If you put him in the All Blacks...

My Granny could coach the All Blacks and they'd still win holds about as much worth as saying if we put player X in the ABs he'd be considered the best player in the world.

The latter is flawed thinking for various reasons. Firstly it's demeaning to the player. We can't value a player just because he doesn't play in a high ranked team? Hugo Porta is not held in high regard even though his Puma side didn't set the world on fire? Dusatoir does not hold many trophies but he does hold the respect of rugby punters.

A world class team is not all made up of world class players. I never heard anyone say if Cowan didn't play for NZ he'd be exposed as ordinary. We all could see how distinctly average he was. No NZ front row player would make any world XV list this year no doubt so why is it when somebody does catch the eye for NZ they are often dismissed as nothing special. It's only because they play for NZ. If they played for any other team they'd be solid journeymen. Let's take Read and Parisse. Swap them around and how would they fare? Aside from the language barrier they'd both be decidedly average. Combinations count in rugby regardless of who those conninations are.

Any advantage players may get from their team mates is cancelled out by the pressure on players to make a contribution when it counts the higher you go up. If Parisse, for example, stands out in a game but his side loses do you hear recriminations for not doing enough work in the tight? If Read plays badly in a winning team does he get criticized? You bet he does and by Kiwi fans. If he plays well in a losing team does he get any accolades like Parisse? No, as the focus is on looking for some excuse as to why we lost.  But God forbid if he
stands out in a game that NZ wins like in Ellis Park with all that pressure to win then it's just because the players around him carried him. But if you single out the players around them then it's just because Read was carrying them. Someone has to be playing well for NZ to win so often and when a certain player gets singled out for stepping up when it mattered then why is it so difficult to recognize that contribution.

Good players are spotted in any team. Playing for different sides has its advantages and disadvantages. Brown stood out for all his excellent defensive work last weekend. Dagg was outshone but set up a crucial try. Brown gets the nod for a better fullback performance but is that saying Dagg is a lesser player? Of course not but Brown made more of a contribution on that day. Vermeulen looked pretty useful at Ellis Park but Read found a way to combine with Savea to score when NZ were a man down and got the turnover at the end of the first half to set up a crucial score. A slant on Vermeulen who also set up Habana for a crucial score?

Credit where credit is due. No matter what side. I don't think that's so hard.

Sadly perception plays a big role in whether a player receives accolades either as a player or for a performance in a particular match.

I have often seen supporters remember only the guy who scored the try, but seem to ignore the preceding events that gave a guy a clean run or a one on one to a try line.

It is probably easier to remember certain moments, like a brilliant offload, a brilliant try, a try saving tackle, or something that has a direct or immediate influence on the outcome of a score.

But it is often the groundwork that is never seen.

I look at players like Juan Smith who in my view was one of the most valuable players ever to wear the Springbok jersey, however when there are threads on who has been the best in his position over the modern era, he barely gets a casual mention,

At the end of the day, it is all just opinions, to get upset, or argumentative over it is hardly worth the time of day.

I see where you are coming from but even when Reuben Thorne was the NZ captain/ Mitchell was coach, NZ still won most of their matches and were one of the top 3 sides in the world. I'm not comparing Mitchell to your Grandmother but what I mean is that even during a bad period NZ were still up there.

In the same way if Carter was in fact Daniello Cartero, he would still be a good player. But would he have 1000+ test points? Almost certainly not (although he probably would have 100 caps), I think he would be seen as a very good player but dismissed by many, in part due to the lesser quality of players around him.

Yes but no one thought Captain Invisible was any good but assuredly there were good players around him for NZ to keep winning. The same applies to Blackadder but you still have to mould those players into an effective unit and my grandmother couldn't do that and not because they're both no longer were with us.

If Cartero existed he wouldn't be dismissed. He wouldnt score as many but Orquera caught the idea for Italy last year. The fact that Scotland are still pining for an effective backline general suggests talent is recognized at any level.

Parisse would look good in any team

Dan Lydiate would walk into the Ireland team. Mike Phillips and Lee Byrne would walk into the Scotland team.

I think people put a lot of emphasis on the All Blacks as a "benchmark", for instance, and I've seen this a lot:

Player X gets a lot of support from his nation saying he is world class, arguments then come in from all corners saying he wouldn't make the All Blacks XV therefore he is not world class.

