BOD or Conrad?

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?

GloriousEmpire wrote:
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.

No actually the only reason you dont want to continue the debate is because you have absolutly nothing rational or intelligent to add that backs up your fantasy claim that Conrad Smith is twice the player BOD will ever be.

My entirely subjective view, and I don't really rate any of the statistics noted above as significant, is that at present Conrad Smith is the better player and has been for the last few years, but in his pomp BOD still ranks as the best 13 in NH rugby in my lifetime, and I suspect will be regarded as the best 13 of his generation.

The statistical argument appears to  favour bod but for me are not reasons to settle this particular duel. For me Smith epitomises the skills, attitude, intelligence and professionalim required for the position in this side. He is all team first, and his true value will never be quantifiable by numbers alone, and none presented here provide evidence of who the better Centre is.

BOD is often the beacon amongst some not so shining lights and for that reason has had to shoulder the responsibility of making the difference on an individual basis, and has done so on several occasions vs the ABs that I can recall.
(the difference being getting points on the board when it seemed unlikely).

For both their strengths they are different players, BOD perhaps standing out as much for his better abilities compared to those around him as his talents alone.

I think Conrad Smith might be celebrated more in NZ if we found ourselves as Ireland do with BoD with little else to shout about.

what else does NZ shout about bar the ABs.. Valerie Adams????

GloriousEmpire wrote:I think Conrad Smith might be celebrated more in NZ if we found ourselves as Ireland do with BoD with little else to shout about.

That's possibly true, but it works both ways. There is also a premium attached to All Blacks as a result of being All Blacks, in other words players who have slotted well into the All Blacks structure without necessarily being brilliant players, and as a result having reputations that are not necessarily commensurate to their individual abilities.

I'm not for one moment putting Conrad Smith in this. If anything he's the opposite - almost unsung (although that's changing, and shortly he'll be in that category of being a frequenctly sung unsung player, like Richard Hill was for England).

How about a little thing called the Americas Cup? Win or lose from
7-1 up NZ have shown technologically, mentally and physically they can foot it with the best the world has to offer in the worlds oldest and most prestigious sporting prize.

I don't recall a British team winning it for, oh, 160 years?

Anyway my point was more about rugby players. The kerfuffle over desperately proving bod is just the greatest ever is a reflection of Ireland's suspicion that without him they will have nothing to offer again for a long time, I suspect.

How about a little thing called the Americas Cup? Win or lose from
7-1 up NZ have shown technologically, mentally and physically they can foot it with the best the world has to offer in the worlds oldest and most prestigious sporting prize.

I don't recall a British team winning it for, oh, 160 years?

Anyway my point was more about rugby players. The anxiety over desperately proving bod is just the greatest ever is a reflection of Ireland's suspicion that without him they will have nothing to offer again for a long time, I suspect.

fa0019 wrote:what else does NZ shout about bar the ABs.. Valerie Adams????

Dont forget about Daniel Beddingfield. First winner of the x-factor.

Americas cup is about prestigious as curling mate.

As you've said previously GE, BOD is a legend of the game. It's all down to nitpicking when talking about the greatest. Ireland will miss BOD more when he goes than NZ will miss Smith.

fa0019 wrote:Americas cup is about prestigious as curling mate.

except it costs a little more to play. good reminder...it could be ours in less than 6 hours.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I think Conrad Smith might be celebrated more in NZ if we found ourselves as Ireland do with BoD with little else to shout about.

That's possibly true, but it works both ways. There is also a premium attached to All Blacks as a result of being All Blacks, in other words players who have slotted well into the All Blacks structure without necessarily being brilliant players, and as a result having reputations that are not necessarily commensurate to their individual abilities.

I'm not for one moment putting Conrad Smith in this. If anything he's the opposite - almost unsung (although that's changing, and shortly he'll be in that category of being a frequenctly sung unsung player, like Richard Hill was for England).

Ireland are one of the best represented nations on the IRB hall of fame so we have plenty of celebrated rugby players.

GloriousEmpire wrote:How about a little thing called the Americas Cup? Win or lose from
7-1 up NZ have shown technologically, mentally and physically they can foot it with the best the world has to offer in the worlds oldest and most prestigious sporting prize.

I don't recall a British team winning it for, oh, 160 years?

Anyway my point was more about rugby players. The anxiety over desperately proving bod is just the greatest ever is a reflection of Ireland's suspicion that without him they will have nothing to offer again for a long time, I suspect.

