Lists of greatest ever players.

First topic message reminder :

We often see a list of the top 20/50/100 or whatever international players and in my view these lists are completely subjective and are always pulled apart as supporters fight for the right to get their own players on the list.

This often coincides with some disrespect and criticism shown towards other countries' players and between trying to sort the sensitive from the objective comments can become quite challenging.

The first question I would ask is why 20 or 50? Why stop at a certain number, where is a realistic cut off point? What is the criteria when you make a list?

For me there are only two players that is undisputedly the two best players in world rugby.

Dan Carter and Richie McCaw, put pure and simple the reason why is because the one is the best all round back I have ever seen and the other the most allround forward I have ever seen.

Both are master tacticians, they don't just have the skills to execute, but tactically they are both very astute.

I see Dan Carter as the flyhalf with no obvious weaknesses, he can defend, attack, kick, pass and knows better than any other flyhalf when to do what.

McCaw as a captain and player knows the laws of rugby better than anyone, and knows how and when to exploit them. He has an allround game can pilfer, defend, carry and again knows better than eny other when to do what.

I then have a list of players I feared to play against, whenever the team sheets are shown, the first thing I would do will be to see whether they are playing.

Such players were.

Jonah Lomu
Christian Cullen
Doug Howlett
Jeff wilson
Chris Latham
Joe Roff

The reason, because they could carve our defence to pieces.

There are a few forwards I rate highly, but I never feared them, why? Because I believe we have the best forwards in the business.

Players like Read, Thorne, Retallick etc are great players, but they don't scare me, I don't worry when I see their names on a team sheet, because in my world forwards are supposed to be monsters, and we have more monsters at home than anyone else.

So my list is short, it isn't a greatest ever list, I don't worry about rating players before Isolation, simply because I haven't seen them play. My list is about players that I thought and still think are and were brilliant rugby players, but only two are the best Without reservation.

Ireland had the best pack in the 6 Nations. They absolutely demolished the Welsh pack. It wasn't even close. And edged all the stats against England in Twickenham.

In the Autumn our scrum and lineout malfunctioned quite badly. I don't know if that's due to injuries or the loss of Plumtree as forwards coach. But we better fix it or we won't be having a good year.

I think we've learnt how to defend a driving lineout better now, so hopefully Wales won't be as bad in this 6 Nations. Our back-row combo is reunited, fit and in good form.
I must be one of the only ones not expecting big things from England, they aren't much better (if at all) than other teams in the tournament.

It isn`t a case of credit where it`s due only comment on games/players watched Nz is
my field of expertise.

Watched about 20 mins of Boks v Wales and Ireland plus highlites of Wales game fact is
many facets.

IF correctly reffed to the letter of the law are impossible,like competing at lineouts
THAT.Is only possible if the gap between teams at lineout BEFORE ball thrown in
but is seldom penalised etc.

Think England will continue the form personally tho theres plenty of voices against our balance especially to our backs tho not solely directed there. Thats fair enough emack but if you re doing if s and but s theres an awful lot more you should include obviously before the correct pen try.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

As for the forwards skills maybe NZ ruled alone for many years but the vast amount of teams forwards can 'play' a bit now.

Individually and for brief periods perhaps but as a tight 5 I think the AB skill-set and fitness is the core reason for their success. You can't get a Retallick by teaching him how to run, catch and pass when he's an AB. Nor a Danes Coles who can sprint with almost a wingers pace, chip ahead and regain the ball. These guys have been doing this since they started playing, and they do it for more of the 80 minutes than anyone else.

This is why NZ never have the best scrum, lineout etc. Because its unnecessary i terms of consistently winning matches. The amount of times I hear the ' X pack mostered the AB pack' like hres some secondary competition going on. But did they win the match? No...because while the pack was getting monstered, which usually means pushed back a yard or two the AB tight 5 are making gains all over the park while the ball is in play.

Other sides just don't seem to realise that the set pieces are simply a means to restart play. The ball is not 'in play' until the scrum, lineout, breakdown, kick off etc is won by one side or the other. That's when our guys kick into gear. The real value of a more mobile fit tight 5 is when the other side focusses more on set piece. Their value reduces where ours increases as soon as the ball is in play. Over 80 minutes that has huge benefits where the other 10 players are busy cancelling each other out.

Taylorman wrote:

Other sides just don't seem to realise that the set pieces are simply a means to restart play. The ball is not 'in play' until the scrum, lineout, breakdown, kick off etc is won by one side or the other. That's when our guys kick into gear. The real value of a more mobile fit tight 5 is when the other side focusses more on set piece. Their value reduces where ours increases as soon as the ball is in play. Over 80 minutes that has huge benefits where the other 10 players are busy cancelling each other out.

I am going to call you out on that, in fact I am going to suggest you wipe your keyboard, because that is utter BS.

Firstly you should be careful not to sound like some Aussies who suggest what you are saying in your second sentance. The technique and skill required to secure ball at line out time, the (Dan Carter) kick off or scrum is something the All Blacks are as committed to be efficient in as keeping the ball in play.

As for the breakdown, it has become the most important facet of rugby union, to suggest 150-200 rucks a game is something to "restart" play is not only laugable but ridiculous, if you disagree, go ask you national captain who has lead the way in exploiting evey possible loophole in securing , slowing down or stealing ball.

The reason why the All Blacks are the best in the world is because they are competent in all those facets but diverse enough that their players possess the technique, strength, skill and mobility to perform as a collective.

All teams realise this mate, they just don't all have equal levels of skill, mobility, strength and technique.

Sorry mate, but that is your worst comment I have ever seen you make.

The problem is the laws have become so complicated now every phase is a penalty fest.
The Scrum laws alone constitute more than the whole soccer law book.

It is a fact the Ref can penalize EITHER side at every maul.breakdown,and scrum that
just assumes the sides are playing by the book.

Which of course they don`t,playing the ref is one of the dark arts of the game the TMO
is now a time wasting lottery.

It seems every few matches refs get notes from IRB to concentrate on certain areas
like contesting in the air as an example.

EVERY team has its day in the sun sometimes RWC`s are not the be all and end all
despite the train spotters here.

You see a beautiful try like Watson`s v AB`s and say more please,but you lose match
and it`s back to up the jumper.

As an Anglo-Scot I`m proud of my native countries too early on we were creating and
scoring tries.But now its back to square one,wins matter but so does team development
too.

Biltong wrote:For me there are only two players that is undisputedly the two best players in world rugby.

