how do you define great teams?

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?

I reckon it is mostly subjective.

You look at records of 17 wins in a row for Nick Mallet, but no one is going to call them a great team.

In fairness this current team has been a pleasure to support, but it has to be acknowledged that the wider training squad work very very hard.

Successive wins...a number alone, doesn't define a great team on its own. The manner of the wins, the quality of both the players and the opposition sides defeated and even the style of the team can define it. Of course its all subjective.

Thats the beauty of the exercise...

The article itself seems to be an effort to placate the writer and his readers who may be tired of hearing ABs this or that in a way that by lowering their status somehow...makes them feel better. I mean would the article ever have been answered in a resounding Yes...they are the greatest! I mean what on earth would be the point of doing that!

The other thing about this team is amongst teams ranked 2-8 or 9 the wins are being shared around in a very healthy spread- on a regular basis higher ranked sides are losing to those ranked down the list.

None are true to their ranking for long...except this side. In an era where its so difficult to dominate...only one seems to be holding true. That's gotta be a good sign.

Greatness can only ever be awarded in posterity. Of course then memories become sepia tinged. It will always be subjective and different pundits will have different opinions.

In 10 years time we can look back and decide whether the current team was a great team and how it ranks against other great teams - though how do you define the current time as it starts to evolve post RWC.

How do you definite a "team".

Im not being smart but you've said that "They've had 11 years where they have been there or there abouts".

There are few if any players who were involved 10 or 11 years ago. Why 11 years? Why not 15 or 20 years. Why not just 2 years?

2003 RWC which was 9 years ago had maybe 4-5 of your current players involved.

How does one define a "team". Where does it start and end.

LondonTiger. I agree. I think this team will be seen as great. If for no other reason due to it's consistent ability to win over a long period.

Winning runs only tell part of the story. The great bok teams of the 30's were dominant. They won all the series available to them. That includes a grandslam of the UK and Ireland, a whitewash of the Lions and victory in NZ. They are not going to show up on the stats because they only played 17 matches in 10 years. Their longest winning sequence was 5 and their winning percentage was around 75%. Despite this they are one of the great sides. Why because they set the boks up as the kings of international rugby, and apart from the rest.

Redstag. Good point and fair point. It's a bit like how long is a piece of string. It's a arbitrary. Team/teams I'm pretty liberal. A generation would do me. E.g. the great Welsh team(s) of the 70's. It is difficult even over a short period of time if you want to be strict. E.g. I think around 50 players played for England between 1999-2003. So is it one team, or several different teams.

A generation is usually defined as 7 years but in sporting terms I'd say 3-4 years is a long peak for a team.

For example the English 2003 would be seen by many as a great side but they were really only dominant for a short period between 2001 - 2003, where they nailed their first GS, beat the Trinations home and away and won the RWC.

The ABs team from 1995 - 1997 were for sure a great team without winning the RWC. The SA team which won the 2007 RWC and 2009 Lions series a were great side.

Also how do you rank Lions teams who just do one tour? I think a winning Lions team can be defined as great.

In club terms, where the biggest tournaments are usually annually you can see teams dominate year in year out. I'd say any team that won multiple HEC cups within a few seasons were a great side i.e. Leicester, Toulouse, Munster, Leinster etc.

I suppose greatness is subjective and context specific.

What is weird is that we hear a lot of stuff about "Only judge NZ on the WC" from NH scribes as everyone knows it's their achilles heel results wise. But when they do an NH scribe comes out with this.

It's the same as them judging NZ by NZ standards whereas if they judged them by NH standards they'd be the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Kiwis are their own harshest critics without having to react to people from other countries who should get their own acts in order first. You just can't win sometimes.

The pantheon includes for me SA in 37 and 49, 71 Lions, 99-01 Aussies and 02-03 England as well as some AB teams-obviously a couple more I've forgotten too. I don't want to seem disdainful if the Welsh heritage as they have had a significant impact on our great game, but the teams of the 70s never beat SA or NZ. I know they were a big part of the victorious Lions teams but there were a fair few non-Welsh players in there that were just as important in their success.

Yep, now we have to "wait 10 years to award greatness retrospectively" according to the English...

MY! I WONDER who won the world cup exactly 10 YEARS ago??? CAN YOU GUESS?? To tell them who it is here's....Stephen Jones.

