Best Centre in Britain?

First topic message reminder :

So putting it out there to you guys, if you could choose one centre from Britain right now who would you go for? Personally Jonathan Davies for me, great vision, great running game and solid in defence...

Honest thoughts?

It would be cool if there was a Pacific conference in Super Rugby and the island nations in the Rugby Championship. Not sure if it would be financially viable though. Probably not. But it would be good if those players could play at home and represent their nations in a major tournament every year. So much talent.

12trees has yet to really dominate on the international stage, bar one game I believe?

OK so lets all learn something today shall we???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10

THE BLEEDIN BRITISH ISLES!!!!!!!

The British isles exists tho - as a geograhical entity - like Scandenavia or the indian subcontinent or north america.

Mexico is in North America...don't call Mexicans American.

Canada is in North America.. don't call a Canadian American

Brazil is in South America.... don't call those people American

Argentina is in South America...don't call those guys British! (I mean American... got carried away there)

Falkland Islands are in South American continent...don't call them Argentines..or American

The Irish are part of the British Isles (the Irish will be glad to know that the Greeks and Romans called us that before the British did...so don't blame the British and you're more British than the British are 'cause the British were a Celtic people who were there before the Romans, the Saxons, the Normans, the Vikings, the Jamaicans or the Polish)

..anyway, back to the lesson:  The Irish are part of the British Isles but don't call them British, unless they are British.  But even some of them like to be called Irish so just call anyone in Ireland by their first or last name and that's safest of all.

Encyclopedia BritanandIrelandica

It is also a fact that the incorrect nature of the name was given due to the lack of knowledge of the greeks and romans to the inhabitants. they referred to the Pretani (Britons) who were a celtic tribe that did not make it to Ireland. In fact the early Celtic Inhabitants of Ireland came from Iberia hence our distinct and direct genetic relationship with the Basque region of which over 70% of the population are directly related. Which is why the wonderful term West Brit is applied. In fact Ptolemy corrected this usage later and applied the individual island names.

Geographically it is an incorrect term as they are the North Atlantic Islands and in fact Ireland was a separate island initially from the european mainland. Politically the term gained usage through the Royal Geographical Society duringt he 18th and 19th century and continued usage was used facetiously for political purposes and is still used primarily in the UK for the uneducated masses.

Great Britain/Brittany (Little Britain)/The British Isles relates to the Islands surrounding Great Britain and Brittany of which there are hundreds.

This thread has taken an odd turn

Wasn't the term British isles removed from newly printed atlases in Ireland? I think we use the islands of the north Atlantic, IONA.

Never saw the term in an Irish Atlas. Anyhow its just a question of your view of things. British people use it, thats fine (if incorrect). Its like the term the English Channel which is La Manche, La Manca, ArmKanal etc in French, German, Italian (Spanish also) which translates in the Sleeve or Shoulder referring to the geography of the landforms. However it shall forever be known in the English speaking world as the English Channel due to the er English but to everyone else it means something else.

you can refer to my house however colloquially you want, in however many languages you want. but it's still my house.

if the the implications of this escape you feel free to PM me.

ME-109 wrote:It is also a fact that the incorrect nature of the name was given due to the lack of knowledge of the greeks and romans to the inhabitants. they referred to the Pretani (Britons) who were  a celtic tribe that did not make it to Ireland. In fact the early Celtic Inhabitants of Ireland came from Iberia hence our distinct and direct genetic relationship with the Basque region of which over 70% of the population are directly related. Which is why the wonderful term West Brit is applied. In fact Ptolemy corrected this usage later and applied the individual island names.

Geographically it is an incorrect term as they are the North Atlantic Islands and in fact Ireland was a separate island initially from the european mainland. Politically the term gained usage through the Royal Geographical Society duringt he 18th and 19th century and continued usage was used facetiously for political purposes and is still used primarily in the UK for the uneducated masses.  

Great Britain/Brittany (Little Britain)/The British Isles relates to the Islands surrounding Great Britain and Brittany of which there are hundreds.

I'm not sure though how anything Geographically can be an 'incorrect' term though?  Or, for that matter 'correct'.  I know, I know, - pedantic, but if you post a comment on detail you gotta be expecting a pedantic response from someone.