Bathman_in_London wrote:I see where you are coming from but even when Reuben Thorne was the NZ captain/ Mitchell was coach, NZ still won most of their matches and were one of the top 3 sides in the world. I'm not comparing Mitchell to your Grandmother but what I mean is that even during a bad period NZ were still up there.

In the same way if Carter was in fact Daniello Cartero, he would still be a good player. But would he have 1000+ test points? Almost certainly not (although he probably would have 100 caps), I think he would be seen as a very good player but dismissed by many, in part due to the lesser quality of players around him.

Hang on How has Mr Parisse managed to be touted as the best 8 in the world for some years now despite playing for the Italians ? If you're good , you're good no matter which team you play for. This business of undervaluing All blacks simpy because of the jersey they wear is uncalled for . Its the players who make the team not the team which makes the players.

Using Read as an example . Take him away from the All black team and it becomes weaker and would probably lose more games without their talismanic 8 .

That is true IronMike. I have seen that argument for Halfpenny as if he needs AB affirmation to prove his talent. Equally preposterous.

Too true BullsBok. Sometimes the good teams win in the eyes of some because the team is good without fully exploring why that should be the case.

On the flip side I don't think Parisse is anywhere near as good as people make out. But is made to look god like by the Italian players around him.

Dusatoir doesn't hold many trophies?

HEC, French league title, 6N in fact everything other than a RWC medal. He was pretty close to that.

The Saint wrote:Dan Lydiate would walk into the Ireland team. Mike Phillips and Lee Byrne would walk into the Scotland team.

At risk of asking a stupid question, why is this relevant?

The Saint wrote:Dan Lydiate would walk into the Ireland team. Mike Phillips and Lee Byrne would walk into the Scotland team.

Long John Silver would walk into the Scottish team! 

How many 6N trophies does Dusatoir have? I wasn't speaking about club rugby but your point is taken. For a squad and a player of his talent not enough. Is that his fault or the team's?

The other view is that some players impress when playing well against their sides. Kiwis have a different view of some players because of how they go vs the ABs. Halfpenny for instance hasn't caused NZ any harm, any reason to consider him a threat because as a player he's done little versus the ABs.
I thought Alberts was another. Last year England were praising his storming runs, labelling him one of the best yet versus NZ hasn't done a lot and has been found wanting vs the AB back three, out of puff at Ellis.
Now this may be because its harder to stand out vs the ABs. Halfpenny may have ripped up the 6N sides and the Aussies but AB fans will know he wouldn't do all that to us and our sides did that to the same sides and more.
So in that respect we're a little harder to please.

Yeah, Alberts was the perfect foil against NZ as Louw and Vermeulen staked up the meters at Ellispark.

Yeah the other two were great. I've just been waiting to see more of Alberts since his series vs England. Do you consider him a certain selection biltong? Work rate will be big on Meyers agenda now he'll want them to play wider. This will put a lot of pressure on your big back three, where louw and vermuelens have thrived on the challenge it will be interesting to see how Alberts goes next year. I think the 3 are crucial to meyers plans.

Taylorman wrote:The other view is that some players impress when playing well against their sides. Kiwis have a different view of some players because of how they go vs the ABs.

That's a good point. At the risk of flogging a dead horse, I think it's one reason why some New Zealand supporters don't always realize how good England were in the years running up to the 2003 Cup. They didn't play them for over three years.

I remember watching the June 2003 match between the two teams and Murray Mexted said of Lawrence Dallaglio "We, of course, have not seen a lot of this man". By that stage in his career, Dallaglio was 31, had won a World Cup sevens, been playing for England since 1994, had gained and lost the captaincy, and had been on two Lions tours.

Mexted wasn't saying he didn't know anything about Dallaglio, only that the New Zealand public hadn't really seen him in the flesh, which was right.

Cable, satellite and the web now let us see far more live matches then we could in the early stages of the professional era. Even now, though, it's probably only us rugby tragics who spend much time watching international matches outside our own direct loyalties.

In 2010, when England toured Australia, I was surprised how much the local media took it for granted that Wilkinson would start the tests when it was obvious to us that Johnson had Flood ahead of him. It was a measure of how much that 2003 drop goal had seared itself in their memory.

