BOD or Conrad?

Sure, now Brian is past his peak and Conrad is currently the best centre in the game, but how will we judge them 10 years from now? When we look back at their careers, who will be judged the better the better of the two?

It's a tough question. O'Driscoll has been considered the best whilst Conrad has been pretty darn good, but since the world cup victory Conrad has gone to another level and questions have to be asked whether he has surpassed BOD as the premier centre of the professional era.

So my fellow rugby tragics, is Conrad #1 or does that title remain with BOD?

gee thats a toughy...oh....thought it read conrad or GOD for a minute there.

In ten years time they will both be judged as good quality centres, but just a bit shy of Manu and Foxy

BoD, in his hey-day was a great. There is no denying that. But he's made the mistake of playing on past his sell by date. And his selectors have made the mistake of staying faithful to his legacy in the way that a man desperate not to wash wreeking threadbare stained socks need to also get a grip.

A similar situation is evolving around DC in the AB set up. We must acknowledge the mistakes and lack of form and presence of better current options and not get caught in a sepia tinted rear view mirror eagerly awaiting another masterful performance that will never materialize.

BoD must step down gracefully now, Lions series under the belt, with honour and dignity.

He has a year contract extension and has confirmed he will leave when it is up. I think thats fair enough when there isnt really a stand out candidate in Ireland to replace him.

Why should you retire with honour and dignity? I prefer the Zinedine Zidane exit strategy. Still a legend to me.

Mike Catt stuck around until he was 37 and played in a RWC final as a result. Brad Thorne won a world cup at 36 I think and Simon Shaw was about 50 when he last got selected for the Lions.

As long as Drico is still contributing and there isnt anyone else why not pick him?

O'Driscoll definately for me.

Conrad is very good...but Brian was a great player in his prime.

Difficult one.

BOD has been the best player in a test team never expected to be a SF RWC side...i.e. top 4 in the world. He constantly dragged his sides to respectable results, near misses and occasional victories over the so called giants of the side.
Club rugby he's done it all, test rugby you'd probably say overall 1 GS was a little shy of what they should have achieved given his stature and very decent players alongside him like ROG & POC.
Had he been in a better side he probably wouldn't have been capped as much as their would have been more competition for places etc. Had he been English, French, Australian I think he would have still got 80+ caps... Kiwi or Saffa I think with chaps like Fourie, Umaga, Smith etc I think he would have had a lot less... but still 50+. Its debatable.

Smith, again very talented... how would he had performed in BOD's shoes.... at the hurricanes he has had a ok club side but never taken them like BOD has carried Ireland for instance. He's starred in a side with class all around the pitch so its difficult to calculate his value.
But to receive the number of caps he has is very impressive. One thing about Smith is that he came into test rugby quite late. Whist he was capped in 04, it took him until post RWC07 to become a starter... aged 26-27. Up till 05 Umaga had the shirt so its understandable but from then it was who McAllistar, Toevea... any others???

Not saying he's not a great player but often true greats set themselves apart from day one.

If I could have any player today I'd say Smith... if you asked me BOD in his peak say 04-09 vs. Smith 08-13 I would probably lean towards BOD.

but then there is Jaque Fourie!!!

In ten years time they will be saying BOD the GOD, was a great player.

And Conrad Smith was the best center the Abs have ever produced.

thats a bold statement given even in recent years they have produced chaps like Umaga and Frank Bunce.

Perhaps if he is the spearhead of another AB victory in 2015 then it would be on the money, yet to be convinced myself... when he's with an average side (the Hurricanes) he performs reasonably well sure, but never has pushed them towards title contenders.... thats the mark of a great player.

McAlister,was a shooting star and replaced Mauger for one Season at 12 BIG Mistake Mauger
was best 12 in NZ.Toeva who`s he? a utility Back never established in any position.Leon
Macdonald used as Utility player another BIG mistake in a RWC Semi against Stephen Larkham?Umaga was apparently fit being saved for Final ANOTHER John Mitchell BOOBOO.
Had he stayed fit Richard Kahui maybe as a rival,as it is Conrad Smith is the BEST currently
in NZ probably the World.
Incidentally Andrew Merthens another Great was last heard off still playing in France at 38
GE why are you rubbishing DC at 31 he is STILL the best 10 in World Rugby by some distance.

