Turning Points in International Rugby

After a long absence I have decided to start my Historical Posts this is the First of the new batch.

My main interest is NZ Rugby but it also includes others,first some stats not 100 % accurate
from roughly 1900-14,All Blacks were 85 % plus.Suprisingly the so called Golden 20`s it fell
to 54.5% with the first white wash by Australia in 1929 3-0.

Again surprisingly the 1930`s it was a respectable 63 % despite losses to England,Wales and SA.
Post war to 1949 sunk to 45.4%,post 1950-69 it rose to about 80% plus before 1970`s 64 %
identical to the Boks for the period.

Rising from 1980 -1995  gradually to about 75-80 %. For NZ the first turning point was 1930`s post Lions tour when Mr Baxter Lions manager got the IRB to ban the 2-3-2 Scrum.NZ adopted the Bok Scrum 3-4-1 without learning its secrets.

As a consequence they were badly beaten at scrum time by England and SA and
with the lineouts being taken as scrums option they lacked possession.

Ironically in1928 it was obvious the 2-3-2 was obsolete and the AB`s packed 3-3-2
the turning point.For both SA  and NZ was 1949 when Johnny Simpson approached
DR.Danie Craven and Bo Wintle to teach the AB`s the secrets of the 3-4-1 Scrum
and the SA Hooking technique.

The hooker didn't bind in the traditional sense but hung onto his Props and literally swung between them.The hooking channel being between lock and flanker,not between the locks.

By the first test NZ were as good or better than the Boks and got better thru 1950-60`s
they then went on to be the best side 1960 apart in the World period 1950-69.

By 1970 the All Blacks declined by there standards until early 1980`s when they gradually
rebuilt there forward play.

Post 1949 by contrast the Boks went from being near unbeatable to a drawn Lions series 1955
lost first ever Series to NZ 1956 ,followed by 1958 Home series loss then the 1960`s there
worst decade ever.

The late 1960`s led to introduction of intensive Coaching programs in NH when for about
a decade they dominated World Rugby.Lions wins 1971 and 1974 plus individual Nh teams
wins meant relative poor results for SH sides.

The 1970`s seemed an improvement for the Boks with series wins v NZ 1970.1976 BUT
The 1970 Bok side was forward the oldest in there history the two replacements Mof
Mybergh and Lofty Nel were 34 and 36 respectively,in Colin Meads opinion.1965side
was superior as indeed was 1966 Lions.

Putting things into perspective the Boks only 1970`s NH wins were against France
who in the 70`s were either dire or invincible.But at least there averages upto1976was 63 %
didn't play tests last period of 70`s.

All Blacks lost to France on 3 occasions out of 5,England once and the Lions but to put things
further in context.England under John Pullen toured Fiji and NZ 1973 6 matches winning
only one v NZ .Toured  SA played 7 won 6 drew 1 including a win versus the Boks.

1970`s were a Wales Golden era they and France dominating the decade. England
started to become successful during 1980`s-90`s peaking in 2003.

Nz managed to achieve there fairly respectable by Nh standards by playing mobile
forwards moving heavier packs around.

By the 1980`s Nz and Sa were both back to better standards but many at least Nz
were veterans and turn over of players was marked.

This being due to the very large number of tours in the 1970 early 80`s period taking
up the slack for Sa in this period.

Two big questions in my mind how would the Sav Nz tours panned out 1967,73?
Did the Boks peak in 1995 have they been in decline since?

Tough to say the Boks peaked in 1995. They were still losing to England at home in 1994 so it wasn't a long peak if it ended in 1995.

They showed more consistency putting together an unbeaten run of 17 matches from 1997 to 1998, and more efficiency to claim a second World Cup in 2007

England haven't beaten South Africa for eight years, whereas we had a six year, seven match winning streak against them from 2000-2006. I'd be more inclined to think of the Boks having peaked when we start beating them now and again.

Boks don't peak, they sometimes have an astute coach and other times they don't.

I'm currently reading a book on the 81 Springbok Tour. It's interesting. The author (Don Cameron) reckons that SA were the better team, but injuries and poor tactics cost them the series

dallym wrote:I'm currently reading a book on the 81 Springbok Tour. It's interesting. The author (Don Cameron) reckons that SA were the better team, but injuries and poor tactics cost them the series

plus perhaps the lack of match practice (Hamilton) and the flour bombs?

