Confidence Kings or Captains of Consistency?

Just as certain teams like NZ and SA are able to achieve consistency and teams like Australia, Wales and France are difficult to handle when they are full of confidence, so too are there players who seem to step up and make game-winning plays when they're on fire and those who are more slow burner types who give off good, consistent heat.

Players like Carlos Spencer, Quade Cooper, Cipriani, Balshaw, JOC, Beale, Michalak, Priestland, Campese are the types of players - alebit to varying degrees - who have youtube compilation hits when they got it right but have question marks - again to varying degrees - over their ability to consistently perform at the highest level.

Then you have the types of players like Conrad Smith, AAC, Fourie, Sharpe, Moore, Brown, Halfpenny, McCaw, Read who seem to have the ability to consistently perform week in week out.

The former group have the reputation of flakiness or at least a reputation to make crucial mistakes and the latter group are the players everyone wants first on the team sheet as they do the job for their team.

Much depends on the situation in which your team finds itself which type of player you want on the field. When your team is up and you don't want anyone doing anything stupid, you want your Kings of Consistency to take centre stage and get you home. But when you're down and you need a magical play to break the deadlock, you want your confidence kings to do the damage.

But isn't this just reinforcing the stereotype? Do we place too much pressure on our confidence kings to make that special play, which invariably is more high risk, and therefore are we more likely to see them produce an error. Sure when Cooper is on fire like he was last autumn, it's breathtaking but is there added, not to mention unrealistic, pressure to keep performing a high-risk game rather than play solid-do-your-job rugby?

It seems if you get a reputation for being consistent, not much else is required of you apart from doing what you've been always been doing. But when you get a reputation for being a game-breaker, you're expected to keep coming up with those game-breaking plays and this is where the reputation of flakiness comes from.

Who are some examples of these two types of players in your team and do you think too much pressure is put on the confidence players?

I always feel sorry for the players that are looked upon when a team is in the pits and need something magical to happen.

Take Wales as an example, and Rhys Priestland (James Hook too). When they are put into the position as opposed to a more consistent player (Steve Jones) it tended to be because the team was playing poorly already. Then when the team performs well, the general public look at it as a case of one player picking up the team and being superior to the player he replaced. The truth is the team are shamed by how poor they are and have all picked up their game.

Then the new 'magical' saviour is expected to be that magical all the time. If the team as a whole start to slip, as opposed to blaming the team as a whole (generally forwards not manning up etc), the general public would rather pin all the blame on one man, and that will have to be the former-saviour because he could have worked his 'magic' and saved the team.

Hook has the added burden Scarlet that no one can remember where his best position is but people can remember him doing something handy somewhere before and keep popping him up in different positions to replicate those good plays.

It's like wearing a shirt out on a night and you score. You think the shirt did it for you and wear it out the next time. But it doesn't work so you try to remember the whole ensemble and think maybe the jeans, socks, aftershave combination made a difference.

Then you have players like Cristian Cullen etc, who were mercurial AND consistant.   

the interesting aspect of "confindence players" is that they only seem to concern key postions such a hooker, fly-half and to some extent 8, 9 and 15. those are the players that have often to take decisions or make the right move under pressure (the right pass, the right catch, kick or throw). it is like the other players do not have that extra pressure on themselves and can afford not be consistent at all (missing tackles etc) and yet that falls under the radar as in essence their failure is somehow shared with their team mates...

easy examples with french and welsh fly-halves recently.

Hooker is not what would be my definition of a confidence player unless you're talking about Keith Wood. But it's true a hooker needs confidence to throw and gets the blame even if his jumping colleagues are in the wrong or deserve some of the blame.

For me it's difficult to be a confidence player in the pack unless you're someone like Parisse, Chabal or Zinny who are expected to come up with a big play. Their job is too demanding to expect a telling big play in the game. It's the fly-boys with their immaculate or often atrocious hair who are expected to come up with the miracle plays and yes fly-halves certainly fit that description but anyone outside 9 fit that description for me.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:It's like wearing a shirt out on a night and you score. You think the shirt did it for you and wear it out the next time. But it doesn't work so you try to remember the whole ensemble and think maybe the jeans, socks, aftershave combination made a difference.

With my strike rate on nights out I have discovered there are no lucky shirts, but hundreds of unlucky ones

Dan Biggar is a consistent flyhalf, he won't throw sublime backdoor passes like Hook or Cooper, but he'll put the team in the right areas of the field and shift the ball on, much like Stephen Jones hes just dependable.