MacDonald was in the side because Spencer couldn't kick in 2003. Not sure who would have had the responsibilities had Umaga been fit.... he didn't play a single match post the first game of the pools right... had he been fit he would have played.... he wasn't fit and given he was off for 6+ weeks he wouldn't have been match fit... Mortlock would have smashed him like he smashed everyone else... only a fully match fit Umaga could have stopped an inspired Mortlock at the time.

emack2 wrote:McAlister,was a shooting star and replaced Mauger for one Season at 12 BIG Mistake Mauger
was best 12 in NZ.Toeva who`s he? a utility Back never established in any position.Leon
Macdonald used as Utility player another BIG mistake in a RWC Semi against Stephen Larkham?Umaga was apparently fit being saved for Final ANOTHER John Mitchell BOOBOO.
Had he stayed fit Richard Kahui maybe as a rival,as it is Conrad Smith is the BEST currently
in NZ probably the World.
Incidentally Andrew Merthens another Great was last heard off still playing in France at 38
GE why are you rubbishing DC at 31 he is STILL the best 10 in  World Rugby by some distance.

Open your eyes Alan. He just isn't any more. He gets turned over, makes too many mistakes like intercept passes, his kicking average has dropped and he's lost that yard of pace that used to see him glide into gaps. He's still very good and were lucky to have him, but Cruden and Barrett evaluated on a level playing field are better.

GE open your other eye Carter has had an appalling run of injuries why?because he does`nt
stand back.JW aside DC is probably the best defensive 10 in the game everyteam since2005
has had one aim Get Carter.Once that would have been fatal now Crudon is almost as good
Barrett has`nt played a full test yet so to early to tell.

But the thing with Conrad smith is I don't recall him ever being out of form. He's one of those guys like Aaron Mauger. You don't even realise you're missing him when he's not there. Always deadly. So snakey you don't even notice when he's working the magic.

Or maybe its just because he's not the blow hard media junky BOD is.

Tuff one but Conrad has been on fire for the past few seasons and BOD hasn't apart from a few big games.
I wonder who the Irish fans will pick  
It is fair to say though Conrad smith, defensively is the best player in the world.

There is a replacement for every All Black, (someone that can just slot in and perform the task next week), except for one and that is Conrad Smith. this alone makes him a very special player.

Ireland would find it hard to find anyone to replace Brian O'Driscoll, but then again they would have trouble finding a replacement for most of their players, and still play winning rugby.

Conrad Smith has the best win ratio of any player, ever. So he must doing something right. And having some impact...

There is a replacement for every All Black, (someone that can just slot in and perform the task next week), except for one and that is Conrad Smith. this alone makes him a very special player.

Ireland would find it hard to find anyone to replace Brian O'Driscoll, but then again they would have trouble finding a replacement for most of their players, and still play winning rugby.

No brainer. O'Driscoll is/was an all round better player than C. Smith. In 10 years time that will still be the case imo.

Conrad has the highest winning percentage of any current AB beating even McCaw. Talking about BOD as indispensable for Ireland counts the same for Smith. His absences are also noted.

BOD does more on attack than Smith in terms of making plays. Smith creates plays and sets up opportunities for those around him. Bod is more often creating opportunities for himself or finishing off moves than setting up others compared to Smith.

BOD has largely worked in tandem with Darcy. Smith with Nonu. Nonu is a defensive liability while Darcy was a defensive rock. Nonu was more of an attacking threat than Darcy which may explain why the 13 positions are respectively different for both countries. When assessing a player you always have to see them in terms of what the other players ask of and offer him.

BOD offers more at the breakdown whereas the option taking of Smith invariably is perfect. I think BOD played the way he did because GE felt he needed to whereas Smith made the decisions best for the team being more assured in what they could offer.

Different teams and therefore different players. Both will be considered essential for their teams during their careers. Bod has been extremely durable with such a long career and Smith has suffered concussion issues but when playing has seen his team invariably win. It's a team game and I think BOD is the better individual player but Smith is the better team player. Up to you which you deem to be more important.

In terms of consistency BOD has it nailed down... being truly world class for a decade in both club, country and lions... and probably the only home nations player who could have found a starting berth in the England RWC03 winning side says something about the player.
He was as good in his early 20s as he was as a senior player... Smith only really made it onto the scene aged 27. Club wise the Hurricanes have never been a poor side but Smith has never taken them by the scruff of the neck like BOD dragged his respected sides to.