Dan Carter and Richie McCaw, put pure and simple the reason why is because the one is the best all round back I have ever seen and the other the most allround forward I have ever seen.

Greatest lists will always be subjective as you demonstrate here. While both are great players and for good chunks of their careers were comfortably the best in their position in the world - in my own highly subjective opinion neither would be the best I have seen in their position, let alone the best back or forward. Heck McCaw is in my eyes not even the best 7 to ever play for NZ.

That we all have different opinions - and all of them are as wrong as each other and completely irrelevant in what is after all a team game - is what always makes such arguments fun. Well fun until people start getting precious about their personal favourites.

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Other sides just don't seem to realise that the set pieces are simply a means to restart play. The ball is not 'in play' until the scrum, lineout, breakdown, kick off etc is won by one side or the other. That's when our guys kick into gear. The real value of a more mobile fit tight 5 is when the other side focusses more on set piece. Their value reduces where ours increases as soon as the ball is in play. Over 80 minutes that has huge benefits where the other 10 players are busy cancelling each other out.

I am going to call you out on that, in fact I am going to suggest you wipe your keyboard, because that is utter BS.

Firstly you should be careful not to sound like some Aussies who suggest what you are saying in your second sentance. The technique and skill required to secure ball at line out time, the (Dan Carter) kick off or scrum is something the All Blacks are as committed to be efficient in as keeping the ball in play.

As for the breakdown, it has become the most important facet of rugby union, to suggest 150-200 rucks a game is something to "restart" play is not only laugable but ridiculous, if you disagree, go ask you national captain who has lead the way in exploiting evey possible loophole in securing , slowing down or stealing ball.

The reason why the All Blacks are the best in the world is because they are competent in all those facets but diverse enough that their players possess the technique, strength, skill and mobility to perform as a collective.

All teams realise this mate, they just don't all have equal levels of skill, mobility, strength and technique.

Sorry mate, but that is your worst comment I have ever seen you make.

Well you've missed my interpretation then. I didn't say they weren't important. I said they were over emphasised by other sides unnecessarily.

In that the AB's focus on that that is required to get the ball at restart to enable them to get the ball into play. They do enough to secure their own scrum, and lineout. They focus on using high skill levels to regain restarts, pace and intelligence at the breakdown rather than brute force.

Other sides think a juggernaut of a scrum, towering locks are required when they aren't. In doing that they trade off the ability to be mobile and go the 80.

Look at Matfield vs Retallick. Locks are primarily there for their ability to secure lineout ball. You never see a 5 foot 9 lock.

But Retallick has nothing on Matfields ability to secure lineout ball, but does enough. Yet Matfield has and never will have the all round ability and fitness, skill levels of Retallick around the field. By doing 'enough' we are able to increase our focus on the ball in play work, which is where we win our matches. It means we are able to select both players who can provide the necessary yet minimal ball, yet contribute heavily to the in play work at a greater level.

Take Bismarck versus Coles. Hookers are required to hook the ball- key role. Bismarck is also used to monster the opposition in close contact play, on both attack and defence. However, Coles in a straight out run would leave Bismarck for dead, his ball handling and passing far superior and he can chip, chase and I think last year ran George North down. Who's the better hooker? Most would say Du Plessis but I would certainly rather have Coles because of the options he provides while the ball is in play.

And despite all Coles running around the field it is Bismarck that is routinely subbed off at 60 minutes regardless of the score.

It means we deploy intelligence in gathering restarts, in kicking to ourselves to effectively restart play further down the field than using brute force to achieve the same thing.

Harsh reaction Biltong but I can't help it if you don't get the thinking. Explains a lot though.

Well if you want to complain the lottety of refs its a bit rich which is why i try and avoid it. Any try is worth the same.

Taylor its very much a team who wins a match. My point was that a pack can still lay aplan down. Despite the results sure you can see that Eng forwards produced a performance excelling those against them for the vast majority of 2014.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well if you want to complain the lottety of refs its a bit rich which is why i try and avoid it. Any try is worth the same.

Taylor its very much a team who wins a match. My point was that a pack can still lay aplan down. Despite the results sure you can see that Eng forwards produced a performance excelling those against them for the vast majority of 2014.

yes but what did they win? The boks had the better pack as well..what did they win? Argie as well.

I say consistency in winning comes more from what a side does AFTER the reset is over than during it, as far more time has the ball in play than resets, where rarely points are scored anyway. And with 15 players ALL capable of contributing in the open game the gains must come over a side who's prop or lock is waiting for the next set piece to 'play their role'. That is a huge difference. We see opposition tight 5 players wandering around the ground all the time.

It worked in the under 20's where size and power does matter but that approach is yet to be successful at the test level in the modern era, where consistency comes through the ability to be adaptable, flexible, have varying strategies.

Eh? ive never doubted the team as a whole its been what Im championing. Its not necessarily the overall silkiest skills 15 tho but the best 15 and based within forwards& backs
.

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Other sides just don't seem to realise that the set pieces are simply a means to restart play. The ball is not 'in play' until the scrum, lineout, breakdown, kick off etc is won by one side or the other. That's when our guys kick into gear. The real value of a more mobile fit tight 5 is when the other side focusses more on set piece. Their value reduces where ours increases as soon as the ball is in play. Over 80 minutes that has huge benefits where the other 10 players are busy cancelling each other out.

I am going to call you out on that, in fact I am going to suggest you wipe your keyboard, because that is utter BS.

Firstly you should be careful not to sound like some Aussies who suggest what you are saying in your second sentance. The technique and skill required to secure ball at line out time, the (Dan Carter) kick off or scrum is something the All Blacks are as committed to be efficient in as keeping the ball in play.

As for the breakdown, it has become the most important facet of rugby union, to suggest 150-200 rucks a game is something to "restart" play is not only laugable but ridiculous, if you disagree, go ask you national captain who has lead the way in exploiting evey possible loophole in securing , slowing down or stealing ball.

The reason why the All Blacks are the best in the world is because they are competent in all those facets but diverse enough that their players possess the technique, strength, skill and mobility to perform as a collective.

All teams realise this mate, they just don't all have equal levels of skill, mobility, strength and technique.

Sorry mate, but that is your worst comment I have ever seen you make.

Well you've missed my interpretation then. I didn't say they weren't important. I said they were over emphasised by other sides unnecessarily.

In that the AB's focus on that that is required to get the ball at restart to enable them to get the ball into play. They do enough to secure their own scrum, and lineout. They focus on using high skill levels to regain restarts, pace and intelligence at the breakdown rather than brute force.