Geographically, the entire world is named because of power wielding, war and propaganda influences.  There is probably no part of the world that is all that fond of what it happens to be called on a world Atlas - example America itself, neither Columbus nor Amerigo Vespucci discovered the continent.  But they got to be linked to the discovery on all maps and encyclopedias since.  The real guy who discovered it isn't often mentioned as he made the mistake of not really knowing he discovered it (neither did Columbus for that matter - but at least he was correct on that score).  Indeed, what did he even discover?  A continent that already knew it existed because it was already inhabited?  What did the true first settlers call it?

Even the 'Pretini' was a name given from afar to the ancient 'British'.  It's not the name they used for themselves.

The West Brits are an interesting sub group.  Irish people who feel more British than Basque, I assume?  Whenever did that nonsense happen? For tis sure I am, that Padraig Pearse knew how Basque his genes were when he Celtic revivaled us out of our colonial stupor.  Yes, many a poem he wrote about our Basque heritage and strange genetic blueprints that tie us to the Iberian Penninsula.  Strange though that many of the older West Brits were pushed out to the West by their British fwiends and that the Western peoples migrated to the East later?  We need a West Brit genetic research program to get to the truth of that one.

TJ wrote:The British isles exists tho - as a geograhical entity - like Scandenavia or the indian subcontinent or north america.

Only if you think it does   

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

TJ wrote:The British isles exists tho - as a geograhical entity - like Scandenavia or the indian subcontinent or north america.

Only if you think it does   

Perfect summation of the crux. They're only the British Isles if you want to be guided by texts that say they are. Ayers Rock v Uluru.

SecretFly wrote:  Ayers Rock v Uluru.

Lonely Planet and Australia itself now says Uluru. Things can change for the better.

lostinwales wrote:This thread has taken an odd turn

Better turn than the you usual 'best of...' Threads. Not gone dirty guts which is always nice. It seems similar to the whole South Seas Islanders thing. It's used to represent the inhabitants of the islands in the South Pacific. Not actually called that and it supposedly has negative connotation due to usage. So I tend to use Pacific Islanders instead (this still isn't 'correct' but reasonably clear when discussing rugby). If some (significant number) of people don't agree that the term British Isles covers Ireland as well then I tend to avoid it. Saying Britain and Ireland isn't challenging. Is Iceland in the North Atlantic? Could get confusing for that term. In fact is Manhattan a North Atlantic Island?

flankertye wrote:12trees has yet to really dominate on the international stage, bar one game I believe?

None of the England centres have dominated on the international stage so it's hard to include them if that is your criteria.

Tuilagi has though....

just had a flash back to all those geography lessons that i never listened too . loved history best . i suppose if you asking which British centres are the best i can only pick the two who represented the lions last .   

The sea between Ireland and the UK is called the Irish sea. Does that mean we own it? If so can you please stop swimming in it. Its not yours.

Best Centre in Britain?

mmm has to be the soft toffee with a hazelnut in it.. The Purple wrapper one ... mmmm   

the worst must be coffee... yuk...   

flankertye wrote:Tuilagi has though....

Really hasn't....

munkian wrote:

flankertye wrote:Tuilagi has though....

Really hasn't....

True, only against the ABs


Oh yeah and the French

munkian wrote:

flankertye wrote:Tuilagi has though....

Really hasn't....

He has had plenty of great moments-like scoring a try vs France with half his ear ripped away. Rugby wise his best performance was probably being the difference between England and NZ a year ago. For a crucial period in the 2nd half he ripped them to shreds - which just isnt something you can say about many players.

And remember his achievements outside of rugby. He has, for instance, proved to be an effective commentator on the state of UK politics....  

As well as showing Tom Daley what level he needs to aspire to for future Olympics

So...2 matches...and the French try was rather dodgy. He was completely missing when it mattered in a 6 nations decider match against Wales, only time his name was mentioned was when he knocked on a dead cert try

I'm not saying he's not a good player, but to say hes 'dominated on the International stage' is more than a little premature

OK as an outside back how many 'dominating' performances do you need to qualify then Munkian? Its like saying if you ignore the times when Warburton has played well hes been really awful.