That series went to the absolute wire- Mark Donaldsons quick tap to extract a penalty for Hewson 10 meters closer to the posts was critical.

The third test must be THE most wackiest, unique, memorable and you name it of all time. Planes flying lower than the stadium roof, flour bombs from planes hitting props, barbed wire around the field, fights outside the ground and after all that some brilliant tries...let alone a last second penalty to win the series...

Biltong wrote:Boks don't peak, they sometimes have an astute coach and other times they don't.

Made my morning.

Not sure how 67 or 73 tours would have panned out. Here are some thoughts.

'67 was a great ab's team with a great coach. The books were probably slightly below there historical best. It would have been a great opportunity for nz. The ab's were in the midst of a legendary winning streak.

The big problem for nz would have been the players available to tour. 1970 was the first team to be selected on merit. However, as with ever nz that played the boks before their reintroduction (1970, 1976 and 1981) some players still boycotted the tour.

In terms of the boks, they'd come through a low patch in the mid 60's with a drawn series against the wallabies in sa, followed by terrible tours of the uk and Ireland, Australia and nz. My feeling is by 67 they were coming out of it. They were always hard at home.

In terms of 73. Who knows, both sides were kak at the. Time. Arguably still the top national sides (I.e. excluding the lions), but fact it's debatable says it all.

Don't think they peaked in 95. They had a run of wins at home, that included some luck (like all good sides). Despite the World Cup win I don't think many people saw them as the best side in the world. The French and kiwis were up there and England were in the mix. I'd say mallet's run 1998 was in may ways more impressive. They've also had a couple of similar runs to 95 in the 2000's.

For me the boks peaked in the 1930's. this was when they had no real rival. They were completely dominant, the top dog. They had good sides before and after, but during this era they were dominant.

Cheers Alan. Would you mind explaining how a 2-3-2 scrum worked (who fed the ball for example) and what were the secrets of the 3-4-1 scrum? If the IRB banned the 2-3-2 scrum, was it up to teams to decide which scrum they wanted - i.e. the Boks were allowed their unconventional method - and what were the exact benefits of each scrum?

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/interactive/40044/the-2-3-2-scrum

Should probably point out that there was no set formation for the scrum initially. Nz developed a 2-3-2 scrum with an additional loose forward who could line up the inside/midfield backs. The Europeans used a 3-2-3 scrum at some point and the boks developed a 3-4-1 scrum (that we have today).

My understanding is that a combination of minor changes to several laws in the late 20's/early 30's combined with the obvious advantage of the 3-4-1 scrum won the day. By the time it was outlawed in '32 we were looking at today's scrum anyway.

cheers bc. Didn't realise scrumming was so malleable in formation early on. I imagine when the Boks had 8 against 7 it wasn't pretty to watch from a NZ perspective.

Who would typically be the rove forward? Makes sense for that to be a 6 or 7 on an opposition feed but maybe not so on your own feed. Could you choose anyone to feed or hang off?

If you interested here's a 19030's RFU report on changes to the scrum. This is when the rules became international in the '30's (before that games were played under home unions variations).

http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/resources/Laws/Changes%20in%20Rugby%20Law%201931-2.pdf

In Nz the 2-3-2 Scrum was invented or evolved from about 1888 credited to I think a person
called Ellison.The Native side of Harry Warbrick originally packed 2-3-2-1,there was no duly
accepted formation until about 1906.All Scrum members were specialists in there positions
the Hookers literally kicked the ball backwards.In the NH it was first forwards up packed down
3-2-3[Wales in06 adopted the 2-3-2 one for AB`s match.
The 2-3-2 scrum was fed either by the Rover or the Ref in some Nz matches the advantage
was that.1 it was a single flying wedge ideal for wheeling and hand or foot rushes.2 IF the
Rover stayed in place he gave protection against winging forwards.3 the Scrum half had
more time to make play with a 5/8 either side of the Scrum.
Disadvantages never had the loose head,difficult to disengage from relatively speaking
plus of course 7 versus 8.
IF the Rover stayed in place he was 1 obstructing and 2 offside but in NZ neither the
defending SH or Rover.Attempted to interfere until the ball was out.
IF he then retired behind the hind most foot of scrum as they did on 1924 tour it
was totally legal.
The 3-4 -1 Scrum was evolved by "Ourbaas Mark Markotter" at Stellen bosch in 1910.
The Flankers protected [obstructed?]the SH to some extent,it was a double "Flying Wedge.Feet placement with the correct foot forward to provide the thrust. Flankers
weight angle packed on to the Props leaving the Hooker free to hang onto his props.
Using the SA Hook which was him literally swinging on the Props technically illegal
but seldom penalised.
NH used mainly 3-2-3 until at least 1953-4.