Other sides think a juggernaut of a scrum, towering locks are required when they aren't. In doing that they trade off the ability to be mobile and go the 80.

Look at Matfield vs Retallick. Locks are primarily there for their ability to secure lineout ball. You never see a 5 foot 9 lock.

But Retallick has nothing on Matfields ability to secure lineout ball, but does enough. Yet Matfield has and never will have the all round ability and fitness, skill levels of Retallick around the field. By doing 'enough' we are able to increase our focus on the ball in play work, which is where we win our matches. It means we are able to select both players who can provide the necessary yet minimal ball, yet contribute heavily to the in play work at a greater level.

Take Bismarck versus Coles. Hookers are required to hook the ball- key role. Bismarck is also used to monster the opposition in close contact play, on both attack and defence.  However, Coles in a straight out run would leave Bismarck for dead, his ball handling and passing far superior and he can chip, chase and I think last year ran George North down. Who's the better hooker? Most would say Du Plessis but I would certainly rather have Coles because of the options he provides while the ball is in play.

And despite all Coles running around the field it is Bismarck that is routinely subbed off at 60 minutes regardless of the score.

It means we deploy intelligence in gathering restarts, in kicking to ourselves to effectively restart play further down the field than using brute force to achieve the same thing.

Harsh reaction Biltong but I can't help it if you don't get the thinking. Explains a lot though.

Matfield vs Retallic, are you seriously comparing a 38 year old with the player of the year just to make your point?

Read your paragraph I quoted and then tell me again I misunderstood you.

Biltong wrote:

The reason why the All Blacks are the best in the world is because they are competent in all those facets but diverse enough that their players possess the technique, strength, skill and mobility to perform as a collective.

That is not the only reason. It is supplemented by teams like South Africa choosing not to be intelligent about their selections, how the game should be played...WITH BALL IN HAND FIRST. In 1823 William Webb Ellis picked up the thing to run with it. The Bok's have spent nearly half the time since trying to put it back on the foot, or even worse back to the opposition!

And then they hide behind the 'we can't do what the AB's do'.

Rubbish- they don't want to do what the AB's do because they're too scared to try. There's a difference, they have the players and the setup to provide them but choose not to.

It is the absence of creativity and variation of others that helps keeps the AB's on top. They're the only ones doing the thinking. Every time someone comes up with something, NZ seem to come up with something better. That's not about player ability, its about intelligence, vision and pushing the boundaries. And its somewhere SA just refuse to go.

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Other sides just don't seem to realise that the set pieces are simply a means to restart play. The ball is not 'in play' until the scrum, lineout, breakdown, kick off etc is won by one side or the other. That's when our guys kick into gear. The real value of a more mobile fit tight 5 is when the other side focusses more on set piece. Their value reduces where ours increases as soon as the ball is in play. Over 80 minutes that has huge benefits where the other 10 players are busy cancelling each other out.

I am going to call you out on that, in fact I am going to suggest you wipe your keyboard, because that is utter BS.

Firstly you should be careful not to sound like some Aussies who suggest what you are saying in your second sentance. The technique and skill required to secure ball at line out time, the (Dan Carter) kick off or scrum is something the All Blacks are as committed to be efficient in as keeping the ball in play.

As for the breakdown, it has become the most important facet of rugby union, to suggest 150-200 rucks a game is something to "restart" play is not only laugable but ridiculous, if you disagree, go ask you national captain who has lead the way in exploiting evey possible loophole in securing , slowing down or stealing ball.

The reason why the All Blacks are the best in the world is because they are competent in all those facets but diverse enough that their players possess the technique, strength, skill and mobility to perform as a collective.

All teams realise this mate, they just don't all have equal levels of skill, mobility, strength and technique.

Sorry mate, but that is your worst comment I have ever seen you make.

Well you've missed my interpretation then. I didn't say they weren't important. I said they were over emphasised by other sides unnecessarily.

In that the AB's focus on that that is required to get the ball at restart to enable them to get the ball into play. They do enough to secure their own scrum, and lineout. They focus on using high skill levels to regain restarts, pace and intelligence at the breakdown rather than brute force.

Other sides think a juggernaut of a scrum, towering locks are required when they aren't. In doing that they trade off the ability to be mobile and go the 80.

Look at Matfield vs Retallick. Locks are primarily there for their ability to secure lineout ball. You never see a 5 foot 9 lock.

But Retallick has nothing on Matfields ability to secure lineout ball, but does enough. Yet Matfield has and never will have the all round ability and fitness, skill levels of Retallick around the field. By doing 'enough' we are able to increase our focus on the ball in play work, which is where we win our matches. It means we are able to select both players who can provide the necessary yet minimal ball, yet contribute heavily to the in play work at a greater level.

Take Bismarck versus Coles. Hookers are required to hook the ball- key role. Bismarck is also used to monster the opposition in close contact play, on both attack and defence.  However, Coles in a straight out run would leave Bismarck for dead, his ball handling and passing far superior and he can chip, chase and I think last year ran George North down. Who's the better hooker? Most would say Du Plessis but I would certainly rather have Coles because of the options he provides while the ball is in play.

And despite all Coles running around the field it is Bismarck that is routinely subbed off at 60 minutes regardless of the score.

It means we deploy intelligence in gathering restarts, in kicking to ourselves to effectively restart play further down the field than using brute force to achieve the same thing.

Harsh reaction Biltong but I can't help it if you don't get the thinking. Explains a lot though.

Matfield vs Retallic, are you seriously comparing a 38 year old with the player of the year just to make your point?

Read your paragraph I quoted and then tell me again I misunderstood you.

You're clutching at straws Biltong...I meant:

Yet Matfield has 'never had' and never will have the all round ability and fitness, skill levels of Retallick around the field.

Matfield was selected primarily for his lineout work throughout his career. Retallick won his player of the year primarily for his non lineout work, and Matfield has never performed outside of the lineout in the way Retallick does. That is a fundamental difference between the two sides thinking- set versus open play as a primary factor.

Has Retallick ever come close to Matfields lineout?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Has Retallick ever come close to Matfields lineout?

Dunno...I would hope not as it wouldnt leave Matlock with much now would it?

Matlock was best in the pre tackle change rules where the defending team would be penalised if caught with the ball. This lead to a tactic that suited set play perfectly. Kick to the corners and win the lineouts off the opposition kick out, pressure the opposition and either score tries or get the penalties if they got caught. Or, theyd use Du Preez to box kick to the same areas and force the same.

