how do you define great teams?

First topic message reminder :

Cleary's just written an article in the Telegraph about the current AB's and whether they will be considered the greatest or one of the greatest sides in histor (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/newzealand/9579526/Richie-McCaws-All-Blacks-are-a-great-team-but-nowhere-near-the-greatest-just-yet.html). In his esteemed opinion they aren't yet.

I think the interesting question is how you define greatness. It's going to change with time IMO. It's hard to judge sides we haven't seen, lived through, and there can be a bias towards our own teams, and our own eras. It's ultimately probably an exercise doomed to failure. The rule changes, the number of games change, professionalism, world cups and world rankings all make it fruitless. Ultimately, I'm thinking, it's dominance and how the rest of the world views your game.

I'm sure this side wont be viewed as the greatest side by many people, or even the greatest kiwi side by many fans. For me, even if they lose this weekend and spiral into decline, they will be up there. They've had 11 years where they have been there or there abouts. They've dominated the world rankings and been the team that opposition teams fear the most. They haven't won everything and they have stumbled at times, but the game is much more competitive these days than it's ever been in the past. you are always playing the top sides, and it's much more a test of player depth than it's ever been. I have no doubt that we'll look back on the Henry era (and the years either side) as a golden era, up there with the best of them.

who are the great teams and why? Your thoughts?

Mystirokey,since England won only two matches by2,or 3 points. That Andrew Merthens did`nt play the full 80 minutes in either,and Spencer missed vital kicks Merths would have buried.THAT is a very big statement indeed especially as Oz and Bok Rugby was in disarray.

Arrr booo emack. Admit your countrymen were great for that period!

You won't find a greater AB supporter in NZ or wherever. Have you met us all then?

Like this thread how do you define greatness Alan? Don't get me wrong, I always enjoy your posts and thorough knowledge of the ABs and the game. But like it is not up to the current ABs to define their greatness but rather concentrate on the game ahead, so too is it best to avoid making such statements as a fan. Greatness is subjective. I'm more in line with Laurie's feelings. Just be happy to support a team that somehow manages to nearly meet the ridiculous demands placed on it.

It is very easy to be an allblack fan isnt it!!(well untill WC time anyway )

Yeah you're right mate. That World Cup final last year was nerve wracking!

Yeah you guys get your knickers in a twist during them times!

But i do think from an evolotionary stand point That this Kiwi side is possibly the best ever performance wise, due to tech, fitness, diet, etc ..

Mystiriokey ,as an Anglo -Scot Yes under SCW England were a great side,but so the were under Geoff Cooke and Jack Rowell.Indeed both Coaches have better win stats than SCW.Kia perhaps my enthusiasm as an AB supporter gets out of hand but when I am accused of down playing them?I speak from knowledge and voice my opinion which is as valid as any here.The All Blacks 2002-3 were a very good side but by the best AB standards lightweight in the pack.The backs were excellent but Carlos Spencer one of the most talented players ever to grace the game.Had fatal flaws in his game especially his goal kicking at test level.In my opinion Andrew Merthens was THE best 10 of the era. NOT Jonny Wilkinson for all his skills in defence and as a goal kicker.Only as a tackler was Jonny a lot better,when it came to launching a line,tactical kicking,breaking the advantage line.Merthens was superior and his goal kicking was in the same area as Harlequins,Toulon,StadeFrancais can attest last heard of Merths was still playing in France age 38.

The majority don't question that your opinion is as valid as any here Alan. You can't preach to the doubters though from a pedestal. They'll only try to knock you down...

mystiroakey wrote:In that 4 year span 90% win rate(2000-2003)

That is a truly impressive win rate record

Incidentally i`ve been an All Black fan since 1953-4 ,and stuck with them since then thru thick and thin.That was a team in transistion not a great one,and i`ve been there thru thick and thin for 60 years can you say the same?Easy i`m not a SCW groupie.RWC what do they prove you are the best for one tournament,then lose to the AllBlacks as all the winners have post RWC.IncidentallyI am very proudof my native countries as well except versus the ABs.Incidentally the AB chokers bit is wearing thin try England choking instead it rings truer.Just as Sir Clive Woodward "judge me on the RWC"1999 any one I can score cheap points two 15 all your service.

mystiroakey wrote:The greatest of all time was clearly england 2000- 2003- best win record and world cup!!