Why do you insist on posting really stupid comments that have no basis in fact. You just make yourself look stupid. You yourself posted an article on the IRB hall of fame and therefore should know that Ireland is one of the best represented nations in the world in terms of celebrated players.

fa0019 wrote:Americas cup is about prestigious as curling mate.

Erm. Statistically the fifth most famous trophy ever competed for, and the oldest.

I'd say that's fairly prestigious. But it's probably of more interest to people with money and class.

facts is guns most kiwis are naturaly dismissive of Ireland given weve never lost to them. Comparing a player who has lost to us 13 straight to our most successful AB is hard to take seriously. Last year we lost won match and the amount of damage C Smith imposed on the best sides in world rugby to help win matches just doesnt compare to any damage BOD will have done to the same sides in the same or any other period. True theyre in different sides but theyre also playing at different levels across the board, and Smith is figuring on the winning side nearly every time. Its apples and oranges in that respect.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Americas cup is about prestigious as curling mate.

Erm. Statistically the fifth most famous trophy ever competed for, and the oldest.

I'd say that's fairly prestigious. But it's probably of more interest to people with money and class.

Classy people just like yourself?

I'd say it ranks very highly on the list of the worlds most boring insignificant sports.

New Zealand can be very proud the top the table in a sport nobody cares about.

Taylorman wrote:facts is guns most kiwis are naturaly dismissive of Ireland given weve never lost to them. Comparing a player who has lost to us 13 straight to our most successful AB is hard to take seriously. Last year we lost won match and the amount of damage C Smith imposed on the best sides in world rugby to help win matches just doesnt compare to any damage BOD will have done to the same sides in the same or any other period. True theyre in different sides but theyre also playing at different levels across the board, and Smith is figuring on the winning side nearly every time. Its apples and oranges in that respect.

Dont worry I'm not looking for approval from you or any other Kiwis.

Northern Ireland didn't beat too many teams while George Best was playing for them. Ryan Giggs hasn't helped Wales to too many trophies. Those results haven't stopped people from appreciating the talents of both players. Best, in particular, is regarded as one of the game's greats.

When England went unbeaten against Southern Hemisphere opposition for three years, I had no problem recognizing that we didn't have a monopoly on the best players in the world.

It's not that difficult: you just have to watch players play.

Ireland is the most sucessful nation golf in the last 10 years in terms of major winners. All of the below are products of the GUI:

Mcilroy
Mcdowell
Clarke
Harrington

All major winners. All have represented ireland.

Who cares?

Is golf really even a sport?

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

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?

I'll try again,can you give us some examples of the times Ireland have rested a lot of players.Without evidence to back up your claim it looks like you just made that up.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Who cares?

Is golf really even a sport?

No less a sport than sailing but much more popular and a source of much celebration in ireland.

Taylorman wrote:facts is guns most kiwis are naturaly dismissive of Ireland given weve never lost to them. Comparing a player who has lost to us 13 straight to our most successful AB is hard to take seriously. Last year we lost won match and the amount of damage C Smith imposed on the best sides in world rugby to help win matches just doesnt compare to any damage BOD will have done to the same sides in the same or any other period. True theyre in different sides but theyre also playing at different levels across the board, and Smith is figuring on the winning side nearly every time. Its apples and oranges in that respect.

Rugby comprises a team of 15 men,squads of 23 and even deeper squads overall.One top class player can't drag all his teammates along with him,just look at Smith when he plays for the Hurricanes.Just because he's class doesn't mean they are,it's an incredibly basic concept of team sport and I'm amazed I have to be this condescending and explain it to you.

no asbo but you tell me, who, as a centre has inflicted more damage against the top sides on an individual basis? And the hurricanes dont lose all their matches to any side. theyre always up there around mid table so dont get the comparison. playing in a weaker side is no more grounds for being a better centre than playing in a strong side.

GloriousEmpire wrote:How about a little thing called the Americas Cup? Win or lose from
7-1 up NZ have shown technologically, mentally and physically they can foot it with the best the world has to offer in the worlds oldest and most prestigious sporting prize.

I don't recall a British team winning it for, oh, 160 years?

Anyway my point was more about rugby players. The kerfuffle over desperately proving bod is just the greatest ever is a reflection of Ireland's suspicion that without him they will have nothing to offer again for a long time, I suspect.

Glorious,

I'd kindly ask you to refrain from classifying Ireland as British. Some of your comments are coming across as troll-like baiting and does little to support any of the evidence you have put forward in this thread.

Regards,
Band

GloriousEmpire wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Americas cup is about prestigious as curling mate.

