BOD or Conrad?

by dallym Tue 17 Sep 2013, 9:33 am

First topic message reminder :

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?

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 19 Sep 2013, 7:21 pm

Taylorman wrote:yet your arguments are somehow all based on fact? why is that? With Smith the amount of analysis that goes on here about winning combinations and why they are successful is plentiful. If you cant understand the difference between the skills of the two players then I cant help you. When we win or lose a match we break it down to the nth degree and from an AB point of view it becomes an obsession if we lose- why. Because we shouldnt. Understanding why we lose makes us stronger next time.

I'd suggest Irish fans don't have that level of analysis so the concept is probably foreign to you. Youre more likely to adopt a 'win some lose some', 'better luck next time' resignation because deep down you know you just dont have the firepower.

Well we do, rightly or wrongly, so we never settle for that kind of talk. your mere waving my argument off as waffle suggests you dont have the depth of appreciation of the concept to which Im referring.

Cant help you there...

My arguments are based on opinion but I've given you examples of how BoD has adpated his game over the years to suit all the different variables he encounters while you just spout "BoD isn't a team player and Smith is so there".

You make a sweeping statement about Irish fans yet I've never seen this great level of analysis among NZ fans.It's usually more akin to the ref robbed us or we all had a tummy ache.To believe NZ rugby fans have some sort of extra rugby knowledge is laughably arrogant of you.

You make all these statements yet time after time have nothing to back it up with,that's why I call it waffle.You are trying to convince us of your argument by being really sincere but have yet to give one single example of something Smith can do that BoD never could.You can say he's more of a team player but you need to show us how otherwise it's just air,like I can say johnny Wilkinson is more of a team player than Dan Carter.just saying it doesn't make it true.

by Rory_Gallagher Thu 19 Sep 2013, 7:26 pm

Taylorman wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
Taylorman wrote:yet your arguments are somehow all based on fact? why is that? With Smith the amount of analysis that goes on here about winning combinations and why they are successful is plentiful. If you cant understand the difference between the skills of the two players then I cant help you. When we win or lose a match we break it down to the nth degree and from an AB point of view it becomes an obsession if we lose- why. Because we shouldnt. Understanding why we lose makes us stronger next time.

I'd suggest Irish fans don't have that level of analysis so the concept is probably foreign to you. Youre more likely to adopt a 'win some lose some', 'better luck next time' resignation because deep down you know you just dont have the firepower.

Well we do, rightly or wrongly, so we never settle for that kind of talk. your mere waving my argument off as waffle suggests you dont have the depth of appreciation of the concept to which Im referring.

Cant help you there...
As well as being wrong in a number of things (especially the highlighted part, what on earth?) and having some rather strange logic (we understand perfectly, that doesn't change the fact it is incredibly flawed logic, no matter how much you try to weave it) do you not see how incredibly pompous and arrogant you are coming across in these posts?
no. im merely stating my opionion. not getting personal. And am I being more arrogant than the multitudes who were still in denial over BODS dropping months after the fact, those who also...thought they were right- DESPITE the obvious evidence in front of them.
Answer me this rory- is the highlighted text in your opinion more correct, or not correct- honest opionion.

Honest opinion? The reason I highlighted it was because it is utter rubbish, like almost everything else you have said about irish rugby and BOD. I obviously cannot expect to speak on behalf of every irish fan, but you only need to go on an irish thread to see the anger and frustration we have had over the past few years at our international record. We do not accept that attitude at all, and again it is sheer arrogance to assume that just because our team is not as successful as yours, that we have that sort of mindset. "Win some, lose some". The audacity.

You will of course brush this off as the ramblings of a biased irish fan, but that is your prerogative.

by GloriousEmpire Thu 19 Sep 2013, 7:34 pm

It's a fact that the level if knowledge is higher amongst New Zealanders. The average guy you meet will have the ability to analyse a game and have a few theories on why things happened and usually they have some validity.

In the uk, rugby fans generally regurgitate whatever they've been spoon fed by TV pundits.

Hence you get this sweeping wave of insufferable nonsense that they are actually unable to validate under scrutiny.

Such as exactly what is happening here.