Cheers guys.

What about lineouts? When did hookers start throwing the ball in. I remember changes from jumping with no lifting and no outside arm but were there any other changes in the early years?

Hookers throwing in started in the 1970`s actually suggested by Ron Jarden in
"Rugby on the Attack " mid 1950`s one of the best training manuals ever.
Line out laws like the Scrum were constantly tinkered with length,numbers in
distance from touch line.Lifting was legalised under the ELV`s circa 2008
10 metre gap introduced 1965.

Interesting stuff thanks for this,I was going to ask a few questions but what I wanted to know has been asked and answered already so just commenting to let you know it's appreciated.

Emack - sorry to pull you up as I think this is most informative stuff, but lifting was legalised in 1996

Interesting. Is it now illegal to do anything other than the 3-4-1 scrum we see nowadays?

Did the boks peak in 95????

No, 95 was simply written in the stars. They were say 5th favourite leading up to the tournament.

Rubbish people say? Ok well from their re-introduction to the 95 tournament they had played the other big 5 nations (3N & FRA & ENG) 15 times... and won only 3 of them.

94 - tour of NZ. 3 matches, lost 0-2.
94 - ENG in SA. 2 matches, drew 1-1.
93 - tour of AUS. 3 matches, lost 1-2.
93 - FRA in SA. 2 matches, lost 0-1.
92 - AI tour of Europe. 3 matches, 1-1 draw with FRA, Lost single match to ENG.
92 - single tests vs. AUS & NZ. Lost both.

As good as the boks were talent wise it took years to recover from 10 years out the game. Look at the English game in football when they were banned from European competition for 5 years. European Champions for 6 out of 7 years up to ban.... then took 7-8 years to win the title after re-introduction.

fa0019 wrote:Did the boks peak in 95????

No, 95 was simply written in the stars. They were say 5th favourite leading up to the tournament.

Rubbish people say? Ok well from their re-introduction to the 95 tournament they had played the other big 5 nations (3N & FRA & ENG) 15 times... and won only 3 of them.

94 - tour of NZ. 3 matches, lost 0-2.
94 - ENG in SA. 2 matches, drew 1-1.
93 - tour of AUS. 3 matches, lost 1-2.
93 - FRA in SA. 2 matches, lost 0-1.
92 - AI tour of Europe. 3 matches, 1-1 draw with FRA, Lost single match to ENG.
92 - single tests vs. AUS & NZ. Lost both.

As good as the boks were talent wise it took years to recover from 10 years out the game. Look at the English game in football when they were banned from European competition for 5 years. European Champions for 6 out of 7 years up to ban.... then took 7-8 years to win the title after re-introduction.

Did they draw in these series?

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Did the boks peak in 95????

No, 95 was simply written in the stars. They were say 5th favourite leading up to the tournament.

Rubbish people say? Ok well from their re-introduction to the 95 tournament they had played the other big 5 nations (3N & FRA & ENG) 15 times... and won only 3 of them.

94 - tour of NZ. 3 matches, lost 0-2.
94 - ENG in SA. 2 matches, drew 1-1.
93 - tour of AUS. 3 matches, lost 1-2.
93 - FRA in SA. 2 matches, lost 0-1.
92 - AI tour of Europe. 3 matches, 1-1 draw with FRA, Lost single match to ENG.
92 - single tests vs. AUS & NZ. Lost both.

As good as the boks were talent wise it took years to recover from 10 years out the game. Look at the English game in football when they were banned from European competition for 5 years. European Champions for 6 out of 7 years up to ban.... then took 7-8 years to win the title after re-introduction.