It's the same in other sports. In football, it's been interesting to see how long it's taken the English press and supporters to wake up to the fact that Zlatan Ibrahimovic is an extraordinary footballer. He didn't play in the Premiership, so we didn't see him scoring regularly. Also, for a long time, he was dismissed because he didn't have much impact when facing English teams in the Europe. The Swedish team wasn't especially strong either, so he didn't stand out at tournaments. It was only really when he scored four against England last year, including that outrageous long range bicycle kick, that the penny seemed to drop.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:The latter is flawed thinking for various reasons. Firstly it's demeaning to the player.

That's doesn't make it flawed

I am thinking of the percentage of fantastic ABs who have journeyed into French, English or Celtic Leagues and made the expected impact that their reputation demanded I certainly would put it into the low percentages..... Xavier Rush, Regan King are amongst a few who have done well but I would suggest more have underachieved than produced the goods including Dan Carters French holiday.

I think its common sense if you have more world class players around you then it gives you the inner confidence and those extra micro seconds needed to convert from being a good player to a great or even world class player.

Which minutes of Carter's French all expenses holiday are you counting. Flutey is obviously a superior player as he proved himself in the true testing ground of rugby.  

Extra micro seconds with Cowan.  

Cullen length of the field tries for NZ and an average player in Ireland. Distinctly average player in my view.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Extra micro seconds with Cowan.  

I think perhaps a better way to look at it would be

If you put an All Black in a........

Romanian
Italian
Scottish (sob)...... jersey

Would they play to the same level as they do in an AB shirt

If you put anyone in a much lower ranked team would they play as well? Would they f....

But conversely put them in a team where they are expected to win at all costs and might only have one chance to shine and they're expected to play much better, not rucking likely either.  

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Cullen length of the field tries for NZ and an average player in Ireland. Distinctly average player in my view.

Its difficult to gauge as his era was the beginning of professionalism where the big guns simply accelerated past sides like Wales, Scotland, Ireland. In those days teams were losing by 1-10 points and within 2-3 years where having cricket scores put on them.

As it took some teams longer to embrace professionalism in strategy, fitness, strength etc, those who took it on from the start really benefitted.

For instance.. in 1998 England beat Wales 60-26... that welsh team inc. Jenkins, Howley, Gibbs, Bateman, Thomas (what a backline for starters!) and a backrow of Charvis, Quinnell annd Williams.  A side of that quality should not have 60 points put on them... by anyone, the boks, NZ or ENG. It was a crazy time and defence was a secondary issue and lines, strategies etc were really in its infancy.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:But conversely put them in a team where they are expected to win at all costs and might only have one chance to shine and they're expected to play much better, not rucking likely either.  

Lets take the case of Cristiano Ronaldo (arguably the worlds best player at the moment)...... do you think he would play as well if he wasn't getting the ball at the right time to the space he wanted it, or the pass he made looked terrible because his team mate was too slow or unaware to make the right move at the right time. Or he had no confidence to try extraordinary (risky) things because he no confidence that if it didn't come off his midfield or defence would not regain possession?.

Take BOD for example.

He's been the main mad in Ireland bu truth be told, if he was in a bigger side he wouldn't have so many caps or be held up in such regard.

He's been a world class player in a good to average side. He shone as amongst his peers he was standout. Put him in a bok jersey or a kiwi jersey and he wouldn't have had as much accolades let alone competition from top class players such as Fourie, Umaga, Smith, Greenwood etc etc etc

But additionally he have had more opportunities with better players around him... although they could have also taken tries away from him as it wouldn't have got out as far as 13 in the play so its really difficult to access.

Conrad Smith is a very interesting one. Plays for the Hurricanes... amongst a half decent team and he's been captain I believe for a few years.... but they have continued to be forever average... never doing anything. On a personal note too he never stood/stands out with them either. It's a similar position to BOD and Ireland but ever so often especially in his peak years he got over the line vs. all... France, AUS, SA, ENG, WAL... he beat them all bar NZ.... often with no paper inferior sides.

If youre expecting an AB to play his best rugby in NH club rugby at the end of their careers youre dreaming. These ventures are purely money grabbing OE's. Everyone knows that.
Sure theyre professional enough to be good enough but theyll also know how much they can get away with, the prep for one of those matches mentally and physically far inferior to an AB test match.

It's a lonely place posting threads about always winning

There is an excitement in losing that New Zealanders should really try to embrace more enthusiastically........ and I suggest this weekend might be a good place to give it another go.

fa0019 wrote:Take BOD for example.

He's been the main mad in Ireland bu truth be told, if he was in a bigger side he wouldn't have so many caps or be held up in such regard.