"BoD the legendary center" is spoon fed at every opportunity along with all the Accompanying cliches. And here you are just regurgitating it and yet unable to quite say why. The level if frustration is palpable.

by Taylorman Thu 19 Sep 2013, 7:35 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Again though you are bringing up something that has NOTHING to do with the original question, about BOD and Conrad. You continue to come back to the Lions incident, and the fans who let themselves down. You are beyond bitter about it and that is why your judgement of BOD is so clouded. This isn't simply about BOD as a player, and you aren't involved in this thread because of that. This is simply another chance for you to release whatever anger you have from the whole incident and the criticism that Gatland received.

Just because you're stating an opinion doesn't mean you aren't coming across as pompous and arrogant. It doesn't give you some special right to avoid criticism, as some seem to think it does. Surely you would understand that, as every opinion BOD has dared to utter since the Lions has been heavily scrutinised by the likes of yourself.

excuse me rory pot kettle. Who used the words pompous and arrogant. And what have they to do with the bod conrad debate. I merely raised the bod selection fan uproar because of those words. and bods words have certainly not been scrutinised any more than the plethora of idiots that attacked bod.or gats should i say.

geez the naivety of your understanding of understanding the position of centre and what it involves is staggering. It is not me who has got personal in all of this. You and asbo have taken the stance that my view is invalid, let alone that i have the right to express one.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 19 Sep 2013, 7:36 pm

Taylorman wrote:
There is a reason Ireland have a kiwi coach. And illustrated by your comments...perfectly.

That's the best you can do?

If you think the comments of a guy who played J1 rugby for a 5 seasons have anything to do with why Ireland have a Kiwi coach then I'll take that as a clear demonstration of why your opinion on anything to with Irish rugby is irrelevant.

by Taylorman Thu 19 Sep 2013, 7:39 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
There is a reason Ireland have a kiwi coach. And illustrated by your comments...perfectly.
That's the best you can do?

If you think the comments of a guy who played J1 rugby for a 5 seasons have anything to do with why Ireland have a Kiwi coach then I'll take that as a clear demonstration of why your opinion on anything to with Irish rugby is irrelevant.

No. Its not the best we can do. but its a start. The task in front of schmidt looks tougher than it appears.

by Rory_Gallagher Thu 19 Sep 2013, 7:43 pm

Yeah i'm out, no point in even trying. Seems to just be attracting a few WUMs at this point.

by GloriousEmpire Thu 19 Sep 2013, 7:43 pm

let's hope they can listen to him. I suspect the bod issue will blow up again. I wonder if will lead yet another player rebellion back into the heart of mediocrity?

by Taylorman Thu 19 Sep 2013, 7:51 pm

oh if schmidt drops golden boy ww3 will break out no doubt. Assuming bods not going to be there in 15 thats exactly what i'd do and what Schmidt should do. It takes more than two years to develop a truly international centre so theyre behind the 8 ball already but others wont see the logic in that either. zzzzzz

by No 7&1/2 Thu 19 Sep 2013, 8:17 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:It's a fact that the level if knowledge is higher amongst New Zealanders. The average guy you meet will have the ability to analyse a game and have a few theories on why things happened and usually they have some validity.

In the uk, rugby fans generally regurgitate whatever they've been spoon fed by TV pundits.

Hence you get this sweeping wave of insufferable nonsense that they are actually unable to validate under scrutiny.

Such as exactly what is happening here.

"BoD the legendary center" is spoon fed at every opportunity along with all the Accompanying cliches. And here you are just regurgitating it and yet unable to quite say why. The level if frustration is palpable.

It was you who said he was a legend of the game though.

by Taylorman Thu 19 Sep 2013, 8:32 pm

Assuming Schmidt will be there in 15 he'll want the eventual starting centre to get as much experience facing the best, not so best and varied centre combinations around the world as is possible.

In the next 6 months Ireland face a large number of sides and probably the eventual winner. That makes this period crucial to blood BODs replacement in that period. That experience could make the difference between either qualifying or not, or going that one extra round in the knockouts.

That must be in Schmidts thinking presently.

Yet my guess is Irish fans would prefer to see him see the season out, squeeze every last bit of skill, thrill and feel good moment out of the guy. We cant drop BOD yet...nooooo theyll say.

Thats the difference in international rugby. We dont think like that. Neither do the players. Selection is about winning. Not sentiment. The value in using the upcoming internationals to blood a new centre is critical.

