sugar, when he was compiling his lists of greatest boxers who ever lived: "it is like comparing apples and oranges". How can we compare the likes of an Aaron Smith with a Sid Going or Colin Meads with Sam Whitelock? The current generation have advantages of speed, full time training methods and the laws are so different. It is interesting and good pub talk, but ultimately futile.

It's difficult, but not futile at all IMO. If you were picking a side to win test matches today, there would be few players from much more than ten years ago. However, if you pick players based on how they fared against their peers it's possible to come up with a side that's representative of all of rugby if you know your history well enough. Take Lomu for example, some people argue that he wouldn't be as effective in today's game in which players are more used to coping with giant outsides. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant to this discussion, the point is that you need to assess how he got on against the opposition he faced. Arguably he was an irresistible force (unless you're South African).


It's much tougher in rugby than other sports as there are few, if any effective statistical measures to assess players like many other sports. Don Bradman is a classic example, get a time machine and transport him to today and there's every chance he would struggle against current bowling attacks, but he is statistically head and shoulders above anyone before or after him.


It's funny that you mention boxing. It's not a sport that I know much about, but it seems to be one that's obsessed with this type of comparison despite the additional complication of weight categories. In the context of the original question in this thread, the assessment of Rocky Marciano is relevant, despite his unbeaten record in the blue ribbon division, he isn't rated that highly because of the poor competition he faced.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Ireland are ready to ambush the All Blacks in Chicago next week.
I think Joe Shmidt will have something cooked up to give the All Blacks a real fright.
Missing Retallick and Sam Whitelock this AB team may struggle

 

[welshglory]

They should put up a strong fight. They've arguably got a stronger and more settled pack than SA, AUS, ARG and the Murray/Sexton 9/10 partnership is world class. Tactically they should be a bigger challenge than the RC sides as well with the settled squad, their efficient defensive system and kicking game gives them something to work from. If Schmidt has an effective game plan up his sleeve they will stand a chance. They'll need to play at a faster pace than they have been for the past two years though, since the 2013 NZ game they haven't really played at the same level.

 

[The Jones Boy]

The Irish will be fresher than the All Blacks and they will be fired up and ready to bring their 'A' game

 

[Bada-Bing!]

It's difficult, but not futile at all IMO. If you were picking a side to win test matches today, there would be few players from much more than ten years ago. However, if you pick players based on how they fared against their peers it's possible to come up with a side that's representative of all of rugby if you know your history well enough. Take Lomu for example, some people argue that he wouldn't be as effective in today's game in which players are more used to coping with giant outsides. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant to this discussion, the point is that you need to assess how he got on against the opposition he faced. Arguably he was an irresistible force (unless you're South African).


It's much tougher in rugby than other sports as there are few, if any effective statistical measures to assess players like many other sports. Don Bradman is a classic example, get a time machine and transport him to today and there's every chance he would struggle against current bowling attacks, but he is statistically head and shoulders above anyone before or after him.


It's funny that you mention boxing. It's not a sport that I know much about, but it seems to be one that's obsessed with this type of comparison despite the additional complication of weight categories. In the context of the original question in this thread, the assessment of Rocky Marciano is relevant, despite his unbeaten record in the blue ribbon division, he isn't rated that highly because of the poor competition he faced.

Yep, you have a good point about picking a team based on how players fared against their peers and not each other. It was pretty much what the late Burt Sugar argued when picking his list of great boxers. It's the process of comparison and arguing where each player fits into the pantheon of great players which is the enjoyable bit for me i.e. the pub talk. Rugby is difficult because it only went professional in 1995/96, so there is a clear demarkation between the professional era and the amateur era, so the only way is to compare how those players fared in their era. My earliest memories of rugby on tv was 1991, so I can't comment on players before then really. I've only seen clips of the likes of Gareth Edwards and Colin Meads, but their names stand the test of time and seem to always crop up in these Greatest lists, but can't compare myself as I never really saw them play. Comparison of achievements is another marker - Edwards being on two winning Lions teams v NZ and SA at a time before the RWC is comparable.

Regarding boxing - Marciano's 49-0 remains a big bench mark (Floyd Mayweather equalling it) , but amongst Boxing purists he's not rated as highly as Joe Louis or Ali mainly because of the quality of the opposition he faced were either not of the highest quality or those he faced like Jersey Joe Walcott were way past their prime.

I am big tennis fan and always like reading or debating the greatest lists. Certainly we have seen 3 of the Greatest players in Federer, Nadal and Djokovic who will certainly feature on any top 10 lists in the future.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

They should put up a strong fight. They've arguably got a stronger and more settled pack than SA, AUS, ARG and the Murray/Sexton 9/10 partnership is world class. Tactically they should be a bigger challenge than the RC sides as well with the settled squad, their efficient defensive system and kicking game gives them something to work from. If Schmidt has an effective game plan up his sleeve they will stand a chance. They'll need to play at a faster pace than they have been for the past two years though, since the 2013 NZ game they haven't really played at the same level.