Did they draw in these series?

Yes. 1 in each.

I really enjoyed this. Thanks emack!

fa0019 wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Did the boks peak in 95????

No, 95 was simply written in the stars. They were say 5th favourite leading up to the tournament.

Rubbish people say? Ok well from their re-introduction to the 95 tournament they had played the other big 5 nations (3N & FRA & ENG) 15 times... and won only 3 of them.

94 - tour of NZ. 3 matches, lost 0-2.
94 - ENG in SA. 2 matches, drew 1-1.
93 - tour of AUS. 3 matches, lost 1-2.
93 - FRA in SA. 2 matches, lost 0-1.
92 - AI tour of Europe. 3 matches, 1-1 draw with FRA, Lost single match to ENG.
92 - single tests vs. AUS & NZ. Lost both.

As good as the boks were talent wise it took years to recover from 10 years out the game. Look at the English game in football when they were banned from European competition for 5 years. European Champions for 6 out of 7 years up to ban.... then took 7-8 years to win the title after re-introduction.

Did they draw in these series?

Yes. 1 in each.

Thanks,I know I should have just looked it up but I'm a lazy fecker.

That French team was pretty decent though.

Away series wins in 93 in SA and 94 in NZ. By amateur standard they would have been held up as one of the greatest teams of all time.

Derek Bevan altered history in one decision though.

kingraf wrote:

Biltong wrote:Boks don't peak, they sometimes have an astute coach and other times they don't.

Made my morning.

Interesting though....  that as astute as the boks coach may now be.... he has a record of 0 wins in 4 vs the ABs and you have to question his tactics in the last test. Had the boks kept it tight as normal they would have won IMO although not the championship. You could argue that an astute coach would have taken the win against the trophy at this stage seeing it as more important in their RWC cycle.

Since the pro era this is how the bok coaches have fared vs. NZ

Meyer - 0 wins in 4 or 0%.
PDV - 5 wins in 11 or 46% (inc. 2 away wins).
White - 3 wins in 9 or 33% (no away wins).
Straeuli - 0 wins in 5 or 0%.
Viljoen -  0 wins in 2 or 0%.
Mallett - 4 wins in 7 or 57% (inc. 1 away win).
Du Plessis - 0 wins in 2 or 0%.
Markgraaf - 1 win in 5 or 20% (no away wins).

Out of the last 8 coaches PDV is 1st in away wins and overall wins. He is 2nd in % of wins in total to Mallett. Not bad for a "mickey mouse" coach.

Alan how long did tours last in the early days and how many games were there in a tour. I guess before the age of commercial flights you wanted to get your money's worth. How would players train on a boat to Europe say and how soon would the games begin after docking? We talk of travel fatigue nowadays but how could you condition yourself on a boat trip?

Thanks for all your hard work.

When first started this thread it was as an introduction to general more specific threads.
I will now comment on some points made the Boks in 1930`s were not invincible in 1934-5
they played Australia in a 5 match series scraping home 3-2[many of the greats were there].
The 1937 side was thrashed by NSW before reaching Nz where they won the series 2-1 the
first 3 match series.
Had full strength sides toured in 1928,1949,1960,1970 and 1976 even 1986 in my opinion
IF they had neutral refs to all may have been at least halved and 1928 probably won,of course 1956 ,1959,possibly even 1965 halved or lost.
Poor goal kicking cost them dear[AB¬s] 1949,1970,1971,1976 and even the last test ofthe Cavaliers when Fox was dropped.The so called neutral Cavaliers ref foisted on them.Was more biased than home grown Refs the 4th Test was Robbery in the words of Haden.
In 1981-2 "THE BARBED WIRE BOKS" tour shouldn't have happened
threats of death and violence.To players families and Riot police and
military to control protests is a bridge to far.
NZv SA is the big earner the Bok side may well have been the better side in 1981 teams
that represented NZ 1970-82 were of a very variable character.
In my opinion had the 1967 side toured intact under Freddie Allen they would have been
the first Nz side to win a series.
1973 would have been a Nz win if joe Karam was at FB,otherwise pass.
The Line out law in 1996 was a player jumping could be "Supported" once in the air
but not LIFTED but the law was seldom policed.[indeed it was the same since the 1950`s]
It was legalised as part of the ELV`s one of the few the Nh accepted and what Nh wants
get.
The Boks do indeed have troughs and peaks just like any other side 1995 was there peak
since they have been in decline[with the exception of 1998 and part of 2009]since.
By THERE OWN HIGH STANDARDS the yardstick being results versus the All Blacks whether
player quotas,off shore players being picked etc. don`t know.
Tactics and Coaches don`t effect that indeed had the Coaches of 1949,1960 and 1970 been
Vic Cavanagh Junior[who with the Original chosen Manager was first choice Coach].Dick
Everest and Freddie Allen.
Instead of the NZRFU political appointments by "Buggins Turn"[an article on this to come]
those tour results materially effected by them.