Currently though Smith is well ahead, I'd probably say a fully fit Tuilagi is too.

Jaques Fourie.

difficult to say given he's playing 2nd-3rd tier rugby, he will be off the pace no matter what they try and justify... i'd back him to be back up to speed with half a season of top class rugby though. Like BOD he's been a class operator for a long time.

BOD. Better defence, more likely to conjure something from nothing. I don't think Smith would have done as much internationally as BOD without the best pack and best ever 10.

When you compare the games betwee each players respective teams teams it shows:

Brian O'Driscoll has played against New Zealand 13 times and lost 13 times but has scored 3 tries.

Conrad Smith has played 7 times against Ireland and won 7 times. he also has scored 3 tries.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
When you compare the games betwee each players respective teams teams it shows:

Brian O'Driscoll has played against New Zealand 13 times and lost 13 times  but has scored 3 tries.

Conrad Smith has played 7 times against Ireland and won 7 times. he also has scored 3 tries.

and what does that tell us?

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
When you compare the games betwee each players respective teams teams it shows:

Brian O'Driscoll has played against New Zealand 13 times and lost 13 times  but has scored 3 tries.

Conrad Smith has played 7 times against Ireland and won 7 times. he also has scored 3 tries.

and what does that tell us?

It tells us that BOD scores tries when in a losing team, but Conrad Smith scores tries in a winning team.

Really it is going to be hard to tell who is the better, as they have different styles, and also play in very different teams. Would Smith look good in the Irish team, and would BOD look good in the All Blacks?

They are both really good players. I think BOD was a more exciting player capable of that little bit of extra magic while still capable of doing everything else very well. Smith for me is more of a team player also with a full set of skills. For me the most impressive thing about Smith is his attitude. Any time I have seen him interviewed he comes across as very smart (rare enough for an AB), very focused and diciplined guy. In a rugby context this has meant that he is an outstanding decision maker which is a very under rated attribute.

Both are excellent but if I had to chose one it would be Brian O'Driscoll because he over his career has attracted a massive following creating a huge draw to rugby in Ireland by doing things on a rugby pitch that very few Irishmen have done before or will do ever again. While Smith might have been every bit as much a winner and a great all round player I dont think he would have had the same effect as Brian O'Driscoll.

There has only been only player in my life time that as his best was as exciting if not more exciting to watch as Drico and thats Joost.

There are more fans in the NH, so only natural that a NH player would seem to have a larger following. However, setting aside all parrochial cheerleading, there is no contest. Conrad Smith is twice the player BOD ever was.

GloriousEmpire wrote:There are more fans in the NH, so only natural that a NH player would seem to have a larger following. However, setting aside all parrochial cheerleading, there is no contest. Conrad Smith is twice the player BOD ever was.

So if Conrad Smith is twice the player Drico is how do you explain O'Driscoll scoring twice as may tries as Smith? Even if you take into consideration the fact that Drico has played more tests his try per test ratio is better than Smith's. 32% vs 37%. He also has a much better strike rate at club level than Smith.

How do explain the fact that O'Driscoll has three times as many world player of the year nominations as Smith? IRB nominations come from a panel of SH and NH former players.

Because (a) IRB player of the year nominations are popularist, political rubbish and (b) the measure of a great center isn't how many tries he scores.

Why does Conrad Smith have the best participation win rate of any player in the world? Why does Drico always seem to be giving a valliant losers speech?

Perhaps he hogs the ball in a non-team way, gets slightly more tries but ultimately causes the team to lose...

GloriousEmpire wrote:Because (a) IRB player of the year nominations are popularist, political rubbish and (b) the measure of a great center isn't how many tries he scores.

Oh so can I assume you have formulated a reliable "measure" by which you can quantify that Smith is "twice" as good as Drico ever was? Or are you just a troll?

IRB nominations might be popularist, political rubbish but the composition of the panel does expose some holes in your theory that O'Driscoll is only valued amongst NH fans with a "parochial" mindset.

Conrad Smith has the best participation win rate because he plays for the team with the best win rate in the world. I think thats quite obvious really.

Conrad Smith hasnt had to give as many valient losers speeches because he only has one seasons experience as a captain with the hurricanes. O'Driscoll has close to 100 test caps as captain and numerous at club level too.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Because (a) IRB player of the year nominations are popularist, political rubbish and (b) the measure of a great center isn't how many tries he scores.

