Mallett's team for 2014

During the week Supersport had an interview with Nick Mallett to review 2014, amongst the topics was his world team of the year, and this is what he came up with.

1. Ramiro Herrera - Argentina
2. Bismarck du Plessis - South Africa
3. Owen Franks - New Zealand
4. Paul O'Connell - Ireland
5. Brodie Retallick - New Zealand
6. Richie McCaw (c) - New Zealand
7. Duane Vermeulen - South Africa
8. Keiran Read - New Zealand
9. Conor Murray - Ireland
10. Johnny Sexton- Ireland
11. Julian Savea - New Zealand
12. jean de Villiers - South Africa
13. Tevita Kurindrani - Australia
14. George North - Wales
15. Israel Folau - Australia

16. Adriaan Strauss - South Africa
17. Tendai Mtwarira - South Africa
18. Marcos Ayerza - Argentina
19. Victor Matfield - South Africa
20. Sergio Parrise - Italy
21. Aaron Smith - New Zealand
22. Aaron Cruden - New Zealand
23. Ben Smith - New Zealand

As far as his front rows are concerned I don't think there can be too much debate, especially the props, at hooker some may argue the two hookers of SA was not in brilliant form, but I think they are still the two best hookers in world rugby, and Mallett said he is biased there, but regardless of that, those would be his choices.

At lock I disagree with we Matfield, but it seems Mallett still rates him as a line out master.

His backrow, 6 and 7 is switjed as we play them that way round, but he reckons you can't do without Vermeulen.

His halfback pairing is chosen as combinations and he reckons Sexton tips the balance in their favour.

He believes de Villiers was still class even though many of us think he lost some form during the year.

His wings are straight forward and his reasoning is Ben Smith covers both wing and and fullback.

Isn't Herrera a tighthead? Think Creevy was outstanding at hooker, North wasn't one of the top two wingers, and Parisse didn't actually do a lot, and also makes it 3 out and out number 8s in the squad!

According to Mallet both Parrisse and Vermeulen can play flank or number 8

Picking players out of position is a big bug bear of mine, having been tortured by the team selections of successive Scotland coaches, so it's a big thumbs down from me for those players shoe horned in.

I do realise the hype is very much with Read at the moment, but I would personally go for the power of Vermeulen at 8, to allow for the lighter but extremely dynamic option of Hooper at 7. Perhaps not as fashionable as others, but Peter O'Mahony has had a storming year at blindside albeit in terms of outright quality I think it's a tussle between Kaino and Alberts (although I concede both have had injuries this season).

I would pick Aaron Smith over Connor Murray personally. The service Smith provides is a purists dream.

Quite alarming really that there is no credible challenge from any English or French players.

FES not really that alarming - England's approach doesn't really lead to "world class" players due to a large player pool and not focussing on individual players as much as other teams.

England's approach does allow greater depth though and can absorb injuries better than any NH side IMO.

Lawes probably has a real claim to one of those lock shirts as he's progressed massively this year he's dynamic, powerful, a lineout leader and jumper and he makes very few mistakes. The complete lock and certainly better then Matfield is these days. I'd also take him over O'Connell in a purely playing comparison, but then O'Connell does have a lot of leadership skills as well.

And of course Robshaw is always really, really, really good but it's not the kind of stuff that gets on the highlights reel so it's pretty easy to ignore.

beshocked wrote:FES not really that alarming - England's approach doesn't really lead to "world class" players due to a large player pool and not focussing on individual players as much as other teams.

England's approach does allow greater depth though and can absorb injuries better than any NH side IMO.

Yes, but isn't that to a large degree what's holding England back? If you hark back to 2003, as most England fans are overly fond of doing, you'll see that Woodward had a settled side. He picked his team and let it grow together. I don't think players like Woodman, Kay, Back, Dawson, Tindall, Cohen and Lewsey (and post-2003 showed that to be true) are frankly any better than the options England have now in those positions, but they were given the chance to grow and develop as a group around the core of the side, all of whom would have featured in a debate for best in their position.

I just can't remember a discussion around a World XV taking place without a single credible contender from England and France. I realise that Cole and Corbisiero being injured plays a role, and I agree that an argument can be made for Lawes (although Etzebeth, Whitelock and Retallick would have my three lock spots sewn up, not to mention AWJ and POC in the NH), and Picamoles, Fofana and Fickou are all top quality, but these guys just aren't delivering to the same level as the main contenders.

funnyExiledScot wrote:
I just can't remember a discussion around a World XV taking place without a single credible contender from England and France. I realise that Cole and Corbisiero being injured plays a role, and I agree that an argument can be made for Lawes (although Etzebeth, Whitelock and Retallick would have my three lock spots sewn up, not to mention AWJ and POC in the NH), and Picamoles, Fofana and Fickou are all top quality, but these guys just aren't delivering to the same level as the main contenders.