Tours the traditional long tours varied between 24-36 matches[NZ,Bok,Lions]travelling
by boat for 5 or 6 weeks plus long road and rail trips didn't help.
The 1949 and 1956 tours were mirror images picked the season before both teams arrived
unfit,and took time to adjust.
Kevin Skinner was of the opinion travel was a major factor in the 1949 tour at one stage
they played 3 major matches in 19 days and travelled 12 days of that by road.
In the 1950`s late and early sixties the mini tour of 6 or 7 matches became popular these
usually were mostly won by home teams.
BUT France in 1958 lost or drew all there other games but won a series in Sa 1-0,with I drawn.In 1963 Englands team toured Nz and Aus,winning all there Aus matches but
drawing or losing most in Nz.The side was a scratch side but it required a 65 metre
Goal from a Mark by Don Clarke to win the 2nd test.
From about 1967 match tours were 16 matches per tour but more big games which mean`t
few games for young hopefuls.
The itenary was picked by the home union and was usually an ambush before the tourists
found there feet.Timing of tour was also an factor sometimes home sides had very little
game time under there belts,other times plenty.

Tours the traditional long tours varied between 24-36 matches[NZ,Bok,Lions]travelling
by boat for 5 or 6 weeks plus long road and rail trips didn't help.
The 1949 and 1956 tours were mirror images picked the season before both teams arrived
unfit,and took time to adjust.
Kevin Skinner was of the opinion travel was a major factor in the 1949 tour at one stage
they played 3 major matches in 19 days and travelled 12 days of that by road.
In the 1950`s late and early sixties the mini tour of 6 or 7 matches became popular these
usually were mostly won by home teams.
BUT France in 1958 lost or drew all there other games but won a series in Sa 1-0,with I drawn.In 1963 Englands team toured Nz and Aus,winning all there Aus matches but
drawing or losing most in Nz.The side was a scratch side but it required a 65 metre
Goal from a Mark by Don Clarke to win the 2nd test.
From about 1967 match tours were 16 matches per tour but more big games which mean`t
few games for young hopefuls.
The itenary was picked by the home union and was usually an ambush before the tourists
found there feet.Timing of tour was also an factor sometimes home sides had very little
game time under there belts,other times plenty.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Alan how long did tours last in the early days and how many games were there in a tour.

The 1924-25 All Blacks (Invincibles) played 30 matches between 13/9/24 and 18/1/25. They often played matches with just 1 day between. Hesitate to call that a rest day as for instance on 2nd October they played Newport, then Leicester on the 4th. they also played two matches in Canada on their way home.

The 1905 "Originals" side saw an even more hectic schedule, fitting in 33 matches in Europe between 16th September 1905 and 1st Jan 1906. this included playing on Boxing Day and New Yeas Day. They had some interesting travelling to do. Playing in Glasgow two days before meeting Ireland in Dublin, and at the end of the tour playing France two days after meeting Swansea. Just how long it took to travel from NZ is highlighted by the two extra fixtures they added on their way home I believe the gate money was used to pay for the cros-pacific journey). these two matches in San Francisco were played 6 weeks after the last match in Europe.

Cheers Alan and LT. That's a phenomenal schedule! They really must have loved their rugby to play so many games with no financial benefit. What would you say to your boss?

I'd like 5 months leave to play rugby.

Ok, but make sure you're back for February. That's our busy period.