Why does Conrad Smith have the best participation win rate of any player in the world? Why does Drico always seem to be giving a valliant losers speech?

Perhaps he hogs the ball in a non-team way, gets slightly more tries but ultimately causes the team to lose...

So if you swap both players around so Smith played for Ireland and vice versa Ireland would have the winning record against the All Blacks? Clearly not so the participation in this win rate doesn't really add anything to the debate about who is the greater player.

We will never know. But I guarantee Ireland would've won a few more matches. The AB win rate drops when Conrad is absent...

GloriousEmpire wrote:We will never know. But I guarantee Ireland would've won a few more matches. The AB win rate drops when Conrad is absent...

Do you have any idea how much the Ireland win rate drops when Drico has been absent? I guarentee you the difference is more dramatic.

The figures relating to Ireland's fortunes with and without O'Driscoll are as follows:

Ireland's overall record: Played 67, Won 45, Drawn 1, Lost 21, Win ratio 67.91%

With Brian O'Driscoll: P57, W41, D0, L16, Ratio 71.93%

Without Brian O'Driscoll: P10, W4, D1, L5, Ratio 45.00%

So Ireland's difference in success-rate with and without him is +26.93 percentage points - an impressive measure of the value he adds to Ireland in the tournament.

The breakdown of his captaincy success in Six Nations matches is also illuminating:

Ireland's overall record: Played 67, Won 45, Drawn 1, Lost 21, Win Ratio 67.91%

With Brian O'Driscoll as captain: P41, W31, D0, L10, Win Ratio 75.61%

Without Brian O'Driscoll as captain: P26, W14, D1, L11, Win Ratio 55.77%

So, with O'Driscoll as captain Ireland's Six Nations success-rate is 19.84 percentage points higher than without him in charge.

But you missed the confounding factor that Ireland often rest a lot of players at the same time and field weak sides. Many times when Drico is missing, there are a lot of others missing too.

NZ are expected to win every game so usual play the best line up. If they rest players it's for games they expect to win anyway. If NZ rested players and lost their would be national outcry.

BOD for me will be thought of as the better player. If France can actually concentrate on international rugby again, ever, I think Fofana has a real chance to be considered among these greats as well.

THought of by whom though?

GloriousEmpire wrote:But you missed the confounding factor that Ireland often rest a lot of players at the same time and field weak sides. Many times when Drico is missing, there are a lot of others missing too.

NZ are expected to win every game so usual play the best line up. If they rest players it's for games they expect to win anyway. If NZ rested players and lost their would be national outcry.

Can you show us some examples please?

GloriousEmpire wrote:But you missed the confounding factor that Ireland often rest a lot of players at the same time and field weak sides. Many times when Drico is missing, there are a lot of others missing too.

NZ are expected to win every game so usual play the best line up. If they rest players it's for games they expect to win anyway. If NZ rested players and lost their would be national outcry.

Wrong. Those figures relate to six nations matches in which Ireland always field their strongest available team.

GloriousEmpire wrote:THought of by whom though?

By the majority of people discounting the Irish and New Zealanders.

No 7&1/2 wrote:BOD for me will be thought of as the better player. If France can actually concentrate on international rugby again, ever, I think Fofana has a real chance to be considered among these greats as well.

Agree on Fofana. Best centre in the world right now and probably one of the most exciting talents to emerge in a while.

GE

and you base that on the fact that AB win rate drops when Conrad is absent??? Well that only proves that he's an important player to the ABs and that the next best player in his position isn't as well utilised/skillful with the ABs setup.

If Smith was so good tell me why didn't he make it as a regular until he was 27, a full 3 years after Umaga retired?
Why have the Hurricanes done sweet FA with him as their attacking lynchpin for the best part of a decade... even though they have had a half decent side?

BOD was world class when he was 21, truly top 3 in his position world class. Smith didn't make that grade until he was in his prime years.

Sure BOD has never had a standout "IRB player of the year" year, but most of the chaps who beat him to the award and had better years have drifted in and out of consistency.... BOD for a decade was always in the running. His consistency over a decade of rugby is matched only by the few greats of the modern games i.e. Hill, Johnson, Eales, Gregan, Van der Westhuizen etc etc etc.