But you have to remember Clive "politic" Woodward took England on a series of elaborate tours against such might powerhouses as Romania, Portugal and Canada repeatedly to bolster the apparent "record". He also conspired to play the faltering SA regularly to create the illusion of "dominance" over "the southern hemisphere" whilst selectively playing NZ only twice, once against a development touring side. Recall that when faced with an actual tour to NZ SCWs "world champions" were humilated repeatedly by 30 points.

We all know that you are a true NZ fan- Dont worry- but dont diminsh Englands acheivements or us fans hey!

AWOP it culminated with a world cup win. The best 4 year spells to look at are the ones from wc to wc. That is what truely matters. because many teams will gear towards that- After that world cup england did get worse- we all know that and the reasons why. But that 4 year spell could be seen as the best ever, and that may be because we only concentrate on the ultimate goal(wc win) rather than long term

Longevity has nothing to do with it. To be a true AB supporter, you should always remain loyal regardless of what happens. TP McLean is not remembered for his longevity but his love of the game.

South Africa's best period was the one leading into isolation.

From January 1975 to the last matches played against the World XV and exclding the Cavaliers we played 30 matches and won 25 for an 83.33% win rate.

South America - 7 wins 1 loss
NZ - 4 wins 3 losses
British and Irish Lions - 3 wins 1 loss
France - 3 wins
World XV - 3 wins
England - 2 wins
Ireland - 2 wins
USA - 1 win

AllBlacks 2005-8 was one of there better periods played 52,lost 6 only a 88 % winstat i`m afraid .But it included wins versus Lions ,Boks ,Australia,a Tour to Europe when they were unbeaten and did`nt concede a try in test matches.Selective stats prove Nothing i`m as proud of you as what SCW and England achieved.BUT his over all stats are just over 71% which included a couple of thrashings post RWC at the hands of the All Blacks not to mention the 2005SCW led Lions.

http://stats.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=14+aug+2003;spanmin1=07+nov+1999;spanval1=span;team=1;template=results;type=team

that is 7th of nov 1999 to 14 aug 2003- the best 4 year record from cup to cup!- that is over 89% win record

the important measure which defines a real period.. 2005-2008 isnt a defining 4 year period in my mind, and doesnt include the ultimate goal- a world cup win!

lets not forget that that wc win was in Aus and england beat the all blacks home and away..

But then again Wallabies won two world cup on UK soil....

yep good team as well- but they havent had a really dominante spell, or have they? Any one know?

Englands 4 loses in that period were only lost by less than 7 pts each game as well!

mystiroakey wrote:lets not forget that that wc win was in Aus and england beat the all blacks home and away..

Just the two wins from a "dominant" team, a one point win after a disallowed try for the most blatant not-offside in history, and a snatched late win against a development side at Twickenham....Compare that with SA in dominance who wiped NZ out comprehensively in a whitewashed trinations, or NZ in similarly dominant form who put large margin hammerings on the top sides in the world over prolonged periods.

Let's also recall that the England "dominance" came about from exploiting the removal of legitimate rucking, as they ruthlessly employed fat men to loll about on top of the ball for 80 minutes, picking off the shots at goal ensuing, and this was abruptly halted when the IRB chief finally ruled that rugby had become too turgid and boring for belief.