How likely is that the typical Irish view of the situation. Love to hear it.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 19 Sep 2013, 8:33 pm

Taylorman wrote:oh if schmidt drops golden boy ww3 will break out no doubt. Assuming bods not going to be there in 15 thats exactly what i'd do and what Schmidt should do. It takes more than two years to develop a truly international centre so theyre behind the 8 ball already but others wont see the logic in that either. zzzzzz

Lol you really are ignorant about Irish rugby,you're just trolling now cos you can't flesh out a coherent argument.

by GloriousEmpire Thu 19 Sep 2013, 8:33 pm

Taylorman wrote:oh if schmidt drops golden boy ww3 will break out no doubt. Assuming bods not going to be there in 15 thats exactly what i'd do and what Schmidt should do. It takes more than two years to develop a truly international centre so theyre behind the 8 ball already but others wont see the logic in that either. zzzzzz

He will limp on for another season I suspect. Perhaps come out of retirement for 2015 to "answer Ireland's call". Or some sentimental tosh and then some fans here will claim he was man of the tournament.

by Taylorman Thu 19 Sep 2013, 8:38 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Taylorman wrote:oh if schmidt drops golden boy ww3 will break out no doubt. Assuming bods not going to be there in 15 thats exactly what i'd do and what Schmidt should do. It takes more than two years to develop a truly international centre so theyre behind the 8 ball already but others wont see the logic in that either. zzzzzz
Lol you really are ignorant about Irish rugby,you're just trolling now cos you can't flesh out a coherent argument.

Really..you see that as trolling...? geez its worse than i thought. You really have no idea do you.but the clue is in...irish rugby...no youre right there. I was talking about international rugby. obviously theres a distinct difference.

by Rory_Gallagher Thu 19 Sep 2013, 9:08 pm

Taylorman wrote:
Yet my guess is Irish fans would prefer to see him see the season out, squeeze every last bit of skill, thrill and feel good moment out of the guy. We cant drop BOD yet...nooooo theyll say.

Totally wrong yet again. Most Irish fans I know want a GOOD replacement to BOD and have wanted one to come into the scene for a few seasons now. Unfortunately nobody is better than him in Ireland yet.

You are totally misguided about what irish fans want and about irish rugby in general.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 19 Sep 2013, 9:45 pm

Taylorman wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Taylorman wrote:oh if schmidt drops golden boy ww3 will break out no doubt. Assuming bods not going to be there in 15 thats exactly what i'd do and what Schmidt should do. It takes more than two years to develop a truly international centre so theyre behind the 8 ball already but others wont see the logic in that either. zzzzzz
Lol you really are ignorant about Irish rugby,you're just trolling now cos you can't flesh out a coherent argument.
Really..you see that as trolling...? geez its worse than i thought. You really have no idea do you.but the clue is in...irish rugby...no youre right there. I was talking about international rugby. obviously theres a distinct difference.

Keep going you've deftly changed the subject since you can't back up your stance on Smith.Everything you say is just bluster with no substance.

by Taylorman Thu 19 Sep 2013, 9:52 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Taylorman wrote:oh if schmidt drops golden boy ww3 will break out no doubt. Assuming bods not going to be there in 15 thats exactly what i'd do and what Schmidt should do. It takes more than two years to develop a truly international centre so theyre behind the 8 ball already but others wont see the logic in that either. zzzzzz
Lol you really are ignorant about Irish rugby,you're just trolling now cos you can't flesh out a coherent argument.
Really..you see that as trolling...? geez its worse than i thought. You really have no idea do you.but the clue is in...irish rugby...no youre right there. I was talking about international rugby. obviously theres a distinct difference.
Keep going you've deftly changed the subject since you can't back up your stance on Smith.Everything you say is just bluster with no substance.

really? and how much of the above is about rugby from you?

"Lol you really are ignorant about Irish rugby,you're just trolling now cos you can't flesh out a coherent argument"\

"Keep going you've deftly changed the subject since you can't back up your stance on Smith.Everything you say is just bluster with no substance."

lot of substance there alright...

whereas I have mentioned...BOD, 2015, the length of time it takes to develop a centre, Schmidt...

Who's the troll asbo...you and rory stopped discussing it hours ago and went for the personal...good one boys...see you in the AI's- for number 24 is it? (and 14 for the wee one)

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 19 Sep 2013, 10:02 pm

Taylorman wrote:
really? and how much of the above is about rugby from you?