Erm. Statistically the fifth most famous trophy ever competed for, and the oldest.

I'd say that's fairly prestigious. But it's probably of more interest to people with money and class.

Didn't you do a post on this, something about stats not really meaning much?

The Americas Cup really is desperate mate. But for those saying New Zealand has nothing to shout about...WRONG. Manuka honey my friends, the GREATEST thing EVER to come out of New Zealand. It's literally knocked...minutes off my current cold.

Taylorman wrote:no asbo but you tell me, who, as a centre has inflicted more damage against the top sides on an individual basis?  And the hurricanes dont lose all their matches to any side. theyre always up there around mid table so dont get the comparison. playing in a weaker side is no more grounds for being a better centre than playing in a strong side.

Smith has obviously inflicted more damage,that is in no small part due to the fact that he plays for a team which gets him in positions where it's possible for him to inflict said damage.If he had played for Ireland there is no way he'd be as effective.

You don't get the comparison just because the Hurricanes don't lose all their matches to one side.Use your brain for a second the comparison doesn't have to be exact for it to be valid.The comparison is valid because Smith can't make an average team into world beaters no matter how good he is and neither can BoD so ignoring BoDs credentials simply because Ireland haven't beaten the All Blacks is just lazy thinking.

Also "up there around mid table" is an oxymoron.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:How about a little thing called the Americas Cup? Win or lose from
7-1 up NZ have shown technologically, mentally and physically they can foot it with the best the world has to offer in the worlds oldest and most prestigious sporting prize.

I don't recall a British team winning it for, oh, 160 years?

Anyway my point was more about rugby players. The kerfuffle over desperately proving bod is just the greatest ever is a reflection of Ireland's suspicion that without him they will have nothing to offer again for a long time, I suspect.

Glorious,

I'd kindly ask you to refrain from classifying Ireland as British. Some of your comments are coming across as troll-like baiting and does little to support any of the evidence you have put forward in this thread.

Regards,
Band

I didnt classify Ireland as British. I just asked a question.

Hood83 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Americas cup is about prestigious as curling mate.

Erm. Statistically the fifth most famous trophy ever competed for, and the oldest.

I'd say that's fairly prestigious. But it's probably of more interest to people with money and class.

Didn't you do a post on this, something about stats not really meaning much?

The Americas Cup really is desperate mate. But for those saying New Zealand has nothing to shout about...WRONG. Manuka honey my friends, the GREATEST thing EVER to come out of New Zealand. It's literally knocked...minutes off my current cold.

The america's cup is desperately entertaining...

However, If your Manuka Honey isn't working, it might not be Manuka Honey: http://www.bee-craft.com/manuka-honey-fraud/

Taylorman wrote:no asbo but you tell me, who, as a centre has inflicted more damage against the top sides on an individual basis?  And the hurricanes dont lose all their matches to any side. theyre always up there around mid table so dont get the comparison. playing in a weaker side is no more grounds for being a better centre than playing in a strong side.

I definitely agree that playing in a weaker side is no more grounds for being a better centre than playing in a strong side.

Equally, playing in a stronger side is no more grounds for being a better centre than playing in a weaker side.

If I was picking a player today to play outside centre I would be selecting Smith over BOD.  For the role of a centre, Smith has the pace-vision-step-speed-defence while BOD has the vision-defence.
If however we are comparing the two players careers (and BOD is towards the end of his while Smith has more to come) BOD has consistently performed at the highest level for a longer period of time.  He has also adapted himself to suit the best needs of his team throughout his career, starting as an attacking kid with great pace-vision-speed-step and developing into an extra flanker and groundhog as the years went by as that is what was need in the provincial and national teams he played in.  He has had the responsibilities of captaincy which he has always fulfilled to a tee, he has always been a leader and focal point on any team he has played in for over a decade.  Smith performs to an exceptional level in the centre, and is currently a better centre than BOD. But if the question is who I would consider the better over their entire career I choose BOD.

Mind you with the difficulties in comparing players from amateur to professional eras, I probably wouldn't consider either the best outside centre of all time.

Exactly, Joe Stanley was better than Conrad Smith, who is better than BoD.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:How about a little thing called the Americas Cup? Win or lose from
7-1 up NZ have shown technologically, mentally and physically they can foot it with the best the world has to offer in the worlds oldest and most prestigious sporting prize.

I don't recall a British team winning it for, oh, 160 years?