He's been a world class player in a good to average side. He shone as amongst his peers he was standout. Put him in a bok jersey or a kiwi jersey and he wouldn't have had as much accolades let alone competition from top class players such as Fourie, Umaga, Smith, Greenwood etc etc etc
.

Not sure I agree with that one fa. BODs individual skills as a Centre set him apart from everyone around him and I think he would have been fantastic in an AB jersey. He has instincts about him that you can't teach and his use of space and time in the position was second to none. Due to the stronger players around him he would have excelled. He made things happen from nothing whether it be making a break on attack or suffocating the opposition attack with a spot tackle. No doubting his intelligence as a player and that is the sort of player that thrives in the AB team environment. AB's feed off the talent of others and BOD would have been no exception.

In fact hes the very player i thought of when seeing the OP title.

BamBam wrote:

The Saint wrote:Dan Lydiate would walk into the Ireland team. Mike Phillips and Lee Byrne would walk into the Scotland team.

At risk of asking a stupid question, why is this relevant?

We were talking about players who would look good in different teams, that's what I meant to say. Lydiate would look good in the Ireland team.

The Saint wrote:

BamBam wrote:

The Saint wrote:Dan Lydiate would walk into the Ireland team. Mike Phillips and Lee Byrne would walk into the Scotland team.

At risk of asking a stupid question, why is this relevant?

We were talking about players who would look good in different teams, that's what I meant to say. Lydiate would look good in the Ireland team.

McCaw would look better

fa0019 wrote:Take BOD for example.

He's been the main mad in Ireland bu truth be told, if he was in a bigger side he wouldn't have so many caps or be held up in such regard.

He's been a world class player in a good to average side. He shone as amongst his peers he was standout. Put him in a bok jersey or a kiwi jersey and he wouldn't have had as much accolades let alone competition from top class players such as Fourie, Umaga, Smith, Greenwood etc etc etc

But additionally he have had more opportunities with better players around him... although they could have also taken tries away from him as it wouldn't have got out as far as 13 in the play so its really difficult to access.

Conrad Smith is a very interesting one. Plays for the Hurricanes... amongst a half decent team and he's been captain I believe for a few years.... but they have continued to be forever average... never doing anything. On a personal note too he never stood/stands out with them either. It's a similar position to BOD and Ireland but ever so often especially in his peak years he got over the line vs. all... France, AUS, SA, ENG, WAL... he beat them all bar NZ.... often with no paper inferior sides.

I agree with all of this except the bit about Conrad Smith not being outstanding for the Hurricanes. He is a legend here and is by far the best player in the team and has now captained them from 13. He hasn't been able to drag the team to the finals but he's definately the most important player in the team.

The Saint wrote:

BamBam wrote:

The Saint wrote:Dan Lydiate would walk into the Ireland team. Mike Phillips and Lee Byrne would walk into the Scotland team.

At risk of asking a stupid question, why is this relevant?

We were talking about players who would look good in different teams, that's what I meant to say. Lydiate would look good in the Ireland team.

Oh ok.

Sean O Brien, Laidlaw and Hogg might disagree

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Parisse would look good in any team

But so would Kieran Read

In the end, different players are better fits for different sides because not everyone plays rugby the same way and combinations are just as important as individuals. This plus other biases, variations in form and how complex and subjective rugby is means really the only way to decide how good a player is is based on their results and stats because otherwise you can make any argument and nobody can ever try and disprove it because it's inevitably subjunctive, subjective and suppositive

I'd imagine most international rugby players would look at least "good" for any side

Taylorman wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Take BOD for example.

He's been the main mad in Ireland bu truth be told, if he was in a bigger side he wouldn't have so many caps or be held up in such regard.

He's been a world class player in a good to average side. He shone as amongst his peers he was standout. Put him in a bok jersey or a kiwi jersey and he wouldn't have had as much accolades let alone competition from top class players such as Fourie, Umaga, Smith, Greenwood etc etc etc
.

Not sure I agree with that one fa. BODs individual skills as a Centre set him apart from everyone around him and I think he would have been fantastic in an AB jersey. He has instincts about him that you can't teach and his use of space and time in the position was second to none. Due to the stronger players around him he would have excelled. He made things happen from nothing whether it be making a break on attack or suffocating the opposition attack with a spot tackle. No doubting his intelligence as a player and that is the sort of player that thrives in the AB team environment. AB's feed off the talent of others and BOD would have been no exception.