Hook tries to take too much on himself if nothing is on, this is what I noticed in the Possibles/Probables game, if nothing was on outside him he would go himself, his first instinct is to run and not kick, which is what gets him into trouble sometimes. He needs to control the game from 10, if he cant do that then he needs to stick to centre.

It's the cologne of desperation that the ladies pick up on. Put a wedding band on and act like you don't give a ruck and watch them flock around you. Then it won't matter if you're even wearing a pirate shirt.

IronMike does it help that Biggar is known for his reliability and therefore doesn't try to force the play? Hook may think he has to get noticed in different ways and that is his undoing.

Likewise, some people feel that you need someone like Hook to spark a bit of "creativity" in midfield, Priestland is seen by the Welsh management as the right balance between the 2, but since the World Cup he hasn't been better at either aspect than either player.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Then you have players like Cristian Cullen etc, who were mercurial AND consistant.   

I'd put Austin Healey and James Simpson Daniel in that category too.

Mercurial and consistently good Rugby Fan.   

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Mercurial and consistently good Rugby Fan.   

I genuinely think they are two of the most creative players England has produced. Injuries and selectorial vagaries meant Sinbad never got a decent run of Tests at his peak, while coaches couldn't make up their mind about whether Healey was a wing, scrum half, fly half or full back.

Rugby Fan wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Mercurial and consistently good Rugby Fan.   

I genuinely think they are two of the most creative players England has produced. Injuries and selectorial vagaries meant Sinbad never got a decent run of Tests at his peak, while coaches couldn't make up their mind about whether Healey was a wing, scrum half, fly half or full back.

Didnt he play center too or was that only as a replacement?

You realise you've kicked off a Gavin Henson debate now...

Would've, could've, should've... didn't. Harsh but fair wouldn't you say?

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:You realise you've kicked off a Gavin Henson debate now...

Would've, could've, should've... didn't. Harsh but fair wouldn't you say?

The moment I read the words "Mercurial and consistently good" I knew it wouldn't be too long before a certain name was mentioned

More like mercury poisoning than mercurial.

  OK I'm off to the bin to think long and hard before opening my mouth.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:You realise you've kicked off a Gavin Henson debate now...

Would've, could've, should've... didn't. Harsh but fair wouldn't you say?

Both played at a time when England were the best team in the world (by retrospective IRB ranking). When we aren't doing well, there's no shortage of people telling us how big a player base we have. By the same token, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the regular England starters weren't the only world class players we had in the years we were the best.

Woodward had a plan for his team, and it didn't include Healey as more than a utility replacement. He did want Simpson-Daniel but no one else seemed to know how to use him.

Will Nick Evans go down as a test great? No, even though he could've been you might argue if he had played in another time apart from Carter. But he didn't and he went to England instead. The term world class gets thrown around freely enough as it is. If you're truly good enough, then you're consistently starting for your team. If you're not, maybe it's the selectors fault but that doesn't give you the right to be called world class if you're potentially great. The proof is in the tasting of the pudding and not in the speculating about trying the pudding because it sounds good.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Will Nick Evans go down as a test great? No, even though he could've been you might argue if he had played in another time apart from Carter. But he didn't and he went to England instead. The term world class gets thrown around freely enough as it is. If you're truly good enough, then you're consistently starting for your team. If you're not, maybe it's the selectors fault but that doesn't give you the right to be called world class if you're potentially great. The proof is in the tasting of the pudding and not in the speculating about trying the pudding because it sounds good.

mmmmmmmmm pudding  ..... what are we talking about?

a lot of flyhalves in there. Its a little different when you have a big pack in front of you dominating compared to say a lesser pack when you're on the backfoot.

How would Carter/JW etc do behind a Scotland pack? Would they be hailed as good as they were? Would their confidence remain high after getting constantly nailed by over zealous opensides?

You can have all the confidence in the world yet catch that ball off a weak pack and you're likely to get hammered.

However great players do seem to have time on their hands, in any ball sport.

Nevertheless, take Conrad Smith for instance. Great player, perhaps the best OC in pro rugby history and his performances for the ABs have been sublime? But all down to him?