Big pack, set piece, good box kicker and goal kickers. They didn't even need backs for any primary reason.

A bit over simplified/ sarcastic but it was simple, suited the Bok gameplan and thinking. But it was boring. kick, kick kick and no one wanted to watch it.

Trouble is they tried to carry on with the same tactics after they changed the rules to give the defending side more say. The AB's found they could dismantle the kicks with 3 fullbacks then run it back at them.

SA spent years doing relatively nothing to evolve which is why their fans are normally half protective of their side and half critical, depending on the subject.

Matfield versus Retallick (and Sam Whitelock) at 38 as Biltong infers is effectively a mismatch. Besides the age his 'worth' as a lineout taker is diminished with the change in rules and direction the game is going in.

I would personally give that sa side a lot more credit.

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Other sides just don't seem to realise that the set pieces are simply a means to restart play. The ball is not 'in play' until the scrum, lineout, breakdown, kick off etc is won by one side or the other. That's when our guys kick into gear. The real value of a more mobile fit tight 5 is when the other side focusses more on set piece. Their value reduces where ours increases as soon as the ball is in play. Over 80 minutes that has huge benefits where the other 10 players are busy cancelling each other out.

I am going to call you out on that, in fact I am going to suggest you wipe your keyboard, because that is utter BS.

Firstly you should be careful not to sound like some Aussies who suggest what you are saying in your second sentance. The technique and skill required to secure ball at line out time, the (Dan Carter) kick off or scrum is something the All Blacks are as committed to be efficient in as keeping the ball in play.

As for the breakdown, it has become the most important facet of rugby union, to suggest 150-200 rucks a game is something to "restart" play is not only laugable but ridiculous, if you disagree, go ask you national captain who has lead the way in exploiting evey possible loophole in securing , slowing down or stealing ball.

The reason why the All Blacks are the best in the world is because they are competent in all those facets but diverse enough that their players possess the technique, strength, skill and mobility to perform as a collective.

All teams realise this mate, they just don't all have equal levels of skill, mobility, strength and technique.

Sorry mate, but that is your worst comment I have ever seen you make.

Well you've missed my interpretation then. I didn't say they weren't important. I said they were over emphasised by other sides unnecessarily.

In that the AB's focus on that that is required to get the ball at restart to enable them to get the ball into play. They do enough to secure their own scrum, and lineout. They focus on using high skill levels to regain restarts, pace and intelligence at the breakdown rather than brute force.

Other sides think a juggernaut of a scrum, towering locks are required when they aren't. In doing that they trade off the ability to be mobile and go the 80.

Look at Matfield vs Retallick. Locks are primarily there for their ability to secure lineout ball. You never see a 5 foot 9 lock.

But Retallick has nothing on Matfields ability to secure lineout ball, but does enough. Yet Matfield has and never will have the all round ability and fitness, skill levels of Retallick around the field. By doing 'enough' we are able to increase our focus on the ball in play work, which is where we win our matches. It means we are able to select both players who can provide the necessary yet minimal ball, yet contribute heavily to the in play work at a greater level.

Take Bismarck versus Coles. Hookers are required to hook the ball- key role. Bismarck is also used to monster the opposition in close contact play, on both attack and defence.  However, Coles in a straight out run would leave Bismarck for dead, his ball handling and passing far superior and he can chip, chase and I think last year ran George North down. Who's the better hooker? Most would say Du Plessis but I would certainly rather have Coles because of the options he provides while the ball is in play.

And despite all Coles running around the field it is Bismarck that is routinely subbed off at 60 minutes regardless of the score.

It means we deploy intelligence in gathering restarts, in kicking to ourselves to effectively restart play further down the field than using brute force to achieve the same thing.

Harsh reaction Biltong but I can't help it if you don't get the thinking. Explains a lot though.

Matfield vs Retallic, are you seriously comparing a 38 year old with the player of the year just to make your point?

Read your paragraph I quoted and then tell me again I misunderstood you.

You're clutching at straws Biltong...I meant:

Yet Matfield has 'never had' and never will have the all round ability and fitness, skill levels of Retallick around the field.

Matfield was selected primarily for his lineout work throughout his career. Retallick won his player of the year primarily for his non lineout work, and Matfield has never performed outside of the lineout in the way Retallick does. That is a fundamental difference between the two sides thinking- set versus open play as a primary factor.

Nonsense, Matfield was a very industrious player in his youth, had quite a bit of pace, carried the ball well and was multi dimensional, his supposed lack of skills in your view has nothing to do with how we think.

Let's compare the old man and the new star during the Super xv this year.

Matches played - BR 16 VM 14
Minutes played BR 1194 VM 1007
Carries BR 116 VM 51
Metres BR 327 VM 99
Defenders beaten and clean breaks BR 12 VM 5
Offloads BR 6 VM 9
Open play kicks BR 1 VM 2
Line outs won BR 42 VM 73
Line out steals BR 3 VM 9
Tackles completed BR 146 VM 122
Tackles missed BR 8 VM 9
Turnovers conceded BR 9 VM 10

I don't even like the fact that Matfield is still playing, but his stats and skills don't compare badly at all .

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Other sides just don't seem to realise that the set pieces are simply a means to restart play. The ball is not 'in play' until the scrum, lineout, breakdown, kick off etc is won by one side or the other. That's when our guys kick into gear. The real value of a more mobile fit tight 5 is when the other side focusses more on set piece. Their value reduces where ours increases as soon as the ball is in play. Over 80 minutes that has huge benefits where the other 10 players are busy cancelling each other out.

I am going to call you out on that, in fact I am going to suggest you wipe your keyboard, because that is utter BS.

Firstly you should be careful not to sound like some Aussies who suggest what you are saying in your second sentance. The technique and skill required to secure ball at line out time, the (Dan Carter) kick off or scrum is something the All Blacks are as committed to be efficient in as keeping the ball in play.

As for the breakdown, it has become the most important facet of rugby union, to suggest 150-200 rucks a game is something to "restart" play is not only laugable but ridiculous, if you disagree, go ask you national captain who has lead the way in exploiting evey possible loophole in securing , slowing down or stealing ball.

The reason why the All Blacks are the best in the world is because they are competent in all those facets but diverse enough that their players possess the technique, strength, skill and mobility to perform as a collective.

All teams realise this mate, they just don't all have equal levels of skill, mobility, strength and technique.

Sorry mate, but that is your worst comment I have ever seen you make.