In fact hes the very player i thought of when seeing the OP title.

100% agree with you Taylorman

My rationale is if a player is world class or close to world class in a lesser team (which we all are compared to the ABs) then with better players (i.e. 14 other ABs) around you.... then you would have more time and opportunities to look even better against lesser players

flyhalffactory wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Take BOD for example.

He's been the main mad in Ireland bu truth be told, if he was in a bigger side he wouldn't have so many caps or be held up in such regard.

He's been a world class player in a good to average side. He shone as amongst his peers he was standout. Put him in a bok jersey or a kiwi jersey and he wouldn't have had as much accolades let alone competition from top class players such as Fourie, Umaga, Smith, Greenwood etc etc etc
.

Not sure I agree with that one fa. BODs individual skills as a Centre set him apart from everyone around him and I think he would have been fantastic in an AB jersey. He has instincts about him that you can't teach and his use of space and time in the position was second to none. Due to the stronger players around him he would have excelled. He made things happen from nothing whether it be making a break on attack or suffocating the opposition attack with a spot tackle. No doubting his intelligence as a player and that is the sort of player that thrives in the AB team environment. AB's feed off the talent of others and BOD would have been no exception.

In fact hes the very player i thought of when seeing the OP title.

100% agree with you Taylorman

My rationale is if a player is world class or close to world class in a lesser team (which we all are compared to the ABs) then with better players (i.e. 14 other ABs) around you.... then you would have more time and opportunities to look even better against lesser players

yep...its not just being world class with BOD. Its his particular skills- instinct, timing, spatial awareness as well as the usual skills of a centre. He's one that likely would have been a better player in the ABs- more opportunities for him and others would have fed off him better than Irelands side. Mind you its the earlier BOD I'm referring to.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:My Granny could coach the All Blacks and they'd still win holds about as much worth as saying if we put player X in the ABs he'd be considered the best player in the world.

The latter is flawed thinking for various reasons. Firstly it's demeaning to the player. We can't value a player just because he doesn't play in a high ranked team? Hugo Porta is not held in high regard even though his Puma side didn't set the world on fire? Dusatoir does not hold many trophies but he does hold the respect of rugby punters.

A world class team is not all made up of world class players. I never heard anyone say if Cowan didn't play for NZ he'd be exposed as ordinary. We all could see how distinctly average he was. No NZ front row player would make any world XV list this year no doubt so why is it when somebody does catch the eye for NZ they are often dismissed as nothing special. It's only because they play for NZ. If they played for any other team they'd be solid journeymen. Let's take Read and Parisse. Swap them around and how would they fare? Aside from the language barrier they'd both be decidedly average. Combinations count in rugby regardless of who those conninations are.

Any advantage players may get from their team mates is cancelled out by the pressure on players to make a contribution when it counts the higher you go up. If Parisse, for example, stands out in a game but his side loses do you hear recriminations for not doing enough work in the tight? If Read plays badly in a winning team does he get criticized? You bet he does and by Kiwi fans. If he plays well in a losing team does he get any accolades like Parisse? No, as the focus is on looking for some excuse as to why we lost.  But God forbid if he
stands out in a game that NZ wins like in Ellis Park with all that pressure to win then it's just because the players around him carried him. But if you single out the players around them then it's just because Read was carrying them. Someone has to be playing well for NZ to win so often and when a certain player gets singled out for stepping up when it mattered then why is it so difficult to recognize that contribution.

Good players are spotted in any team. Playing for different sides has its advantages and disadvantages. Brown stood out for all his excellent defensive work last weekend. Dagg was outshone but set up a crucial try. Brown gets the nod for a better fullback performance but is that saying Dagg is a lesser player? Of course not but Brown made more of a contribution on that day. Vermeulen looked pretty useful at Ellis Park but Read found a way to combine with Savea to score when NZ were a man down and got the turnover at the end of the first half to set up a crucial score. A slant on Vermeulen who also set up Habana for a crucial score?

Credit where credit is due. No matter what side. I don't think that's so hard.

The best prop to come out of New Zealand this century who was World Class was Afoa, but for some reason they always chose Franks ahead of him. Anyone know why?

I guess most people disagree with your assessment Jhamer.
I always thought he was okay as a sub at best and lucky to be around at a time when we didn't have much depth.

Yes Afoas another that has impressed in the NH...like pienaar and McAlister and co.