I think that's harsh on Lawes who was immense in the 2013/2014 season and against Australia this Autumn. Hartley the same, though I realise that non-English fans will never have time for him. A good argument can also be made for Robshaw and Marler on their actual form in 2014, rather than just what people imagine their form to be. (Robshaw will lose to McCaw anyway, but he's still be outstanding all year).

In the backs I agree. Without Tuilagi and with Care/Brown's form dipping we don't really have any stars there. Give it a year and Ford/Watson/Tuilagi/May could be a pretty scary bunch though.

FES it doesn't matter about having a credible contender when we have very good options. Our players aren't bad - they just haven't gelled together due to a lot of chopping and changing.

England have been competitive without having anyone being billed as world class.

Especially the pack.

I feel that England could be very dangerous indeed with the correct balance.

Beshocked - I completely agree. The potential for a great side is certainly there, and in fact you're right to say that England have not been bad at all. The feeling I have watching England at the moment is that they play with the handbrake on (to borrow the quote from the Sarries director), and they just leave you wondering "what if". England can name three very credible XVs who could give each other a good game, but there just seems to be something missing from the 1st XV on the pitch. I hate to agree with Stephen Jones (the journalist), but England are lacking that fear factor at the moment.

I know you're a Farrell fan, but I do think Ford has the capabilities to bring an additional dimension to England's attacking play. I also think that Youngs/Care need to be given more licence to keep the tempo up. England are just a little bit pre-programmed at the moment and whilst it makes you difficult to break down, it also stops your outside backs from cutting loose. It feels like Lancaster has built the solid foundations for the squad, but the squad could now use some left field thinking just to unblock things a little.

FES I think the issue is the coaching to be honest.

They don't have a whole lot of experience.

Rowntree is hard nosed and good, Lancaster has done alright but Catt and Farrell Sr just seem to have been quite ineffective in my opinion. I don't particularly rate either.

Is it a coincidence that the forwards in general have been good and the backs have been poor when you take into account the coaching?

Look at what Schimdt and Cotter have done in their short time at Ireland and Scotland respectively.

I feel England lack cohesion from 1-15 - it's no wonder England haven't got anyone rated as top in the world.

As for Farrell vs Ford - I think both have their strengths and weaknesses - just need to utilise them properly. Farrell did have a good 6 nations with an in form Care helping him at 9.

I agree. When you look at how innovative Ireland are (and Leinster were) under Schmidt, you have to concede the bloke knows what he's doing. Cotter has made an instant impact with Scotland as well.

The backs coach I always rated was Steve Meehan (the bloke from Bath). England need someone like that to bring some unpredictability to their play.

I think it's premature to slate the coaches when England have been unable to field a settled backline, largely due to injury. I don't think Lancaster has yet had a series where he hasn't had to field a backline with 2 or 3 brand new or very inexperienced players. The fluency in the backs has generally improved in every series where one bunch has played consistently, but I don't think he's been able to field the same backline for two successive series since 2012.

If England can pick the same 10 players at 9-15 and 21-23 through the 6N and into the RWC, they'll start looking pretty decent. If not, we're in trouble.

Biltong wrote:During the week Supersport had an interview with Nick Mallett to review 2014, amongst the topics was his world team of the year, and this is what he came up with.

1. Ramiro Herrera - Argentina

I stopped reading at this point. Instead of Argentina's first choice Loosehead, who has been world class this year, he selects their novice tighthead.

Biltong wrote:According to Mallet both Parrisse and Vermeulen can play flank or number 8

Mallett is a dinosaur who much like SCW should be put out to pasture.

LondonTiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:During the week Supersport had an interview with Nick Mallett to review 2014, amongst the topics was his world team of the year, and this is what he came up with.

1. Ramiro Herrera - Argentina

I stopped reading at this point. Instead of Argentina's first choice Loosehead, who has been world class this year, he selects their novice tighthead.

Not such a novice as he'd be genuinely in the running for the position he actually plays. Top two for sure. But find it bizarre when a guy with such experience picks two tight heads in a front row.

Then again, he is the coach who picked Bergamasco at scrum-half.

Agreed, Herrera has been brilliant at tighthead, if he was at 3 with Ayerza at 1 it would make a lot more sense!