Rather than penning the rather transparent "Hats off, though, where they are due. New Zealand's 54-15 win against Argentina in La Plata on Saturday night saw them claim the inaugural Rugby Championship, a tournament that has turned out to be as ho-hum as its mundane name. " he could just have opted for honesty and introduced the article with:

"I am a seethingly jealous, anaemic little runt of a man with small tackle issues and penchant for hacking down those with talent I can only wince at. Please indulge me as I indulge in a bitter tirade fueled by my own feelings of indequacy, that I project at a spectacularly egotistical national level..."

Anyone who witnessed the spine tingling build up to the La Plata game, and the drama, emotion, commitment and awe inspiring talent on display and claims to have found it "ho-hum" is a muppet who's opinion is best consigned to the flush cycle of a public lavatory.

Yup. Cue the Welshman with the chip on his shoulder about never having seen Wales beat New Zealand referring to and living vicariously through the greatest ever team of the country who pays him do so.

The talent was displayed from both teams. I thought the match was pretty even actually-NZ just had one of those games where they took all their chances. When that happens scores blow out.

Mind you that's the only thing the All Blacks are good at-scoring points. Take that out of the equation and we're just not very good rugby players.

Rodders I agree. Although I suspect England can only really be said to be dominant for the last 12 months going into the world cup. That's not to deride them. It just reflects their schedule (mostly playing at home (SA for instance didn't record a a win from 13 away games against a top side between 2000-2003), the fact the lions lost in Australia. It illustrates the subjectivity of it.

disneychilly wrote:What is weird is that we hear a lot of stuff about "Only judge NZ on the WC" from NH scribes as everyone knows it's their achilles heel results wise. But when they do an NH scribe comes out with this.

That's not unreasonable, though. The RWC is the pinnacle of the sport and, Lions apart, a side can only really be called great if it wins it.

In other sports, we judge tennis players by their Grand Slam wins, golfers by Majors, cyclists by Yellow and Green jerseys and most other sports by Olympic wins. Redgrave and Pinsent won every race they entered for 4 years between Barcelona and Atlanta, but we remember them for winning Gold. Mark Cavendish - more through circumstance than talent - is somehow less impressive than Bradley Wiggins. Andy Murray has for several years been much better than every other tennis player in the world bar 3. In fact, in any other era he would probably have racked up multiple Grand Slam titles by now and he's unfortunate to be playing at the same time as Federer and Nadal - but very few people would have accepted the argument that he's one of the great tennis players until his heroics of this summer (and he's still got a way to go).

It's tough, but them's the breaks.

Nowhere near the greatest yet. Who is the greatest? When does Richie McCaw's team no longer become his? What if he comes back and joins the team again in 2014? Is it still his team? He mentions Muliaina in the article? As he no longer plays for the ABs is this a new team?

Firstly, the only point in an article like this is if there's been a statement by a current AB or coach that this side is the greatest. That would never happen so it's a bit like pontificating on whether peanut butter and banana are the best combination or is it bacon and eggs. Who gives a flying frollick!

Secondly, to surmise this team hasn't dominated when it holds every conceivable trophy there is on offer in this current time, then you have to question such an outrageous claim. His criteria that this current side is beatable and that to be a great side you must be considered unbeatable is preposterous. Any AB side goes out there to win, such are the high expectations weighed down on them. Any side is capable of beating another. No rugby side comes from a Gaul village which has a magic potion that makes them invincible.

Any current side is focused on the game ahead. The games that have come before are a legacy of your preparation of that game that lies ahead of you. Looking forward and backward through time to judge greatness is futile.

Many of us apparently think this team has a long way to go. Who are these many people wasting their time in such nonsense. From what I've heard, nobody has even brought it up until this waste of space.

Please also bear in mind that most NH fans have a pretty low opinion of Mick Cleary's opinion pieces and certainly Stephen Jones's. They do not speak for all of us or even many of us!

That's why we go on these boards Poorfour. It's a lot better having an exchange with a person who's not paid to be provocative about the issues. Don't think we're proud of some of our journos either!

Mick Dreary and Stephen Moans are definitely not alone in the world. With so much information available and when it happens, I do think it takes these articles for people to sit up and notice. In today's world, we can live things happening well away from us in the same moment as they're being experienced. So a day or week later, what do you have left to talk about? It's all been said. Frankly, other than starting lineups, I can't remember the last time I found a media piece worth reading. I'm sure they're out there but they're lost in the enormous steaming pile of soundbites and blandness.