Well you've missed my interpretation then. I didn't say they weren't important. I said they were over emphasised by other sides unnecessarily.

In that the AB's focus on that that is required to get the ball at restart to enable them to get the ball into play. They do enough to secure their own scrum, and lineout. They focus on using high skill levels to regain restarts, pace and intelligence at the breakdown rather than brute force.

Other sides think a juggernaut of a scrum, towering locks are required when they aren't. In doing that they trade off the ability to be mobile and go the 80.

Look at Matfield vs Retallick. Locks are primarily there for their ability to secure lineout ball. You never see a 5 foot 9 lock.

But Retallick has nothing on Matfields ability to secure lineout ball, but does enough. Yet Matfield has and never will have the all round ability and fitness, skill levels of Retallick around the field. By doing 'enough' we are able to increase our focus on the ball in play work, which is where we win our matches. It means we are able to select both players who can provide the necessary yet minimal ball, yet contribute heavily to the in play work at a greater level.

Take Bismarck versus Coles. Hookers are required to hook the ball- key role. Bismarck is also used to monster the opposition in close contact play, on both attack and defence.  However, Coles in a straight out run would leave Bismarck for dead, his ball handling and passing far superior and he can chip, chase and I think last year ran George North down. Who's the better hooker? Most would say Du Plessis but I would certainly rather have Coles because of the options he provides while the ball is in play.

And despite all Coles running around the field it is Bismarck that is routinely subbed off at 60 minutes regardless of the score.

It means we deploy intelligence in gathering restarts, in kicking to ourselves to effectively restart play further down the field than using brute force to achieve the same thing.

Harsh reaction Biltong but I can't help it if you don't get the thinking. Explains a lot though.

Matfield vs Retallic, are you seriously comparing a 38 year old with the player of the year just to make your point?

Read your paragraph I quoted and then tell me again I misunderstood you.

You're clutching at straws Biltong...I meant:

Yet Matfield has 'never had' and never will have the all round ability and fitness, skill levels of Retallick around the field.

Matfield was selected primarily for his lineout work throughout his career. Retallick won his player of the year primarily for his non lineout work, and Matfield has never performed outside of the lineout in the way Retallick does. That is a fundamental difference between the two sides thinking- set versus open play as a primary factor.

Nonsense, Matfield was a very industrious player in his youth, had quite a bit of pace, carried the ball well and was multi dimensional, his supposed lack of skills in your view has nothing to do with how we think.

Let's compare the old man and the new star during the Super xv this year.

Matches played - BR 16 VM 14
Minutes played BR 1194 VM 1007
Carries BR 116 VM 51
Metres BR 327 VM 99
Defenders beaten and clean breaks BR 12 VM 5
Offloads BR 6 VM 9
Open play kicks BR 1 VM 2
Line outs won BR 42 VM 73
Line out steals BR 3 VM 9
Tackles completed BR 146 VM 122
Tackles missed BR 8 VM 9
Turnovers conceded BR 9 VM 10

I don't even like the fact that Matfield is still playing, but his stats and skills don't compare badly at all .

It may look good but I'll have to admit I don't care for those sorts of stats. I can't tell what the quality of the play was from a stat. I just go by what I see, but the meters carried versus the lineout stats do reflect the situation it seems.

All I'm saying is our consistency comes from what the 15 players do 'aside' from set play. Our set play features nothing groundbreaking other than Mccaw at the breakdown, so it must come from something, and that is what we do with the ball in play.

Have a look at Bulls coach Ludeke's comments re this year:

http://www.superxv.com/43965/1/bulls-super-rugby-game-plan-to-be-attack-minded#.VKc1Yn72TZU

Now he is saying the right things. But something just doesn't gel for me. In the off season the attitude to next year should be more passionate about the way he wants them to play. I'm not saying he should jump up and rant and rave, but it just looks like words, because to do what he is saying requires a huge change in mindset, passion, a vision to put these things into effect if its going to be done correctly. 'We need to change the way we think and play, challenge the status quo, drive the changes, and pick the players that will do that' kind of thing.

He needs to get player and fan buy in but it just comes across as something he's thought up on the spot as something that might appease at the time, but in reality he'll apply the tried and true.

That's something we kiwis just hate, well I can't speak for others. When someone in that sort of position says something like that he becomes accountable. In effect we are all minders of our game and if someone mucks with it we don't even need to let them know- they know themselves, and they know their shelf life is short if they don't deliver.

Now that's why New Zealand win.  Great debate, Taylorman and Biltong - it's like watching the last round of the 4N for the title.  I'm siding with Taylorman at the moment.  Biltong - we need another ROAR from you.

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Other sides just don't seem to realise that the set pieces are simply a means to restart play. The ball is not 'in play' until the scrum, lineout, breakdown, kick off etc is won by one side or the other. That's when our guys kick into gear. The real value of a more mobile fit tight 5 is when the other side focusses more on set piece. Their value reduces where ours increases as soon as the ball is in play. Over 80 minutes that has huge benefits where the other 10 players are busy cancelling each other out.

I am going to call you out on that, in fact I am going to suggest you wipe your keyboard, because that is utter BS.

Firstly you should be careful not to sound like some Aussies who suggest what you are saying in your second sentance. The technique and skill required to secure ball at line out time, the (Dan Carter) kick off or scrum is something the All Blacks are as committed to be efficient in as keeping the ball in play.

As for the breakdown, it has become the most important facet of rugby union, to suggest 150-200 rucks a game is something to "restart" play is not only laugable but ridiculous, if you disagree, go ask you national captain who has lead the way in exploiting evey possible loophole in securing , slowing down or stealing ball.

The reason why the All Blacks are the best in the world is because they are competent in all those facets but diverse enough that their players possess the technique, strength, skill and mobility to perform as a collective.

All teams realise this mate, they just don't all have equal levels of skill, mobility, strength and technique.

Sorry mate, but that is your worst comment I have ever seen you make.

Well you've missed my interpretation then. I didn't say they weren't important. I said they were over emphasised by other sides unnecessarily.

In that the AB's focus on that that is required to get the ball at restart to enable them to get the ball into play. They do enough to secure their own scrum, and lineout. They focus on using high skill levels to regain restarts, pace and intelligence at the breakdown rather than brute force.

Other sides think a juggernaut of a scrum, towering locks are required when they aren't. In doing that they trade off the ability to be mobile and go the 80.

Look at Matfield vs Retallick. Locks are primarily there for their ability to secure lineout ball. You never see a 5 foot 9 lock.