If you look at the 23 there are two tight heads and two loose heads, so no need to get too upset.

Notch wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:During the week Supersport had an interview with Nick Mallett to review 2014, amongst the topics was his world team of the year, and this is what he came up with.

1. Ramiro Herrera - Argentina

I stopped reading at this point. Instead of Argentina's first choice Loosehead, who has been world class this year, he selects their novice tighthead.

Not such a novice as he'd be genuinely in the running for the position he actually plays. Top two for sure. But find it bizarre when a guy with such experience picks two tight heads in a front row.

He may have played well, but after 6 starts is surely still a novice?

Biltong wrote:If you look at the 23 there are two tight heads and two loose heads, so no need to get too upset.

Yeah but he included the Beast, so really 2 THs, 1 LH and one waste of space.

LondonTiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:If you look at the 23 there are two tight heads and two loose heads, so no need to get too upset.

Yeah but he included the Beast, so really 2 THs, 1 LH and one waste of space.

Nothing wrong if you disagree with his selections, but he chose two looseheads and two tightheads, but I suspect your objection to his team lies deeper than the waste of space.

Good to see Kurindrani. I've been impressed by him and the Aussies really missed him when he was injured.

As for a lot of the rest, I think Mallett has just included 'big name' players regardless of whether they've had a really good year or not. This happens a lot with these lists and I think the people who make them up sometimes forget the criteria!

As others have said, Mallett seems very out of the touch these days. At least he admits his bias though.

Cyril wrote:Good to see Kurindrani. I've been impressed by him and the Aussies really missed him when he was injured.

As for a lot of the rest, I think Mallett has just included 'big name' players regardless of whether they've had a really good year or not. This happens a lot with these lists and I think the people who make them up sometimes forget the criteria!

As others have said, Mallett seems very out of the touch these days. At least he admits his bias though.

I would agree his bias towards Victor Matfield, Jean de Villiers and Bismarck du Plessis shows, none of them had a great year, however to suggest he is out of touch these days is dismissing his vast knowledge of the game.

The rest of the players had proven themselves over the season.

This team lost all credibility at 1. Herrera

Great input, can't wait for the rest of it

How can we take ANOTHER team of the year seriously when the first player doesn't actually play in that position?

It's an awful team to be honest.

1. Herrera - is a TH
2. BdP - Has been awful this year, losing his place to Strauss who's pretty average.
3. Franks - The linchpin of a scrum yet he picks a player who gets regular hidings in the NH
4. POC - Decent selection but above Whitelock? Not a chance in hell
5. Retallick - outstanding player
6. McCaw - Rarely plays 6 (if the SA way it's a fair selection)
7. Vermeulen - very very rarely plays flank
8. Read - Best 8 in world, average year by his standards

9. Murray - good year
10. Sexton - easy pick
11. Savea - easy pick
12. JDV - baffled by this one
13. Kurindrahni - he can't pass and has zero hands
14. North - can't have watched him in the last 6 month
15. Folau - he can't kick a ball?!?!

16. Strauss - massively average and brainless. Creevy, Hartley?!?!
17. Beast - poor scrummager, 2 LH's on bench???
18. Ayeza - best LH in world by distance
19. Matfield - the worst selection of them all, passenger in loose
20. Parisse - possibly his worst season in 10 years
21. Smith - fair call
22. Cruden - average year but quality, Foley has had better year
23. Smith - how is he not in team???

You probably don't have to take it seriously, it is just a team, swop Ayerza for Herrero and you'll feel a lot better.

Can someone please point me to the game where Beast was outscrummed to the degree where he is deemed a waste of space? Genuinely curious.

Anyway, no Willie le Roux? Don't think Mallet rates him actually. Matfield? You've literally got to only be watching lineouts to think this is in anyway justifiable.

Biltong wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:If you look at the 23 there are two tight heads and two loose heads, so no need to get too upset.

Yeah but he included the Beast, so really 2 THs, 1 LH and one waste of space.

Nothing wrong if you disagree with his selections, but he chose two looseheads and two tightheads, but I suspect your objection to his team lies deeper than the waste of space.

My objection is really with the media pushing Mallett as an expert when it is over a decade since he last did anything worth talking about. These teams are always subjective and a completely different set of names could be equally valid. However when he picks a starting XV containing 2 THs, a 7 at 6 and an 8 at 7 - well it is the sign of madness.



Just noticed it was for SA media, so explains why mcCaw in "wrong" shirt and the high number of Saffers who have simply not performed this year.

Nah! It's put me in a mood Bill, merry Christmas!