We discussed this on the 606V2 Rugby Podcast a while back. Was this the best All Black side of all time.

My own view was that I had never seen a better All Black team than what you had from 2005-2007.

Kiwireddevil made the point that the 1987 team was in his opinion the best bunch of Kiwis.

I dont think a "team" really lasts longer than 2-3 years due to the constant new faces.

I think more and more...as we move on World Cups wins will have quite oa baring...like it or not.

BUt i think in the past ....NH teams "greatness" are deemed by how many wins against the SH teams they got.

NZ are a good team, but I think to be known as great, they have to be playing against other great teams. At present, they pretty much just have to turn up against anyone.

bathmad wrote:NZ are a good team, but I think to be known as great, they have to be playing against other great teams. At present, they pretty much just have to turn up against anyone.

The old classic "NZ are not great, everyone else is rank". Love it.

If you could bottle the powerful desperation in that article, you could power a small kingdom.

bathmad wrote:NZ are a good team, but I think to be known as great, they have to be playing against other great teams. At present, they pretty much just have to turn up against anyone.

Totally disagree with that statement. The last part of it will be proven on Saturday-it'll be a hell of a game. NZ have never been that far ahead of the pack. There have been better teams than the current lot in the last 17 years and only once did NZ go through a season undefeated. The funny thing is I've read numerous articles about a "massive upset' whenever SA beat NZ in SA.

You could say the same about England in 03. SA were at an all time low, Australia were past it and only hanging on and NZ just finished a six year drought without the Bledisloe.

since great is an entirely subjective concept this is an entriely pointless thread

I think sport can be quantified a bit-as statistics tell you one side has won more, has a better win % blah blah blah, but it can be said that great teams capture the imagination too which isn't quantitative.

Same as music really. You might be able to critique musicianship to an extent, but it is art, and you can never convince anyone that one band or song is better than another. You like who you like. Let what you like inspire you and ignore people who try to tell you what is good and what isn't. Mind you reading them is like poking a sore tooth with your tongue. You can't stop touching it. Same for rugby journos you hate I guess.

There was talk of the team Fitzpatrick captained as the greatest. IMO the All Blacks of 2004-07 and 2010-12 are THE BEST and the greatest teams to have graced the sport.

Morgannwg wrote:There was talk of the team Fitzpatrick captained as the greatest. IMO the All Blacks of 2004-07 and 2010-12 are THE BEST and the greatest teams to have graced the sport.

The 87-89 and 95-97 AB's teams are up there too. Ditto 1924 (unbeaten over a 50 match world tour), though there's not too many people alive who'll remember them. I suspect the 60's side's unbeaten run was more down to Fred Allen being a phenomenal coach plus having Colin Meads rather than being a truly great side. For me, 95-97 winning a series in South Africa makes them special. The 87-89 side managed 23 or 24 games unbeaten in a row (there was a draw vs Aus in there) with possibly the greatest ever ABs front row, plus the likes of Michael Jones, Buck Shelford, Graeme Bachop, John Gallagher in there. Zinzan Brooke was stuck on the bench!

Otherwise, SA 1937, 1949 and 2007-09, Wales in the early 70s, England 2001-03 and Australia 98-99 have decent shouts.

You left out Lithuania Pete. Formidable team that took no prisoners.

I think the best singular team in my time, in my opinion was NZ in 96.

Ah I fondly recall Lithuania obliterating Paraguay in a commanding performance. As a country that's never beaten Paraguay I hope the ABs are striving to emulate them.

I dont really care if People from other countries regard this All Black team as great or not. but this team can put on some displays of rugby bordering on perfection.

As an All Black supporter, all I say is get on board, strap yourselves in and enjoy the ride.

Too true Laurie. I reckon this team, much like South Africa, has so much improvement in them that they could take the game to a new level. These are exciting times.

aucklandlaurie wrote: I dont really care if People from other countries regard this All Black team as great or not. but this team can put on some displays of rugby bordering on perfection.

As an All Black supporter, all I say is get on board, strap yourselves in and enjoy the ride.

Very true...

according to ross ford scotland will soon be a great side as they are about to beat NZ in the autumn, on their way no doubt to RWC glory in 2015

mowgli wrote:according to ross ford scotland will soon be a great side as they are about to beat NZ in the autumn, on their way no doubt to RWC glory in 2015

I'd say he'd be right, especially if they won every test between next month and October 2015.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

mowgli wrote:according to ross ford scotland will soon be a great side as they are about to beat NZ in the autumn, on their way no doubt to RWC glory in 2015

I'd say he'd be right, especially if they won every test between next month and October 2015.