Every team goes through peaks and troughs... NZ have bucked that trend for a decade but make no mistake... they have had 2 of the finest players in Carter and McCaw for the entire period... and to their credit they have managed them superbly with sabbaticals, restricted play etc... all to get the best out of them.
Rarely do teams get more than one of these players in key positions in a generation and rarely do you have more than 1 at the same stage of their careers.

When those chaps leave, NZ will suffer like the rest (its just that their troughs are still most teams peaks!!).

SA are in good shape but they have a lot of restrictions on their players, the manner they go about their business which is making it harder. Winning is not enough for those in power you have to do it with 2 knives in your back at any one tim. The fact that Jake White was sacked contrary to his results is testimony to that... they wouldn't even pay PDV expenses to go and scout players during the 6N  and when he secured them externally they tried to prevent him from taking it up.

Anyhow, its a tough job, probably the toughest in rugby today.  One thing I am worried about is the RC schedule... its not bok friendly.

At the moment its NZ & SA well ahead of the other two, well ahead. So what matters is the home games vs. each other. General consensus has been you win your home games. But there is a definitive advantage to playing at home first.. else in the final match you will be chasing the game no matter what.. especially against a NZ team who will almost certainly have more bonus points then you.

Once again the schedule is the same... the final legs are the NZ & AUS tour of SA & ARG just like last year. Means that SA will be chasing again.
If this is going to continue the boks will continuously have to swim against the tide. It doesn't bode well leading up to the RWC.

I can see NZ winning both games this year because of that alone.... and in the RWC with 6 straight defeats against NZ will the boks be confident come the RWC SF on neutral territory? Unlikely.

Again, perhaps the best idea would be to sacrifice the championship for a home victory (like they should have done last year). Wins in the hand are far better than being able to taste victory of a championship... its why I wonder if Meyer is as astute as people say he is. People won't remember a RC win if they lose the SF of the RWC. Thats where it truly matters now and players need to have that belief that they can beat them when it counts.

I don't think its fair to attribute NZ success to carter and McCaw alone. There has been some fantastic coaching and a lot of talent in the mix. Jerome Kaino and Kieran Read were probably the backbone of the 2010/2011 campaigns and Cruden/SBW were a pretty special partnership as Ireland found out. Smith/Nonu have repeatedly done the business, as have Jane/Dagg. Aaron Smith has added a new dimension to NZ with his pace and pass becoming arguably the worlds best 9 in just a few seasons. Let's not forget piri Weepu who at the height of his powers was the best 9.5 the world has seen.

Yep, there have been special All Blacks all over the park for as long as I can recall.

Agree that NZ probably will go through some pain at some point but the current management have brought in 22 new players since 2011 RWC success - that's more than any other team.

Carter and MCCaw are the main men its why NZ have been so successful for so long. Great teams need quality in every position I agree... look at that ENG team of 2003 literally everyone was world class, even their bench. But there were 2 or 3 players however good the greenwoods, the thompsons were that England couldn't win/struggled to win without.

No. I think it's naive media paff about McCaw/carter. It's idolisation for simpletons. It's a media trick to drive consumer interest amongst those lacking knowledge to understand the subtlety of the game.

They are great players, but the All Blacks are full of great players.

In fact the NZ herald are running a series at the moment on the 100 greatest All Blacks of all time. Izzy Dagg is marked up in their first six.

interesting top 6... really???

I would say he's not even in the top 3 FBs in the world at the moment... form wise at least. 0 tries in 15 matches speaks volumes for a 3/4 in an AB shirt starting all those matches.

He was the top FB for 2 years prior to that though.. but a 2 year window is enough to make it into the top 6 of all time??? very surprising.

I think it's naive to suggest that try count is the measure of a fullback!

Nepia, Cullen, Gallagher, Muliaina.

Getting hard to see Dagg featuring in NZs top 6 FBs of all time, yet apparently he will be deemed one of the top 6 All Blacks of all time

Check the herald...

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11237521

As I said.
He's chosen in the first six along with Tana Umaga. Legends both of them.

I like Gallagher will always been an outsider given that he's not really a kiwi. I don't rate him with the others. He was more of a stop gap for te time.