But Retallick has nothing on Matfields ability to secure lineout ball, but does enough. Yet Matfield has and never will have the all round ability and fitness, skill levels of Retallick around the field. By doing 'enough' we are able to increase our focus on the ball in play work, which is where we win our matches. It means we are able to select both players who can provide the necessary yet minimal ball, yet contribute heavily to the in play work at a greater level.

Take Bismarck versus Coles. Hookers are required to hook the ball- key role. Bismarck is also used to monster the opposition in close contact play, on both attack and defence.  However, Coles in a straight out run would leave Bismarck for dead, his ball handling and passing far superior and he can chip, chase and I think last year ran George North down. Who's the better hooker? Most would say Du Plessis but I would certainly rather have Coles because of the options he provides while the ball is in play.

And despite all Coles running around the field it is Bismarck that is routinely subbed off at 60 minutes regardless of the score.

It means we deploy intelligence in gathering restarts, in kicking to ourselves to effectively restart play further down the field than using brute force to achieve the same thing.

Harsh reaction Biltong but I can't help it if you don't get the thinking. Explains a lot though.

Matfield vs Retallic, are you seriously comparing a 38 year old with the player of the year just to make your point?

Read your paragraph I quoted and then tell me again I misunderstood you.

You're clutching at straws Biltong...I meant:

Yet Matfield has 'never had' and never will have the all round ability and fitness, skill levels of Retallick around the field.

Matfield was selected primarily for his lineout work throughout his career. Retallick won his player of the year primarily for his non lineout work, and Matfield has never performed outside of the lineout in the way Retallick does. That is a fundamental difference between the two sides thinking- set versus open play as a primary factor.

Nonsense, Matfield was a very industrious player in his youth, had quite a bit of pace, carried the ball well and was multi dimensional, his supposed lack of skills in your view has nothing to do with how we think.

Let's compare the old man and the new star during the Super xv this year.

Matches played - BR 16 VM 14
Minutes played BR 1194 VM 1007
Carries BR 116 VM 51
Metres BR 327 VM 99
Defenders beaten and clean breaks BR 12 VM 5
Offloads BR 6 VM 9
Open play kicks BR 1 VM 2
Line outs won BR 42 VM 73
Line out steals BR 3 VM 9
Tackles completed BR 146 VM 122
Tackles missed BR 8 VM 9
Turnovers conceded BR 9 VM 10

I don't even like the fact that Matfield is still playing, but his stats and skills don't compare badly at all .

I think you guys could argue this one till the 13 th of February, for the following reasons:

The stats that Biltong have put up dont reveal quality/opportunity of the won ball i.e. the one facett of Matfields lineout play which most impresses me is those balls that he feeds off the top at No.7, fast lineout ball from the back of the lineout is the most precious lineout ball any team can win, the advantages it gives when such ball is released wide to the backs has the potential to create more opportunites than any other. No one else in World rugby has (in my opinion) won such balls and with the frequency, for his team than Matfield.

Taylorman is right to say that Rettalick is recognised as doing a lot of other things other than his contribution at lineout time.in fact during the Autumn series McCaw and Kaino were given just as much responsibility at lineout time as Rettalick, Rettalicks role as the "two off receiver" is for a number of other reasons besides whether he has great ball running skills or not, its about trying to achieve that big man on two little man situation, its also about stretching the defence, as he can still slide wider for the next breakdown if doesnt have to committ. But he is pretty good at running with the ball in those rare mid field gaps..

They are both fantastic players, but its not only what they as individuals "contribute" to their team, but also about what their teams make of the said "contribution" and that my friends is much bigger and longer story.

You're missing the point. I am not arguing Matfield is as good as Retallick, I am argiung the point of Tman's original comment.

The statistics I brought up is merely to suggest that Matfield still does have skills other than winning line out ball.

Reading the comment of Tman from the start suggests that the facets of scrums, line outs, restarts, breakdowns are all just a manner to restart the match until we eventually get to the good stuff of having ball in hand, and NZ is the only team focused on the ball in hand skills, other teams are too focused on core skills such as scrums, line outs etc.

I was also actually trying to address those comments of Taylorman's.

I'll just resume my seat.

Biltong wrote:You're missing the point. I am not arguing Matfield is as good as Retallick, I am argiung the point of Tman's original comment.

The statistics I brought up is merely to suggest that Matfield still does have skills other than winning line out ball.

Reading the comment of Tman from the start suggests that the facets of scrums, line outs, restarts, breakdowns are all just a manner to restart the match until we eventually get to the good stuff of having ball in hand, and NZ is the only team focused on the ball in hand skills, other teams are too focused on core skills such as scrums, line outs etc.

Re bold bit, isn't that what RL is for?

I always appreciate Taylorman's comments, even when I disagree with him. (Now I think of it, almost all the Kiwi posters here have interesting things to say, so I perhaps shouldn't just single him out).

I'm leaning a little towards Biltong's rebuttal but this is probably one of the worst times in history for anyone to tell New Zealand how rugby is played.

Nevertheless, it's hard to go along with the idea that the All Blacks pick players to do just enough at the set pieces, so they can unleash their running and handling skills. After all, the front row of Sean Fitzpatrick, Craig Dowd and Olo Brown are widely credited with introducing "the hit" to scrum engagement, which probably kicked off all the problems we have refereeing that part of the game today.

I can go along with one version of what Taylorman has said, however, although I'm not sure if it's what he actually means. New Zealand are past masters at looking at trends in the game, and working out where new advantages might lie. It was fascinating to read McCaw's book when he described how a change in IRB law interpretation before the last World Cup had been fully anticipated by Henry, Hansen and Smith, meaning they were ready to reap the rewards.

If the argument runs that New Zealand now no longer see any advantage in trying to dominate set pieces, then I can see how that might affect their approach to the game. Plenty of English Premiership coaches say they have almost given up training for attacking moves from scrums, because so many end in penalties. That might well encourage a coach to focus less on trying to win scrums, and more on developing a pack which doesn't lose them, but does a lot more elsewhere.

New Zealand might have found a better balance to develop that gameplan with their current side than anyone else but it's not as if other teams are ignorant of the way wind is blowing.

Australia know it but they haven't yet found a pack to do enough in the scrums. England may have destroyed their scrum in the autumn but Lancaster has shown with selections like Mako Vunipola, Tom Youngs, and often a relatively lightweight lock pairing, that he wants more contribution outside the set piece.