Aside from the sepia tinted lenses of those still living a decade ago, I'm very sorry but the 2002-2003 England team was a great side for England , but not a great side. Personally I rank the Welsh team of the 70's ahead of them, Springboks of 2007/8, ABs of 87/88, 95/6, 2010/11.

whatever awop.. Thats balderdash mate

Thing is I think we all agree, great teams are subjective. Statistics points to a winning side, not necessarily a great side.
The Welsh side in the 70s was very good too. But not for a long as the ABs tends to go for. Plus before the pro era it's hard to compare as there were fewer games per year, now we have a pelithora of internationals every year for the stats.

My 2c worth of great sides, no ranking
England 2002-3
Welsh in the 70s with those backs with huge mutton chops...
Boks 95-96
ABs, well too many god sides to pick from, but I have to say the current side is the best, 2009-now

mystiroakey wrote:http://stats.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=14+aug+2003;spanmin1=07+nov+1999;spanval1=span;team=1;template=results;type=team

that is 7th of nov 1999 to 14 aug 2003- the best 4 year record from cup to cup!- that is over 89% win record

the important measure which defines a real period.. 2005-2008 isnt a defining 4 year period in my mind, and doesnt include the ultimate goal- a world cup win!

http://stats.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=date;spanmax3=1+nov+1990;spanmin3=1+nov+1986;spanval3=span;team=8;template=results;type=team

4 years (instead of 3 years & 10 months ), an RWC win, and over a 90% win rate

The whole point was between world cups Kiwi. However nice record!!

You know what you've done there?

You've gone TOO retrospective.

We can only award "greatness" restrospectively, in the recent past, beyond that you need different criteria. For example around 9-10 years ago. Any team that won a world cup in that time frame is "great". Before that, sorry, no dice, The RWC meant nothing, and after that is "too recent".

Love Stephen Jones.

Look AWOP this is all about trying to proove bias with stats. If you cant see that then

But i still disagree completly with your assement that england were only good by englands standards

mystiroakey wrote:But i still agree completly with your assement that england were only good by englands standards

Great, then there is nothing more to discuss!

It's like, Scotland beat Australia. This is great for Scotland. But for, say, NZ is just normal.

meAtwork wrote:Thing is I think we all agree, great teams are subjective. Statistics points to a winning side, not necessarily a great side.
The Welsh side in the 70s was very good too. But not for a long as the ABs tends to go for. Plus before the pro era it's hard to compare as there were fewer games per year, now we have a pelithora of internationals every year for the stats.

My 2c worth of great sides, no ranking
England 2002-3
Welsh in the 70s with those backs with huge mutton chops...
Boks 95-96
ABs, well too many god sides to pick from, but I have to say the current side is the best, 2009-now

Disagree with the Boks 95-96. They were dominated by NZ in 96-losing 4 of the 5 games. NZ 96-97 was probably the best side I've ever seen (and I saw the 87-90 side).

Boks of 1937 and 49 up there. The 37 team beat us fair and square-we had our Maori players. Aussie 99-01 too.

Didn't they go onto that record-tieing winning streak then before losing to England???

That started in 98. NZ lost one game during 96 and 97. The last test vs SA at Ellis Park in 96.

Oops my bad, that was the side I meant then. Thanks

anotherworldofpain wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:But i still agree completly with your assement that england were only good by englands standards

Great, then there is nothing more to discuss!

It's like, Scotland beat Australia. This is great for Scotland. But for, say, NZ is just normal.

what a load of rubbish- it is nothing like that at all-- I see what i have done!! i meant Disagree

You cheeky stewart- you did that. Naughty AWOP

mystiroakey wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:But i still agree completly with your assement that england were only good by englands standards

Great, then there is nothing more to discuss!

It's like, Scotland beat Australia. This is great for Scotland. But for, say, NZ is just normal.

what a load of rubbish I was talking- it is nothing like that at all-- I see what i have done!! I didn't mean to Disagree!

We see eye to eye at last! Welcome back from the dark side mystrioakey!

You naughty naughty AWOP!!! You lampooned me!