Smith is the best 13 in the world at the moment no question and his worth to the ABs is well known... but how much is that to do with him being truly great and the gulf between him and the next AB outside centre, esp. given Henry wanted to use guys like Kahui mainly as a winger.

If BOD had the luxury of a AB pack and 10 in Carter and 12 in Nonu smashing the gain line I guarantee you he will have scored more tries.

It reminds me of the time when Lomu was playing the game. He'd grab a try or two most games but so would his other winger too. The reason... Lomu would smash the opposition down the left and suck in so many players that perhaps he would be stopped but the next recycle the ABs nearly always had a man advantage and it was childsplay. In those cases what was the genuine reason for those tries??? Was it the rest of the ABs or was it Lomu?

To summarise:

Tries

Bod 51 .37%
Smith 24 .32%

IRB nominations

BOD 3
Smith 0

Impact on team when absent:

BOD +27% points (in 6N)
Smith - no where near as close

Is there any comparison that Smith comes out on top in that isnt related to a variable such as the team he plays for?

How have you concluded that he is twice as good as Drico ever will be GE?

World Cups Won:

Conrad Smith 1
Bod 0

But, beyond that cheap shot.... it's important we don't view the game as a collection of over simplified statistics.

I analyse it as the organic, dynamic beast that it is.

Perhaps that reflects the innate connection with the game that results in NZ dominating the world that people schooled in the game there naturally understand this. Perhaps it's the same phenomenon that makes Conrad Smith twice the player Drico is.

World Cups Won

Mike Tindall 1
BOD 0

World Cup finals played in

Jonny Wilkinson 2
Dan Carter 0

GloriousEmpire wrote:World Cups Won:

Conrad Smith 1
Bod                0

But, beyond that cheap shot.... it's important we don't view the game as a collection of over simplified statistics.

I analyse it as the organic, dynamic beast that it is.

Perhaps that reflects the innate connection with the game that results in NZ dominating the world that people schooled in the game there naturally understand this. Perhaps it's the same phenomenon that makes Conrad Smith twice the player Drico is.

I'd dont consider it a cheap shot but a typically idiotic comment you'd expect from a buffoon. Lets take the WC win as an example though. If Smith is such an outstanding player they why was he so anonymous in that final?

Chosing two write ups as an example he barely gets a mention in either of them:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/oct/23/rugby-world-cup-final-2011-new-zealand-france
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/5835679/Live-blog-commentary-World-Cup-final

Doesnt feature well in any player rating articles either compared to team mates:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/8844344/Rugby-World-Cup-2011-New-Zealand-v-France-player-ratings.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/chris-rattue/news/article.cfm?a_id=22&objectid=10761342

Again, you have offered nothing to rationally conclude that Smith is even on a par with O'Driscoll. Are you willing to concede you are full of sh1t yet?

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:World Cups Won:

Conrad Smith 1
Bod                0

But, beyond that cheap shot.... it's important we don't view the game as a collection of over simplified statistics.

I analyse it as the organic, dynamic beast that it is.

Perhaps that reflects the innate connection with the game that results in NZ dominating the world that people schooled in the game there naturally understand this. Perhaps it's the same phenomenon that makes Conrad Smith twice the player Drico is.

I'd dont consider it a cheap shot but a typically idiotic comment you'd expect from a buffoon. Lets take the WC win as an example though. If Smith is such an outstanding player they why was he so anonymous in that final?

Chosing two write ups as an example he barely gets a mention in either of them:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/oct/23/rugby-world-cup-final-2011-new-zealand-france
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/5835679/Live-blog-commentary-World-Cup-final

Doesnt feature well in any player rating articles either compared to team mates:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/8844344/Rugby-World-Cup-2011-New-Zealand-v-France-player-ratings.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/chris-rattue/news/article.cfm?a_id=22&objectid=10761342

Again, you have offered nothing to rationally conclude that Smith is even on a par with O'Driscoll. Are you willing to concede you are full of sh1t yet?

When you resort to ad hominem argument, you should know that you have failed. And frankly I have no wish to continue in a discussion with someone who sinks to this desperate level.

My final word will be to point out that Conrad Smith was not anonymous - perhaps you just don't know how to watch the game. He was part of an immense defensive effort that secured NZ the cup despite playing in a backline ravaged by injury.

BOD was vastly more anonymous, having been on a plane home by then.

End of story.

Which one would you snog?

If you had to, that is. Gun to your head etc.