No-one can deny that New Zealand have a very potent brand of rugby. Some teams try to play like them but just don't have the skills to pull it off. Others play to their own strengths, but can't match the All Blacks for consistency of execution.

I don't think the explanation for the success of New Zealand rugby over the years lies in the argument that they've never seen the set piece as anything more than a way to restart. It might be how they currently view the game, but they are not the only ones to work that out: they are simply the best at making it count.

Rugby Fan wrote:I always appreciate Taylorman's comments, even when I disagree with him. (Now I think of it, almost all the Kiwi posters here have interesting things to say, so I perhaps shouldn't just single him out).

I'm leaning a little towards Biltong's rebuttal but this is probably one of the worst times in history for anyone to tell New Zealand how rugby is played.

Nevertheless, it's hard to go along with the idea that the All Blacks pick players to do just enough at the set pieces, so they can unleash their running and handling skills. After all, the front row of Sean Fitzpatrick, Craig Dowd and Olo Brown are widely credited with introducing "the hit" to scrum engagement, which probably kicked off all the problems we have refereeing that part of the game today.

I can go along with one version of what Taylorman has said, however, although I'm not sure if it's what he actually means. New Zealand are past masters at looking at trends in the game, and working out where new advantages might lie. It was fascinating to read McCaw's book when he described how a change in IRB law interpretation before the last World Cup had been fully anticipated by Henry, Hansen and Smith, meaning they were ready to reap the rewards.

If the argument runs that New Zealand now no longer see any advantage in trying to dominate set pieces, then I can see how that might affect their approach to the game. Plenty of English Premiership coaches say they have almost given up training for attacking moves from scrums, because so many end in penalties. That might well encourage a coach to focus less on trying to win scrums, and more on developing a pack which doesn't lose them, but does a lot more elsewhere.

New Zealand might have found a better balance to develop that gameplan with their current side than anyone else but it's not as if other teams are ignorant of the way wind is blowing.

Australia know it but they haven't yet found a pack to do enough in the scrums. England may have destroyed their scrum in the autumn but Lancaster has shown with selections like Mako Vunipola, Tom Youngs, and often a relatively lightweight lock pairing, that he wants more contribution outside the set piece.

No-one can deny that New Zealand have a very potent brand of rugby. Some teams try to play like them but just don't have the skills to pull it off. Others play to their own strengths, but can't match the All Blacks for consistency of execution.

I don't think the explanation for the success of New Zealand rugby over the years lies in the argument that they've never seen the set piece as anything more than a way to restart. It might be how they currently view the game, but they are not the only ones to work that out: they are simply the best at making it count.

fair comment, and my comments only relate to lately, the point being that the AB's continue to look for advantages, avenues that no one pursues or have thought of. In looking at the u20 results there is a threat on the horizon where the potential re-emergence of the super packs might once again rule the roost. NZ will never produce the size of player consistently enough to match simply because of the numbers and the way NZers choose to play the game- through every player in the country running, passing etc regardless of position. I don't think we'll see that changing in the next decade or two.

So one way to negate a super pack is to minimise the value of the restart- similar to what Biltong is accusing me of.

In its purest form the scrum, lineout, breakdown, kick off, the counter attack, quick throw in and now the kick and regather are simply all restarts. In not dominating the traditional set pieces NZ are creating their own restarts- the counter attack was brought in in 2010 to combat the Bok ariel assaults. Now we are kicking smarter. We chase the kick offs and we create 'quasi- restarts' by chipping for ourselves or others (Barretts chip and chase and Slades kick for Barrets try versus Wales). First by getting in behind or away from the oppostion defence with a kick so we can effectively restart open play with a better field position, and optimising our skill levels, as ball players and runners.

So my point is really about minimising the impact of the traditional set piece restarts, while at the same time creating the same effect many times elsewhere, simply because that's where our strengths lie.

And by creating many m ore positions of pressure on the opposition right across the field it has the added advantage of tiring out the opposition tight 5 to hopefully make them less effective at scrum time and on defence.

I see what you are saying, Taylor.
In fact, I believe you are spot on about the ABs being tactically one step ahead of all teams pretty much most of the time.

You are copping some flak with your statement (from some) probably because some posters can't quite understand what you mean in your 2nd last para. That is very obvious to me when watching them play. Multiple instances of controlling the game (including set piece plays as well) but it's that overall effect of having the ability to control the game (come what may... where other teams either commit more errors in panic or lack of a proper counter-plan) in a relentless fashion. Much harder to think straight and execute defensive set pieces when your team has been back-peddled 3/4 of the way back up the field and the stream has built up in the AB attack. I thought that was what rugby is all about?

The scoreline blowout in the last 10 mins of the Wales game is a typical example. It's called seeing beyond the square and calculated risk taking knowing that there are the players with the required foresight, skills and know how to pull it off... consistently. It works more than most of the time!

As you know - it's not much use having more possession (or more precisely... winning half the physical+mind game) from the set piece when the rest of the team don't know how to properly use the hard won pill. One just has to watch some of those 'backline plays' (diabolical rubbish) from the teams who forget this little piece of the art of rugby. I probably haven't explained as well as you - but I'm pretty sure I've been watching it in action time and time again.

And yet when we look at the most successful Super rugby team of all time the Crusaders, then we look at the most dominant and formidable pack at set piece over the last 18 years, consistently being one of the best packs, playing pretty much All Black rugby.

It's all part of the total package I guess.
Their whole game is much greater than the sum of their parts... including very tidy set piece play, dominant pack and lethal backs.

Happy New Year by the way, Biltong... and the rest of the rugby regs too.

You too mate.

Yes a lot of it is the obsession with trying to play with the ball in space. Barrett's kick was an example of I can't do any more here, I'll try it over there. Slade's kick was slightly different. Out there there's only one or two players on D- lets use that space out there- the kick merely the means to an end.

Hansen also said at the beginning of 2014 he wanted the players to always have one of 3 options available to them at EVERY situation in open play. Run, kick or pass, in no particular order. In implementing that it means changing the mindset, opening up the possible opportunities for each and every of the options- pass, kick, run is always on the players mind not just as a matter of 'well everyone should be thinking that way anyway' but a structured, logic thought process- run, pass kick...constantly- what do I do here?

That's why you see so many short chips by many of the backs- Nonu, Barrett, Cruden etc all setting up tries through all variations of run, pass or kick.

Hansen also said the decision making in 2014 can be improved on so the run, kick, pass options and thinking will undoubtedly be a focus for 2015- more practicing it, getting the right option at the right times.