"Lol you really are ignorant about Irish rugby,you're just trolling now cos you can't flesh out a coherent argument"\

"Keep going you've deftly changed the subject since you can't back up your stance on Smith.Everything you say is just bluster with no substance."

lot of substance there alright...

whereas I have mentioned...BOD, 2015, the length of time it takes to develop a centre, Schmidt...

Who's the troll asbo...you and rory stopped discussing it hours ago and went for the personal...good one boys...see you in the AI's- for number 24 is it? (and 14 for the wee one)

Lol a good troll doesn't get so emotional,you should ask GE for lessons he's been at it far longer than you have.

by The Great Aukster Thu 19 Sep 2013, 10:22 pm

Why does it take two years to develop a Test centre? It didn't take O'Driscoll that length of time to burst on the scene - or was he the exception rather than the rule?

by **Rugby Fan** Thu 19 Sep 2013, 11:29 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:Nope. Still as Hominem..

Nope. Still not addressing the topic you raised. Strange that you have so much time to be frivolous here when you were berating others for not taking your thread seriously.

Why should that be? Embarrassed that you gave an ill-thought out response?

.

by aucklandlaurie Fri 20 Sep 2013, 8:30 am

fa0019 wrote:Taylorman

Always was puzzled by Frank Bunce... he was outstanding in 1991 with W. Samoa... better then what NZ had at the time in midfield in my opinion... and he played for W.Samoa because he wasn't good enough for NZ.... amazing that.

Now there was a centre.... and a half.

faa You do realise that Taylorman is a Mangere man?

by aucklandlaurie Fri 20 Sep 2013, 8:48 am

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Taylorman wrote:There go the over protectors again...club and country blah blah...It is BODs individuality as a player that akes him a great player. Why? because hes had to take on other sides due to not having centre or whole team combinations capable of getting the points on the board. BODS best moments versus us is when he took the stuff you all Im going for it and did it all himself. That is what I mean by team versus individual.

NZ centres traditionally do take years to mature because the skill of managing the midfield space as a whole rather than as an individual takes experience. Experience in going up all the different types of midfields across the planet and working out the best way to combat each utilising the strengths of those very good players around them, a luxury BOD unfortunately did not have.

Joe Stanley, Bunce, Umaga and now Smith, all late developers but all combination rather than individual centres who honed the art of managing the midfield into a position of dominance in most cases. Its that aspect of Smiths wider scope of the position that is superior to BODs, and one that provides more consistency.
If you had one shred of evidence to back up that claim we might take you seriously,however you are just stating an opinion as fact.We've seen far more of BoD throughout his career and the idea that he isn't a team player is frankly stupid.This is a gut who started out as a young tyro scoring tries from everywhere,then injuries took the edge off his pace and he adapted to become the best defensive centre in the game,then he became known as an extra flanker because of his work at the breakdown and finally late in his career he has discovered that he has a talent for scoring important tries from close forward drives.

If he was individualistic as you think he wouldn't have adapted his game so much and so often to fit what his teammates and body were capable of.It's this ability to reinvent himself that for me makes him stand above all the others,Umaga and any of the others you care to mention only came good when at their physical peak but once the body started to go they were lost and unable to figure out a new way of playing.It'll be interesting to see if that happens Smith too.For me the NZ player that BoD has most in common with is McCaw,both of them have adapted their games over the years to suit the laws,the refs,their teams and their bodies,selfless team men to the core.

Have you ever considered that if O'Driscoll is the team man that you say, then maybe Warren Gatland might have kept in the squad for the last Lions test and played him off the bench??????

You state that Umaga only came good when at his physical peak, do you not realise that before he started playing rugby he was a junior Kiwi? and started off in rugby as a wing then moved to centre, then moved to second five eighth, to say that he was "unable to figure out a new way of playing" is utter B U L L S .........

McCaw would never regard a coach of his with resentment, and childishly let himself get dragged into saying that "he isnt on my christmas card list". the only similarity between Brian O'Driscoll and Richie McCaw is that they are the captains of their respective national teams.

by GloriousEmpire Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:46 am

Go back to BoDs petulance around the 2005 Lions incident. And contrast that with McCaws handling of the Rougerie RWC final incident.

by asoreleftshoulder Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:49 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Have you ever considered that if O'Driscoll is the team man that you say, then maybe Warren Gatland might have kept in the squad for the last Lions test and played him off the bench??????