Have Nonu/SBW inside him smashing up the opposition helps as does a pack and backrow the ABS possess. Whats he done for the Hurricanes on the other hand. To be honest, nothing really up there with his AB performances. Maybe he raises to the occasion but I think playing in a dominant side helps.... a hell of a lot.

You love the Conrad Smith Hurricanes example fa but individually speaking he's still the consistent player he is at test level and his team's erratic form is not his doing. If you'd used Nonu as an example maybe you'd have a point, except this year he's in great touch for the Blues. The fact that Conrad Smith has had to clean up defensively after Nonu doesn't do your argument much good.

Carter played outside some pretty laborious halfback passing. Like you say great players seem to look like they're not being rushed into decisions.

Great teams have their fair share of great players but more important is how they work together as a team. A great team is always greater than the sum of their collective parts and that means a top team is not necessarily made up of top players. This current NZ side made a hard job of winning up north. They don't inspire fear as other NZ teams or SA teams in the forwards but collectively they make a formidable unit.

Anyway I think we're straying off topic so apologies to the OP.  

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Will Nick Evans go down as a test great? No, even though he could've been you might argue if he had played in another time apart from Carter. But he didn't and he went to England instead. The term world class gets thrown around freely enough as it is. If you're truly good enough, then you're consistently starting for your team. If you're not, maybe it's the selectors fault but that doesn't give you the right to be called world class if you're potentially great. The proof is in the tasting of the pudding and not in the speculating about trying the pudding because it sounds good.

I think you raise an interesting point. Does world class only apply when a player has performed well at international level? That's not so in football, where George Best achieved nothing of note with Northern Ireland, and Ryan Giggs did litte with Wales. Gareth Bale has time on his side but it's hard to see him driving Wales to glory.

England may well have their own Nick Evans in Steffon Armitage. There seems little doubt he would warrant a place in the England squad but there are many who doubt he would be able to transfer is dominance to Test level. However, do we need that evidence to call a player world class? Like Evans, this isn't the first season Armitage has drawn plaudits from peers and journalists.

I think Renee Ranger is another for NZ. He's played a handfull of games for the AB's and is only 27. I see him as potentially a great AB centre, Traditionally many of our centres don't come of age until their late 20's. He's got great hands, solid defence, a bit of pace and monster fend.

Wilkinson and Larkham had both qualities imo. Both were good defensively too.

Test rugby is the pinnacle for me. Sivivatu has been going great in France in recent times as has Wilkinson before he retired but to me their test careers made them great as they played against all the teams in the world. The Crusaders won all their games in one Super season but how can you compare that to the Heineken Cup winner of that year? By all means you can go down as a club great but in order to be a test great and considered 'world class' it seems perfectly reasonable to me that you can only be called that if you stay long enough in a test jersey to play the other teams in the world.

Case in point, Jerome Kaino has been recalled to test rugby. His hiatus in Japan bears no relevance to his test status. Renee Ranger and the Armitage brothers are good calls to speculate on their test worthiness but they are ultimately as relevant as Richard Kahui or Stephen Ferris. They won't go down as test greats because sadly we saw too little of them on the test stage.

I should add that Stephen Jones for Wales was in a similar bracket, but often played behind a pack on the back foot until Gatland took over.

Tom Croft is a guy who either has very good games or largely anonymous ones. Neither one category or the other for me.

Actually kia, 'Flair or consistency' may have been a better title for this one.

Loads of players are consistent and have confidence (they wouldn't be at test level otherwise).

Well you could argue players can have flair and consistency as well but I think you misunderstand what I mean by a confidence player.

Case in point: you raise Johnny Wilkinson. I wouldn't classify him as a confidence player. Sure he had a lot of confidence in himself but to me that's not a confidence player. Wilkinson was methodical in his work. Sure he was capable of making a big hit on defence or putting in a great kick to touch but his performance didn't lift as a result. You take a player like Sione Lauaki though and he was capable of barnstorming runs and those plays were like a hit and his performances would lift the more he did those types of plays. But sadly he was also capable of atrocious errors - there's a youtube video to that effect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td3yJhumajo and alongside it a testimonial video (astoundingly) proclaiming his greatness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9CPcKh-zHo. Hardly a model of consistency but definitely a candidate for a confidence player.