The thing is we keep hearing about the tactical genius of Schmidt and having a plan up his sleeve yet it has never actually materialised, Ireland have not really changed how they play very much from game to game at all or even within a game. During the 6N and mid year tests we kept hearing of the master plan, then Ireland started getting beaten and still this master plan didn't appear. Ireland have a fighting chance but I don't think they game will be any different to their usual of trying to pin teams back with kicking and getting the majority of their points from penalties in the opposition half.

 

[GoTheNaki]

http://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/38328-All-Blacks-End-of-Year-Tour-Team

Cmon guys, my thread is perfect for all of this Ireland talk?!

Also, it is hard to argue with that AB All-time XV. However, we've just lost 5 of those players, and have one current player in that list. I do believe we will add to that list, with the current players on the AB team. Ben Smith, Julian Savea(he's still only 26, he will probably end up with the most tries in International history), Dane Coles, are just some obvious ones to me. The least likely is Savea, but is it possible to argue with the strength/speed of today's game, and his scoring numbers.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

The thing is we keep hearing about the tactical genius of Schmidt and having a plan up his sleeve yet it has never actually materialised, Ireland have not really changed how they play very much from game to game at all or even within a game. During the 6N and mid year tests we kept hearing of the master plan, then Ireland started getting beaten and still this master plan didn't appear. Ireland have a fighting chance but I don't think they game will be any different to their usual of trying to pin teams back with kicking and getting the majority of their points from penalties in the opposition half.

We played very different in the SA tour than the 6nations. Schmidt was slow to adapt in the 6n when he had the comfort of playing Johnny Sexton but Sexton's injury during the summer was a blessing in disguise because it forced him to expand his game.

If I'm right in my prediction that the backrow will be Stander, Murphy, Heaslip it's clear that he wants to move the ball about a bit because that is the most dynamic and best ball playing trio he can pick. I'd say this is the closest we've been to a full bill of health under Schmidt's tenure as coach, it'll be an interesting coaching battle to say the least considering it's the NH's best v the SH's best for my money.

 

[profitius]

The thing is we keep hearing about the tactical genius of Schmidt and having a plan up his sleeve yet it has never actually materialised, Ireland have not really changed how they play very much from game to game at all or even within a game. During the 6N and mid year tests we kept hearing of the master plan, then Ireland started getting beaten and still this master plan didn't appear. Ireland have a fighting chance but I don't think they game will be any different to their usual of trying to pin teams back with kicking and getting the majority of their points from penalties in the opposition half.

+1

Schmidt has a lot of credit in the bank especially from his Leinster days but what I've seen is a team that's gotten more and more one dimensional throughout his time in the job.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

+1

Schmidt has a lot of credit in the bank especially from his Leinster days but what I've seen is a team that's gotten more and more one dimensional throughout his time in the job.

And has won two 6nations and our first ever test in SA. He coaches his players, not the calls for stylistic rugby which wouldn't have worked the last two years.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

And has won two 6nations and our first ever test in SA. He coaches his players, not the calls for stylistic rugby which wouldn't have worked the last two years.

Both 6N won on points difference over an apparently tactically inept, low capped and one dimensional England and an even more 1 dimensional and past it Wales. I'm exagerrating here but scoring just a few more points than 2 teams with coaches who are deemed to be some of the most tactically inflexible does not make you a tactical genius. Ireland haven't changed their gameplan in the 6N since he took over and it's like Warrenball, difficult to beat when it first arrived but has become less effective as time as gone on. Statistically England have actually been number 1 over the last few years in terms of games won and success vs SH sides.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Both 6N won on points difference over an apparently tactically inept, low capped and one dimensional England and an even more 1 dimensional and past it Wales. I'm exagerrating here but scoring just a few more points than 2 teams with coaches who are deemed to be some of the most tactically inflexible does not make you a tactical genius. Ireland haven't changed their gameplan in the 6N since he took over and it's like Warrenball, difficult to beat when it first arrived but has become less effective as time as gone on. Statistically England have actually been number 1 over the last few years in terms of games won and success vs SH sides.

I can't say for certain but I imagine you argued against the claims that England's slam this year wasn't impressive because the quality of opposition was low, I could go deeper but the first argument you have is quite frankly pathetic, winning is what coaches want to do and winning two 6n in a row for the first time in a nation's history is what Joe did.

As for the second, the team that'll be picked to play NZ looks completely different both personnel wise and stylistically than anything Joe has picked in the 6n before and the same can be said about the sides selected in SA and the rugby that was played.

Stats mean little enough, if you're looking at results since Schmidt took over then Ireland have beaten SA, Aus, Argentina, won two 6nations, topped a RWC group and were the closest NH side to beating NZ, England have a slam and wins over Aus and Argentina, both sides have been ranked second in the world.

Schmidt has had success in each year he's coached Ireland, the style of play is not restricting us, he let himself down a bit in the 6n this year by not cutting the old guard earlier but apart from that injuries have been his biggest enemy. I'm confident that Ireland will win at least one more 6n and reach a RWC semi under Schmidt because the current level of depth and young talent we have is unprecedented.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I can't say for certain but I imagine you argued against the claims that England's slam this year wasn't impressive because the quality of opposition was low, I could go deeper but the first argument you have is quite frankly pathetic, winning is what coaches want to do and winning two 6n in a row for the first time in a nation's history is what Joe did.