Anyway my point was more about rugby players. The kerfuffle over desperately proving bod is just the greatest ever is a reflection of Ireland's suspicion that without him they will have nothing to offer again for a long time, I suspect.

Glorious,

I'd kindly ask you to refrain from classifying Ireland as British. Some of your comments are coming across as troll-like baiting and does little to support any of the evidence you have put forward in this thread.

Regards,
Band

I didnt classify Ireland as British. I just asked a question.

Come on Glorious, you are coming across quite badly now. Throughout this thread, in your reposte to arguments supporting that BOD may possibly be just about better than half of one Conrad Smith, you have made snide references to British teams, money and class.  None of those references have any place in a sport's thread discussing the abilities of one player over another.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Exactly, Joe Stanley was better than Conrad Smith, who is better than BoD.

Strange, I would have thought you would go for Robertson over Stanley.  Personally, Sella would wipe the floor with them all (just my opinion).

BOD is massively overrated from two good games over a decade ago, Conrad ain't that good,he does prosper from play with such good players around him.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:How about a little thing called the Americas Cup? Win or lose from
7-1 up NZ have shown technologically, mentally and physically they can foot it with the best the world has to offer in the worlds oldest and most prestigious sporting prize.

I don't recall a British team winning it for, oh, 160 years?

Anyway my point was more about rugby players. The kerfuffle over desperately proving bod is just the greatest ever is a reflection of Ireland's suspicion that without him they will have nothing to offer again for a long time, I suspect.

Glorious,

I'd kindly ask you to refrain from classifying Ireland as British. Some of your comments are coming across as troll-like baiting and does little to support any of the evidence you have put forward in this thread.

Regards,
Band

I didnt classify Ireland as British. I just asked a question.

Come on Glorious, you are coming across quite badly now. Throughout this thread, in your reposte to arguments supporting that BOD may possibly be just about better than half of one Conrad Smith, you have made snide references to British teams, money and class.  None of those references have any place in a sport's thread discussing the abilities of one player over another.

You do realise this thread is a WUM creates by dailym deliberately to provoke exactly this fight? What say we agree that they're both pretty exciting players but that comparison isn't possible?

It seems you are beginning to miss some points Conrad Smith has a great all round game
both in attack and defence.In the NZ set up 13 is the key player in the mid field defence
Smith more or less replaced Umaga,Nonu with a different style Mauger.The Hurricanes
behind the Crusaders were consistently the most successful NZ franchise till last 2 years.
AB s had Weepu,Crudon,Smith,Nonu,Coryjane,Hosae Gear all Hurricanes.When Crudon came
into the AB side he was playing alongside his Super team mates.Smith is a great reader of
the game being in the right place in support to either.Finish,link,or tackle always seeming to be in the right place at the right time,he hardly ever misses a tackle.
As to intelligent he is a trained lawyer and has a business life after Rugby unlike many.
Best NZ ever?NOW that can never be answered Bruce Robertson possibly in my time[13]
but Frank Bunce,Paul Little,Billy Davis,Joe Stanley would be up there with those I`ve seen.
JB Smith,AC Wallace,Bert Cooke just a few names to throw into the pot.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Taylorman wrote:no asbo but you tell me, who, as a centre has inflicted more damage against the top sides on an individual basis?  And the hurricanes dont lose all their matches to any side. theyre always up there around mid table so dont get the comparison. playing in a weaker side is no more grounds for being a better centre than playing in a strong side.

Smith has obviously inflicted more damage,that is in no small part due to the fact that he plays for a team which gets him in positions where it's possible for him to inflict said damage.If he had played for Ireland there is no way he'd be as effective.

You don't get the comparison just because the Hurricanes don't lose all their matches to one side.Use your brain for a second the comparison doesn't have to be exact for it to be valid.The comparison is valid because Smith can't make an average team into world beaters no matter how good he is and neither can BoD so ignoring BoDs credentials simply because Ireland haven't beaten the All Blacks is just lazy thinking.

Also "up there around mid table" is an oxymoron.

quit with the dumbo comments then. I didnt say bod had to bring his side up to win, Im just saying its a little hard to respect a player from the opposition that never wins, no matter who it is, in terms of being worlds best. Since BOD has never had the distinction as a wcup winning centre or ranked no. 1 or been part of a world dominating side how do you compare the two and get to determine its actually bod when smith does it as part of BAU? day in day out.

Ok then lets do this.

BoD isn't fit to clean Conrad's boots.