You state that Umaga only came good when at his physical peak, do you not realise that before he started playing rugby he was a junior Kiwi? and started off in rugby as a wing then moved to centre, then moved to second five eighth, to say that he was "unable to figure out a new way of playing" is utter B U L L S .........

McCaw would never regard a coach of his with resentment, and childishly let himself get dragged into saying that "he isnt on my christmas card list". the only similarity between Brian O'Driscoll and Richie McCaw is that they are the captains of their respective national teams.

Nope,personally I think Gatland believed that Roberts/Davies was a better combo because of familiarity and the fact that there isn't much between Davies and BoD any more,they're both very good centres and I personally have no problem with that Gatland can pick the team he wants.I think if O'Driscoll wasn't a team man then Gatland wouldn't have picked him for Test 1 and 2.

It's very easy to understand why he didn't put him on the bench,you see O'Driscoll only plays 13,that would mean the bench would comprise of a 9 (Murray),10/12 (Farrell) and 13 (BoD).No cover for the back 3 there so Tuilagi who can do a job on the wing is obviously a better pick.I would have thought that with all the analysis of the game of rugby that goes on in NZ you would have known something basic like that.

by Taylorman Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:57 am

which doesnt really explain the NH uproar that he wasnt even on the bench...or is that just the non analysts up there?

by asoreleftshoulder Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:05 am

Taylorman wrote:which doesnt really explain the NH uproar that he wasnt even on the bench...or is that just the non analysts up there?

That doesn't concern me as I said I didn't agree with the decision to drop BoD but I can definitely see the reasoning and it was a close decision either way.I can't speak for anyone else.

by Standulstermen Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:08 am

Conrad is exceptional but BOD is in the rung with Richie and Carter in terms of professional era talents.

Maybe Conrad will join them there. I have to confess I enjoy watching him play as he just seems that much smarter than anyone he is up against

by Taylorman Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:12 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
fa0019 wrote:Taylorman

Always was puzzled by Frank Bunce... he was outstanding in 1991 with W. Samoa... better then what NZ had at the time in midfield in my opinion... and he played for W.Samoa because he wasn't good enough for NZ.... amazing that.

Now there was a centre.... and a half.
faa You do realise that Taylorman is a Mangere man?

yeah bunce was at Manukau. Probably just after you and I were at Oats too laurie. He was a late developer largely because he was a party boy in South Auckland when half the rovers sides were generally from the gangs. Top club man for years before he decided to take his game to the next level. Similar to stanley and real street smart from his toughboy days. Showed on the field and with Little clicked well. Hated playing manukau. Anything for a scrap.

by fa0019 Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:15 am

to be fair most of the pundits thought Gatland was wrong if I recall. I think maybe one backed him and that was JPR who said he shouldn't have been involved in the first place.

I think the closest a pundit went to being pro gatlands BOD call from outside Wales was Will Greenwood who said it was a massive call...i.e. fence sitting a little.

I personally don't think Gatland was proved right or wrong as the game was not won by Davies & Tuilagi's inclusion and BOD's exclusion... it was won by the forwards. Had BOD played instead of Davies I'm sure the result would have been the same. Davies didn nothing wrong in the game though.... but that doesn't mean it was the proven right.
Had the Aussies been stronger upfront I think it could have been a bad call as his leadership under the cosh would have been important with the chips down.

In the end Gatland stuck his balls on the line and was right... why he's coach, why we're not.

by fa0019 Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:19 am

I remember reading Jonnos book about coming across Frank Bunce when he was in NZ U21s side... said he was the best thing he'd seen and yet he was nowhere near the ABs then. Also added that he would have be a shoe in for the England side had he been English... not bad given Jerry Guscott was the golden boy at the time.

by Taylorman Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:32 am

didnt know bunce was in the NZ u21 side- thats surprising. Knocked around the same scene about then and didnt know of that. Didnt become an AB till he was 30- 25-26 at Auckland even.

by fa0019 Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:35 am

He mentioned Bunce when he went for the U21 trial I think. Late 80s/early 90s. Could have been when he was playing Auckland then though when he was playing them for whatever province he was in.

by Taylorman Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:49 am

oh jonno was in the u21s...bunce would have been in his late 20s by then. Bunce wasnt top level at 20 odd. too much partying and girls at that age. Mid 80s he took off- Stanley was the influence then from Ponsonby and that got Bunce going.

by Sponsored content

BOD or Conrad?

BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?

Re: BOD or Conrad?