As for the second, the team that'll be picked to play NZ looks completely different both personnel wise and stylistically than anything Joe has picked in the 6n before and the same can be said about the sides selected in SA and the rugby that was played.

Stats mean little enough, if you're looking at results since Schmidt took over then Ireland have beaten SA, Aus, Argentina, won two 6nations, topped a RWC group and were the closest NH side to beating NZ, England have a slam and wins over Aus and Argentina, both sides have been ranked second in the world.

Schmidt has had success in each year he's coached Ireland, the style of play is not restricting us, he let himself down a bit in the 6n this year by not cutting the old guard earlier but apart from that injuries have been his biggest enemy. I'm confident that Ireland will win at least one more 6n and reach a RWC semi under Schmidt because the current level of depth and young talent we have is unprecedented.

Way to miss the point, I was saying England and Wales got a lot of flak for apparently showing no tactical flexibility and having coaches who did not exactly have great rugby brains. Ireland didn't even win more games than England and Wales, they won the SAME number of games but simply had a slightly higher points difference, literally 1 try here or there was all the difference and yet Schmidt is praised as a tactical genius whilst Lancaster and Gatland were labelled as inflexible. Hell the points difference didn't even come from superior attacking capability as Ireland scored less tries than both of them, it was from simply having solid defence and kicking a ton of penalties. That's the point, the difference between genius and incompetence is not a 1 score points difference after a whole tournament. I'm not questioning Schmidts ability as a coach, I'm questioning those who claim he is a tactical genius with a gameplan always at the ready, this has not been shown with Ireland any more than Gatland shows it with Wales despite winning a lot using Warrenball and scrum penalties.

You say Schmidt got Ireland as the closest side to beating NZ, conveniently forgetting that England actually did beat NZ. Schmidt may indeed change things but the style of rugby Ireland have played since the start of his tenure has not changed a huge amount. Compare how England played under Lancaster at the start to just before the WC, it was completely different. Then compare England at the tail end of Lancasters reign (the WC) where they again played a vastly different game to a few months later in Australia where they go from being one of the worst sides in the top tier at turnovers to beating supposedly the 2 best jackals in the world at their own game.

So don't get your knickers in such a twist, it's simply that Schmidt is not showing himself to be a great tactical genius with a gameplan for every opposition, he is an able coach who has used pretty much 1 gameplan just like Gatland in the early years.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Way to miss the point, I was saying England and Wales got a lot of flak for apparently showing no tactical flexibility and having coaches who did not exactly have great rugby brains. Ireland didn't even win more games than England and Wales, they won the SAME number of games but simply had a slightly higher points difference, literally 1 try here or there was all the difference and yet Schmidt is praised as a tactical genius whilst Lancaster and Gatland were labelled as inflexible. Hell the points difference didn't even come from superior attacking capability as Ireland scored less tries than both of them, it was from simply having solid defence and kicking a ton of penalties. That's the point, the difference between genius and incompetence is not a 1 score points difference after a whole tournament. I'm not questioning Schmidts ability as a coach, I'm questioning those who claim he is a tactical genius with a gameplan always at the ready, this has not been shown with Ireland any more than Gatland shows it with Wales despite winning a lot using Warrenball and scrum penalties.

You say Schmidt got Ireland as the closest side to beating NZ, conveniently forgetting that England actually did beat NZ. Schmidt may indeed change things but the style of rugby Ireland have played since the start of his tenure has not changed a huge amount. Compare how England played under Lancaster at the start to just before the WC, it was completely different. Then compare England at the tail end of Lancasters reign (the WC) where they again played a vastly different game to a few months later in Australia where they go from being one of the worst sides in the top tier at turnovers to beating supposedly the 2 best jackals in the world at their own game.

So don't get your knickers in such a twist, it's simply that Schmidt is not showing himself to be a great tactical genius with a gameplan for every opposition, he is an able coach who has used pretty much 1 gameplan just like Gatland in the early years.

But he won those six nations! He won and SL and Gatland didn't, he employed tactics to win a tournament and has been succesful 2 of 3 times... He employed different tactics to beat SA in SA with a rag tag team this year, he used different tactics week to week to beat SA and Aus in 2014. He plays to his teams strengths,. It was the same in Leinster, he never drastically changed the rugby that was played but tweaked it from game to game evolving over time. No coach ever changes tactics week in week out win world rugby, it's adapting to who he plays every week that makes Schmidt what he is.

You conveniently left out where I said 'since the start of Schmidt's tenure' when throwing in England's win over NZ...

 

[Groundhog]

Jesus if we include "Schmidt only picks Leinster players" we'll have all the tired outdated cliches about Schmidt over and done with. He absolutely has developed his game plan to suit the opposition. Most successful provincial and international coach in Irish history and people still whine away.

 

[RedruthRFC]