GloriousEmpire wrote:
Check the herald...
 
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11237521
 
As I said.
He's chosen in the first six along with Tana Umaga. Legends both of them.
 
I like Gallagher will always been an outsider given that he's not really a kiwi. I don't rate him with the others. He was more of a stop gap for te time.

 
this is not the final list...just the daily selection
 

nz herald wrote:We will reveal up to six players each day over four weeks with the First XV to be named in the final week.

whocares wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:
Check the herald...
 
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11237521
 
As I said.
He's chosen in the first six along with Tana Umaga. Legends both of them.
 
I like Gallagher will always been an outsider given that he's not really a kiwi. I don't rate him with the others. He was more of a stop gap for te time.

 
this is not the final list...just the daily selection
 

nz herald wrote:We will reveal up to six players each day over four weeks with the First XV to be named in the final week.

Obviously - it's called "top 100". Why? Did you get confused about something?

GloriousEmpire wrote:I think it's naive to suggest that try count is the measure of a fullback!

Its one of the major measures and given he plays in AB colours, one which is intensified compared to someone like Brown, Halfpenny, Hogg etc who will see far less advantageous positions to attack from, exploit and convert. Prior to that he had scored 12 in 23.

Saying its not a measure is naive in itself.

Dagg has been off-form in the 2013 season. At least well below his previous heights.

thought I would clarify as reading above posts, it suggests Dagg would make the AB top 6 of all time... when currently he's 'only' making the top 100...

PS - given that John Gallacher is not really a kiwi, would you say the same about Brad Thorn, Sitiveni Sivivatu too?

fa0019 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I think it's naive to suggest that try count is the measure of a fullback!

Its one of the major measures and given he plays in AB colours, one which is intensified compared to someone like Brown, Halfpenny, Hogg etc who will see far less advantageous positions to attack from, exploit and convert. Prior to that he had scored 12 in 23.

Saying its not a measure is naive in itself.

Dagg has been off-form in the 2013 season. At least well below his previous heights.

Disagree. He's set up more tries for the All Blacks than anyone else, not to mention the RWC clincher against Australia. Doesn't matter if he never scores again if he keeps up what he's doing now. A top defender, aerial deconstructionist, monster punt and one of those guys who can make magic from nothing.

He operates best of course on sleeping pills and beer.

All greats lists are just a matter of opinion for example Full Backs Carbine Wallace,George
Nepia,Bob Scott,Don Clarke,Mick Williment,Fergie McCormick.Christian Culllen.ALL I would
rate over Dagg.or Gallagher BUT Rugby is a team Game.I am interested to see the ill fated
Nicky Allen among the list he culd have gone all the way.
What does it matter WHO scores the tries as long as some one does Dagg has seldom
had a poor game in Black.
Greatness two of the greatest of there eras Karl Ifwersen and Johnny Smith had 3 caps
between them.
When the Elephant in the Corner comes around the usual hide the players in the 4Ns
scam will occur.Sacrificed for the so called holy grail of an RWC.
Incidentally the Scrum can be any 3 fronted one 3-4-1,3-2-3,or 3-3-2

I'm not sure Wynne is ranking them or showing them from 1 down. Any hoo it's only those players post 1949, that he's either seen of knows people that have seen. So no Nicholls, Nepia, Ranji Wilson etc.

emack2 wrote:All greats lists are just a matter of opinion for example Full Backs Carbine Wallace,George
Nepia,Bob Scott,Don Clarke,Mick Williment,Fergie McCormick.Christian Culllen.ALL I would
rate over Dagg.or Gallagher BUT Rugby is a team Game.I am interested to see the ill fated
Nicky Allen among the list he culd have gone all the way.
What does it matter WHO scores the tries as long as some one does Dagg has seldom
had a poor game in Black.
Greatness two of the greatest of there eras Karl Ifwersen and Johnny Smith had 3 caps
between them.
When the Elephant in the Corner comes around the usual hide the players in the 4Ns
scam will occur.Sacrificed for the so called holy grail of an RWC.
Incidentally the Scrum can be any 3 fronted one 3-4-1,3-2-3,or 3-3-2

Emack – I’m pretty sure I saw Nicky Allen on the first day’s list