Stephen Jones for much of his test career was a consistent player as much as Larkham was - Larkham was consistenly great whereas Jones was consistently good in my view - but contrast him with a confidence player of Priestland who is capable of good games but whose performance suffers when it comes to making mistakes, as opposed to the more solid but less spectacular Biggar.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:... By all means you can go down as a club great but in order to be a test great and considered 'world class' it seems perfectly reasonable to me that you can only be called that if you stay long enough in a test jersey to play the other teams in the world...

I take it, though, you'd agree that's not how we define world class in football. There are also a lot of South African players who didn't play a lot of Test rugby because of the ban on sporting contacts, and yet many of them are held in high regard.

Back in the amateur era, there was a lot less Test rugby, and careers were shorter, so you didn't have many chances to win caps. Some could never test themselves against all the best teams because they never had a match scheduled, or else picked up an untimely injury. We are still happy to hand out world class plaudits based on how they played, not on who they played against.

On the other hand, a player like Gordon Brown has a reputation as Scotland's greatest lock but anyone who watched him play will tell you he rarely hit any great heights for his country. His fame is built almost entirely on the eight Tests he played for the British Lions. However, he isn't downgraded for some anonymous performances, but celebrated for the times, though few in number, when he stood out.

In our professional game today, we might well come across more players like Evans and Armitage, who perform at high levels against top opposition but have no Test record to speak of. Test glory may be everyone's dream but sometimes there is a queue ahead of you. England supporters are excited by young talent we have at lock, prop and hooker but they can't all win regular England caps. I wouldn't be surprised if some start to think about an overseas contract in the years ahead.

Stephen Ferris realized his playing days might be numbered and tried to get a payday in Japan. It turns out he was too late. That message won't be lost on younger players, who are also looking at how concussion can threaten the careers and long term health of even the best players.

Do you think that Gordon Brown's reputation is totally reliant on being part of the 1971, 1974 and Lions. Not many players have played more tests. Shouldn't that be enough. By all accounts he was a master of the engine room, so much of his work wouldn't be noticed by the average punter (e.g. Me)

blackcanelion wrote:Do you think that Gordon Brown's reputation is totally reliant on being part of the 1971, 1974 and  Lions. Not many players have played more tests. Shouldn't that be enough. By all accounts he was a master of the engine room, so much of his work wouldn't be noticed by the average punter (e.g. Me)

He never really kept fit, so the Five Nations usually came around too early for him to be at his best. He was still very handy, but, by the end of the season, he was in much better shape, and training on tour took him up a level again. It wasn't an uncommon season's trajectory for forwards of that day but it was more noticeable with Brown, because he was athletic, and gained so much when the cobwebs were off.

Well you take a player like Messi or Ronaldo. They get the Golden Boot based on their games with Barcelona and Real Madrid because they've hardly set the stage alight with their national teams. But for you does that mean they're up there with the greats of Pele and Maradona who did shine for their national teams?

I know what you mean though with football and think the state of the international game there is a warning for rugby. The European Cup is every four years as is the World Cup. You add in the Confederations Cup and the World Cup qualifiers and there's not much in the way of meaningful international football aside. We get friendlies, which everything in the word makes me riled when it's compared to rugby. Sadly this is what the Barbarians fixture has become but for me every other test, every team wants to win and winning matters.

You say we are happy to hand out world class plaudits to club players. Well I am not one of those people. The fact is there are players who shine at club rugby and are unable to make the step up and there are players who don't play well at club level but are comfortable in the test environment. There are 15 Super teams that only fit into three test teams. Of course there is talent that catches the eye that doesn't make it into the test team. Robbie Fruean is an example of a player I hear NH posters say he would be a great AB. I think he has some very good qualities as a player but he's also got some glaring deficiencies as well so to me world class centre doesn't sit well with me as a label for me. Craig Green was a Canterbury legend and did play for the ABs but I will acknowledge he won't go down as a test great along with his team mate Robbie Deans but they are heroes in Canterbury.

My point is world class is splashed around too much. Only very few deserve the title. The current NZ side is a very good team but there are only a smattering of world class players. There's certainly some with great potential but the moniker should be earned rather than handed out like team oranges at half time because you've had a good game or you've scored or set up a few tries. That doesn't mean there are not some very useful players but to be world class is to be exceptional and by definition that means that you stand out from the crowd. That's hard to do with so many talented players but like you say, not everybody can have enough game time at test level and not everybody can stand out from the crowd, which is why world class should be a term reserved for special players who achieve the nigh impossible.