Manu has produced plenty of good moments and some really good tries in what has so far been a very short career. He has also had injuries and related ups and downs in form, so picking on one game where he was poor to prove a case isnt great.

I do hope the injuries don't become a pattern.

He is capable of performances that dominate the opposition, but just like most players just because you can it doesnt mean it will happen every time.

Last 6N he just wasnt on form. He was injured before christmas and other than vs France he didnt do much at all. But even then in the few minutes he was on vs Ireland in those conditions he looked more like scoring than any of the other backs on the pitch.

Also ran all over the SA backline...

Jamie Robert's contribution is very under rated. wales generally seem to lose when he is out. His defensive organisation and gain line impact are huge and very few other players can match what he does. It often goes unnoticed as its not the most thrilling of contributions.

BOD is certainly an all time great but maybe on the wane ? JD2 currently best attacking centre in the BRITISH ISLES.

( Tonight's geography lesson : Ireland made a conscious decision to keep its established international rugby team as one team and Governing body intact following partition in 1920 into N Ireland and Eire. It was a beacon of hope for reconciliation and peace through the Troubles. Sport again leading the way ?

There is no such country politically / legally as ' Ireland ' British Isles are the lands that contains both the UK ( Eng / Scot / Wales / N Ireland and Eire.) but is not a political or legal entity. And I know that some of you will be freaked out by this, but some of Ulster is in Eire, not Northern Ireland which is slightly different. Anyway back to the rugby.)

Maybe if we made Eire and N Ireland into 2 teams we might actually beat them a bit more often !!

Bluedragon wrote:Jamie Robert's contribution is very under rated. wales generally seem to lose when he is out. His defensive organisation and gain line impact are huge and very few other players can match what he does. It often goes unnoticed as its not the most thrilling of contributions.

BOD is certainly an all time great but maybe on the wane ? JD2 currently best attacking centre in the BRITISH ISLES.

( Tonight's geography lesson : Ireland made a conscious decision to keep its established international rugby team as one team and Governing body intact following partition in 1920 into N Ireland and Eire. It was a beacon of hope for reconciliation and peace through the Troubles. Sport again leading the way ?

There is no such country politically / legally as ' Ireland ' British Isles are the lands that contains both the UK ( Eng / Scot / Wales / N Ireland and Eire.) but is not a political or legal entity. And I know that some of you will be freaked out by this, but some of Ulster is in Eire, not Northern Ireland which is slightly different.  Anyway back to the rugby.)

Maybe if we made Eire and N Ireland into 2 teams we might actually beat them a bit more often !!

Only if you think it does   

I got my brackets in the wrong place - should read ' British Isles contains Uk ( wales / eng / scot / n ire ) and Eire.

Hope my interpretation as a Welshman is accurate. I know it can be a sensitive subject over there. I have a an Ulsterman as a friend. The four proud provinces of Ireland   

Ireland is a geographical entity like the british isles. Ireland consists of Eire and Northern ireland

Just wondering if rugby is unique in having cross border ' cultural ' geographical teams like B & I Lions, Ireland and the Pacific Islanders ? can' think of any other international sport with teams that have different political governments but play as one team. ?

Bluedragon wrote:Jamie Robert's contribution is very under rated. wales generally seem to lose when he is out. His defensive organisation and gain line impact are huge and very few other players can match what he does. It often goes unnoticed as its not the most thrilling of contributions.

BOD is certainly an all time great but maybe on the wane ? JD2 currently best attacking centre in the BRITISH ISLES.
....

Mr Roberts very important to Wales for the reasons mentioned. JD2 is a very fine center and depending on interpretation is right up there. If he was the best attacking center however he would have scored more tries.

Tehre is a good arguemsnt for JD2 being the best around right now. Interestingly all the main contenders posted really still are "potential greats" not proven ones.

lostinwales wrote:This thread has taken an odd turn

  

Nice to see some rugby has broken through the geography.

TJ wrote:Tehre is a good arguemsnt for JD2 being the best around right now.  Interestingly all the main contenders posted really still are "potential greats" not proven ones.

I should leave this alone now I know, but how many match winning performances vs SH teams do you need to still be only in the potential category?

Oh we're also forgetting Steve Shingler