Still wouldnt count as 'great' though...thats not dominance at all...

I think Scotland are in a great position to lift themselves. They are the side, along with Italy, that teams will look to play their second team and develop depth. I think it gives them an opportunity. Especially on what is likely to be a narrow pitch with Scottish weather.

Plus theyve beaten SA , Argie at home and Oz last couple of years havnt they?

Every one has there idea of a great team,by any definition the Boks up until 1996 were the most successful side in the World.Now it is the All Blacks a 75% win stat versus all comers since 1903 proves that.The Boks on 63% are the next best.RWC winners were not always the best side in the World 1987,1991 there were no Boks so we don`t know.1995 and 2007 definetely not EXCEPT for the tournament which they won on merit.1999,2003,2011 yes.England under SCW had 22losses out of 83 for a 71% win rate,the AllBlacks under Henry and co.15 losses out of of 93 for a 83%win rate.They were great i`ve read the article and agree the current All Black side isn`t yet it is a side rebuilding.
A lot of the article I disagree with Rives and Slattery were never as good as McCaw is now.Nor for that matter as John Graham,Tremain,Kirkpatrick,Michael Jones,josh Kronfeld or Richard Hill and Neil Back,or George Smith or Juan Smith[Smit?].The 1937 Boks certainly,1949 yes ,1951,yes,1960 yes,2009 up to mid year yes.Wales most sides up to about 1953,the 1970`s,and by NH standards the 3 Grand Slam sides recently.England 1930`s,1983 ish,1993ish,2000-3.
Lions 1955,1971,1974.SO on and on,the All Blacks1950-70 when they lost a single series in two decades.Eight years during Don Clarkes era when they lost 3 tests.The Statement that the AllBlacks would`nt have been great in the 1960`s without Fred Allen does`nt stand up they were already a great side when he took over.Australia 1991-2and 1999-2001 also several French sides.
The comments on the 4Ns has`nt been very complimentary but only Scotland has beaten a SH side on tour.Tournaments ar`nt meant to be blowouts but well contested which has mostly been the case in the 4Ns.

Where are you getting these from Alan...by anu definition...What?

How about this definition...(is there actually another that exists out there?)

Up til 1996:
AB's played 305 won 219 at 71.8%
Boks played 218 won 139 at 63.8%

ABs won more than the Boks even played in that period. Huge difference.

This is also rubbish:
"RWC winners were not always the best side in the World 1987,1991 there were no Boks so we don`t know"

Yes we do. They were there 1999, 2003 and 2011 and didnt make a lot of difference then either so whats the point again?

We also 'don't know' what would have happened if not for half the team being poisoned in 95 and a certain ref in 2007- so if you want to bend things, bend them both ways. In both cases they were clearly denied chances in the final, regardless of the reason.

So disagree completely with what appears to be a validation of the posts before it...do agree on one thing..."Every one has there idea of a great team" just as some have no idea...

Stats can be deceptive. The boks prior to WWII had the hardest itinerary (no Australia next door). British and Irish teams had the easiest itineries up until the later part of the amateur era (no national tours to the south). Historically NZ played more games in SA and couldn't send full strength sides.

Even today the stats can be deceptive. NZ, SA and Australia have harder itineraries than European sides.

I don't have any stats but just going on my gut feel. And my gut tells me that this AB team, and I'm defining it as the McCaw-DC era, is a great team and for me, feels like the most consistently successful since 87. I might be wrong on that, but it seems they have been.

Sure there's been some good teams over the last 30+ years, but the confidence I have in the ABs (right now, and since GH) to win every game is sky high. Sure, they don't win all games, but the expectation is there. I recall some hammerings from Oz/SA back in the 90s-00s. Even though some of our teams had great players and could play some scintillating stuff, they could play equally poor and get smoked by a 'better' team. We don't see these hammerings as much these days.

I think defining a great team can be seen two ways.

Firstly the all BLacks in the professional era has a win rate of 85.4392397722%

That to me is a great team.

The other is defining a great group of players within a team, in other words a core of players who have played together for a sustainable period of times, with only a few players on the fringes that come and go.

So you have to look at the core starting with McCaw and Carter and the players surrounding them for a sustainable period.

As an example in my view SBW is not part of that great core, he has only played a handful of games looking at the 80+ games Carter and McCaw played in.

