• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Who is better McCaw or Carter?



Who is better McCaw or Carter?
I know that they play different positions but can we seperate them?
or are they equally as superb as each other?
Just something i've been pondering ,and would like sum feedback , cheers <_< <_<
It's a hard call to make alright, McCaw and Carter are obviously the best in their positions but you could make the case for McCaw as his contribution to the team allows for the likes of Carter et al to do what they do best

Oh and welcome to TRF btw. :cheers:
I think Carter is a more naturally talented footballer, but McCaw works his arse off every game and the amount of ball he turns over and slows down is out of this world.

So they can't be seperated because of their different positions, but without McCaw, Carter would not have the same amount of ball to play with.
If I could pick only one of the two for my team, I'd take McCaw. Any fly half can be immense when they have big Richie protecting them and winning so much ball; With out the support McCaw provides, Carter would be clatetred and closed down much more.

He'd still be the best outside half in the world, but not nearly as dangerous as he currently is.
It's tough, but If we were picking teams on the playground I'd probably take McCaw first, becuase he's harder. I'm not saying that Daniel Carter is a pansy, but McCaw just looks like he'd rip someones limbs off to get the ball. I like that in a teammate.
I think it's a very tough question - both are the best in the world at their positions. Fact. I would say that Carter is arguably further ahead in his field very slightly, but mainly because there seems to be a lot of very talented flankers about. That said, I also agree that the domination of McCaw all over the park undoubtedly buys him more time, gives him more ball and more time. I think it is impossible to pick a 'better' player... I think we just have to acknowledge that with their powers combined, everyone else is pretty much f*cked.
The only way that I believe they can be separated is by looking at which one would you rather have in your national team`s starting line-up. I for one would definately rather have McCaw, the amount of turnovers he creates is one of the reasons the AB`s are the world leaders in counter-attacking rugby. He is IMO more important to the team by ensuring possession in the first place- a genuinely world-class flyhalf can to a large extent be neutralised by denying him quality ball, something that McCaw is a genius with.

Better to have the ball to play with in the first place, than a playmaker who can do something with the ball once presented to him.
But surely you could equally argue that a crap number 10 could get all the ball in the world and do nothing with it... it's a combination thing. Let's not forget that Dan is also lethal with the boot and just generally a points machine. You could argue that he could score points even with less ball than he currently gets.

I think it's impossible to say that NZ are more reliant on one than the other (and let's not pretend that they wouldn't dominate without them either!).
both are talented players, and bot are pivotal and masters of what they do, mccaw is the best flanker period since michael jones, and in the long run may even be better than the great man.

carter could go down as the greatest player ever.
Carter for sure. He plays behind a pack that doesn't dominate territory or possession, but secures quick ball. Off the back of that he doesn't slot it into the corner or send it up high. Instead, he spots the running gaps and unleashes the hounds, himself included. In the 2nd test against France he had an average day with the boot, but that just highlighted how good he is.

A lot is assumed about McCaw, but so much of his work is done down the mines. If we could shine a light there, then I think the ref's whistle would be blowing a little bit more often. But I'm just a thicko. Collins is the man.
dont bloody tell me carter can chip n chase. jerry collins can chip n chase mate

Latest posts