And yes meant to start off with that, Happy new year Biltong, LD and all. Good to start the year off with a bit off tactical mind games...and what a year its going to be!

Victor Matfield would rate high in any sensible list of great players,currently one would
argue Sam Whitelock.As argueably worlds number one lock he wins almost every time
his ball,scrummages well plus restarts besides his carrying abilities.

Ball carrying forwards were the norm for all forwards in amateur days the passing/dribbling
rushes were there thing.

Today we have a hybrid league/union game with all that entails on attack and defence.

Where the AllBlacks have an advantage is that at 9 they have a player who passes straight
off the ground.Like Catchpole,and Loveridge two of the best all time 9`s no 3 step windup.

emack2 wrote:Victor Matfield would rate high in any sensible list of great players,currently one would
argue Sam Whitelock.As argueably worlds number one lock he wins almost every time
his ball,scrummages well plus restarts besides his carrying abilities.

Ball carrying forwards were the norm for all forwards in amateur days the passing/dribbling
rushes were there thing.

Today we have a hybrid league/union game with all that entails on attack and defence.

Where the AllBlacks have an advantage is that at 9 they have a player who passes straight
off the ground.Like Catchpole,and Loveridge two of the best all time 9`s no 3 step windup.

Graeme Bachop was a more recent example of that...its not just that its the speed, accuracy and flatness of the actual pass as well, off the ground or not. Versus England he threw a bullet straight to Nonu which had the English scrambling immediately because of where the play 'restarted' in midield. They fumbled around a bit in the score but the one pass set the try up.

I was of course aware of Bachop of course,my point was a quick pass from scrum/breakdown.etc.

Is more beneficial than the macho male posturing but hey if it works for you?

emack2 wrote:Where the AllBlacks have an advantage is that at 9 they have a player who passes straight
off the ground.Like Catchpole,and Loveridge two of the best all time 9`s no 3 step windup.

How do you rate Sid Going in that company?

The Great Aukster wrote:

emack2 wrote:Where the AllBlacks have an advantage is that at 9 they have a player who passes straight
off the ground.Like Catchpole,and Loveridge two of the best all time 9`s no 3 step windup.

How do you rate Sid Going in that company?

I very much rate Sid Going, as a kid I saw him play many times for North Auckland, but he was different to the likes of Chris Laidlaw or later on Loveridge, they were  passing half backs where as Sid was a running half back, and some of the tries he scored from the base of the scrum or ruck I havent seen since. One pass which I saw him do regularly was a reverse pass, back over his hip, accurate and fast, it fooled many a defensive line especially when he was passing to his brother Brian.

But I have always liked the idea of Rugby teams carrying half backs with the two different skill sets.

Thanks BB and Tman. That brought back nostalgic memories of family Christmases back home in NZ.

I know you two guys are effectively on the same page - trying to strive for a more complete SA but not one emulating NZ - but you always try your best to make it appear that you are at opposite poles.

Rugby Fan, I think we've moved away from the Auckland pack years of All Black rugby. There that pack was formidable and could dominate others.

I think Whitelock and Read in particular have helped NZ fix their lineout woes. If the scrum is a problem for Australia, it wasn't so long ago lineouts were a real issue for NZ.

Indeed, before Mike Cron, the scrum was a weakness after the retirement of the Auckland players.

I think great effort has been made to shore up the NZ set piece. The NZ scrum is able to pick its moments but it is nowhere near as dominant as a Puma, French or English scrum can be.

However, that said the versatility of NZ and their ability to change their game - mistakenly referred, in my opinion, to being able to move up a gear or two - is the reason for not being able to dominate large periods of the game at scrum time.

Personally, I don't think enough credit is given to the NZ lineout or at least it's not an aspect of their game people tend to isolate. The aerial game at the restarts with Kieran Read in particular is a strength but much like the lineout, these moments in the game are viewed as the best opportunities for setting up attacking play where the defensive line (like an up and under) are not completely set and space can be found in behind the line if ball is recycled quickly.

In 2014 I think NZ struggled to find the space they crave. There were the stand-out kicks by Beauden Barrett or Colin Slade against Wales and the try set up by Read against SA in Wellington but those moments were few and far between.

In part I think that can be attributed to the unfamiliar combinations at centre and flyhalf that chopped and changed throughout the year. I think there's a growing problem of the offside line not being enforced - not just matches where NZ are involved - and so in many ways it was pleasing on this otherwise unspectacular northern tour that NZ were able to go up the guts.

Yet even that is not set piece play. That is old school up the middle rugby. Versatility is the key. How I'd love to see, for example, SA forwards standing in the centres and creating doubt in the defensive line. Just perhaps not against NZ.

Happy New Year to all.

List of greatest players needs to consider;
Lomu, Fitzpatrick, Brooke, Jones, McCaw, Johnson (as player not coach), Hill, Greenwood, Eales, Campese, Pichot, Joost, Sella, Galthie, Blanco, Bennett, McBride.

Even then I'm leaving out plenty but the above should be in the conversation.

I have to say I agree with Bilt's original post. It's subjective.
For instance I'm biased towards the AB's and now.That's because I'm a kiwi and the current team is good.It's also a function of the living with the current rules and liking the AB's style of play.

If I sit down and look at the players over the last 19 years I could pick an AB's team based on the style of game they play now. That means I want ball playing tight forwards, backs who can tackle and turn over ball, loose forwards who can play like centres and at least two kicking wings. Not forgetting halves who provide multiple threats. It doesn't mean I don't look at players who don't meet these criteria, but it does overlay any assessment I make on the relative merits of players.

Obviously this is even more magnified when i look at players from other nations. I subconsciously, and even consciously, assess them against current trends in the game, the AB's style and my own perception of the All Blacks players. This means that try as I might I'm more likely to rank players from SA and Australia more highly as they're generally more competitive. It possibly makes it hard for me to give players from Wales or Scotland due credit.

What does this mean. Well like all of us, it means I'm less likely to choose a opposition player, even if he's more physically gifted. Players I rate are players who could give something to an Ab's team. Players like Parisse (Italy), Van Der Westhuizen (South Africa), Lathem (Australia), BOD (Ireland), Dusautoir (France) or Johnson (England) may or may not make a top side depending on my bias towards the AB's.

The irony is that 50 may sound like a lot of players but in reality it's only a little over 3 players per position. Given style differences it's hard. Turn it around and apply it to yourself. I expect we are all the same....