Taylorman wrote:
Up til 1996:
AB's played 305 won 219 at 71.8%
Boks played 218 won 139 at 63.8%

Not bad comparison considering that in head-to-head matches in the republic, NZ were not permitted to play non-whites. Talk about a handicap!

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

What was their win % during those years Oakey? Be interesting to compare.

disneychilly wrote:

bathmad wrote:NZ are a good team, but I think to be known as great, they have to be playing against other great teams. At present, they pretty much just have to turn up against anyone.

Totally disagree with that statement. The last part of it will be proven on Saturday-it'll be a hell of a game. NZ have never been that far ahead of the pack. There have been better teams than the current lot in the last 17 years and only once did NZ go through a season undefeated. The funny thing is I've read numerous articles about a "massive upset' whenever SA beat NZ in SA.

You could say the same about England in 03. SA were at an all time low, Australia were past it and only hanging on and NZ just finished a six year drought without the Bledisloe.

If the SH sides were at an all time low as you seem to think surely it means the 6 nations sides were comparatively stronger than they are these days?

That England team of 2001-2003 was very strong. They beat NZ home and away. Inflicted on Australia numerous defeats including winning the RWC against them in their own backyard. Gave SA their heaviest ever defeat which still stands the test of time. In 2003 they won both the grandslam and RWC. The 2003 grandslam was pretty brutal in regards to scorelines too.

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

http://stats.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+dec+2003;spanmin1=01+jan+2000;spanval1=span;team=1;template=results;type=team

Btw NZ in the pro era have almost allways been a great and the best side- bar that 4 year spell by England- which in all honesty could be argued as the best 4 year spell ever. However overall the greatest all time side is clearly NZ

Taylorman ,my comments were in general BUT I measured the Boks versus the rest of the World up to 1996.Were THE only side to have a win/loss ratio in there favour until 1996 against EVERY side.In that they have been superceded by the All Blacks. RWC s 1987 and 1991 because the Boks were`nt there are considered by many not to count.NOT by me they were BOTH Great sides and the 1987 All Blacks went nearly 4 years unbeaten..An ageing side lost 4 times to Australia in 1991-2,BUT were first side to beat the OZ side home 1982.Before1995 the Boks after returniing from isolation,had a poor record going into the RWC,and were indifferent afterwards until 1998 when again a AllBlack side went out together.UnderJake White up until the 2007 RWC the Boks were nothing special.In my OPINION the All Blacks were the best side in the World in 1995 and 2007.BUT for whatever reason you want to come up with the Boks on the day won there RWCs.I did not bring up the things you mentioned because I did`nt want to be controversial.Where did I get my data?
from memory of things seen or read.NOT from googling for stats,,greatness is subjective.How can you measure Bok and AllBlack sides versus NH sides pre 1969. When both were run on Professional lines in the nicest way without payment.How can you judge a side who has had a Coach since at least 1903,against a Lions side.Who are only allowed a 14 day period to meet before boarding a Steamer for fear of broaching Amateur status.The Deputy manager named as coach for wan t of a better word,versus coached provincial /test sides.THE only way they could compete in that period was to base the Lions around a leading 5Ns side.THAT only occurred in 1955 when they drew with a very powerful Bok side hence my claim they were great.ONLY Bok versus AllBlack matches in that era indicated greatness,and sadly politics ruled in that too.It is a FACT that the only 2 sides where there was marked disparity between
them was during the outlawing of the 2-3-2 scrum.The adoption of the Bok 3-4-1 scrum without learning the mechanics.It has been discussed by experts that IF the ABs had a fully functional Scrum.Been coached By Vic Cavanagh Junior,been able to pick whoever they wanted particularly Vince Bevan.That there were neutral officials the ABS would have halved the series no more BUT that is conjecture.I am an All Black supporter you won`t find a greater one anywhere in NZ or wherever.I would NEVER belittle there achievements for most of the time 1956 to date they have been with the Boks one of THE two best sides.
That like all sides they had dips in form especially 1930`s immediately pre war and the 1970`s.BUT they still notched up a lot of wins,since 1987 with a few glitches the have been THE best with a 81% win/loss ratio for that period.
Stats improve with the greater number of games played,IF you wanted to prove you were a great side.Then wanted a run of x number of games easy line up 20 or so easy beats bingo you have a record.BUT it would be meaning less unless it included peer nations.