Taylorman wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Taylorman wrote:no asbo but you tell me, who, as a centre has inflicted more damage against the top sides on an individual basis?  And the hurricanes dont lose all their matches to any side. theyre always up there around mid table so dont get the comparison. playing in a weaker side is no more grounds for being a better centre than playing in a strong side.

Smith has obviously inflicted more damage,that is in no small part due to the fact that he plays for a team which gets him in positions where it's possible for him to inflict said damage.If he had played for Ireland there is no way he'd be as effective.

You don't get the comparison just because the Hurricanes don't lose all their matches to one side.Use your brain for a second the comparison doesn't have to be exact for it to be valid.The comparison is valid because Smith can't make an average team into world beaters no matter how good he is and neither can BoD so ignoring BoDs credentials simply because Ireland haven't beaten the All Blacks is just lazy thinking.

Also "up there around mid table" is an oxymoron.

quit with the dumbo comments  then. I didnt say bod had to bring his side up to win, Im just saying its a little hard to respect a player from the opposition that never wins, no matter who it is, in terms of being worlds best. Since BOD has never had the distinction as a wcup winning centre or ranked no. 1 or been part of a world dominating side how do you compare the two and get to determine its actually bod when smith does it as part of BAU? day in day out.

Quit ignoring the fact that it's a team game and I'll quit the dumbo comments.The fact is it's dumb to not have respect for a great player just because he hasn't played for a great team.To say you rate Smith higher than BoD I can understand but to say you don't respect him and that comparing BoD to Smith is hard to take seriously?

I honestly feel you can't truly understand how team sports work if you think that the results between the 2 nations are reflective of the talents of 2 individual players.Italy had a terrible record against Ireland for years but no Irish man would ever have claimed that John Hayes was a better player than Castrogiovanni because of it.

Neither does it make BOD a better player because the rest of the team were comparatively worse.

The fact is, that he is largely over-rated and possibly the Irish equivalent of Gavin Henson with a less proficient TV career.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Neither does it make BOD a better player because the rest of the team were comparatively worse.

The fact is, that he is largely over-rated and possibly the Irish equivalent of Gavin Henson with a less proficient TV career.

Again I've said I can understand you rating Smith higher,it's your dismissal of BoD that shows your ignorance.

You still haven't shown any examples of Ireland often fielding weakened teams,I will assume you were just making that up!

I can disagree with you without being ignorant thankyou very much.

I'm assuming they were weakened sides. It would be all the more humiliating if they weren't.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I can disagree with you without being ignorant thankyou very much.

I'm assuming they were weakened sides. It would be all the more humiliating if they weren't.

So you just made it up?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Neither does it make BOD a better player because the rest of the team were comparatively worse.

The fact is, that he is largely over-rated and possibly the Irish equivalent of Gavin Henson with a less proficient TV career.

What made you change your mind? Was it about the same time you stopped being English in your posts?

Saturday June 12, 2010.

New Zealand played Ireland, Conrad Smith scored 2 tries. BOD Scored 1.

If that isn't proof backed by statistics that Smith is twice the player BoD is, then I don't know what is.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Saturday June 12, 2010.

New Zealand played Ireland, Conrad Smith scored 2 tries. BOD Scored 1.

If that isn't proof backed by statistics that Smith is twice the player BoD is, then I don't know what is.

And the November test of that same year?

I think the best people to ask the question regarding who is better, would be those who are impartial to both BOD and Conrad. Irish fans are obviously going to select BOD, but to be honest he is well known as a great rugby player by all non-bitter/sane fans. Unfortunately a few on here are now obsessively bitter towards him, and would never applaud his talents. Wouldn't you agree, Taylorman?

Also it would be a much better discussion without GloriousEmpire jumping in on every opportunity he gets to try and criticise BOD. Seriously, grow up mate. You are incredibly boring, have you nothing else to do but antagonise people?

Stop antagonising Taylorman and I Rory. We are entitled to our opinions.

On this thread I've been called all manner of names simply for expressing an opinion, even when I back it up with stats.

I'm not going to sit here and agree that BOD is a better player when he's not just to appease some posters who seem to believe that their opinion is the final word.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Stop antagonising Taylorman and I Rory. We are entitled to our opinions.

On this thread I've been called all manner of names simply for expressing an opinion, even when I back it up with stats.

I'm not going to sit here and agree that BOD is a better player when he's not just to appease some posters who seem to believe that their opinion is the final word.

You can try and play the victim card all you want, but you know exactly what you are doing. You seem to spend each day on here trying to get a reaction from people, and it really is quite pathetic. If not on this thread you will be doing it somewhere else.