Rugby's most (in)valuable players

by LordDowlais Wed 10 Jun 2015, 1:02 pm

First topic message reminder :

This is an interesting read,with 100 days to go until the World Cup starts,Planet Rugby have compiled a list of the players whose value to their team cannot be calculated. Do you agree with this ?

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16016_54494,00.html

Full text of the article is here:

It's easy to compile a list of Rugby's top salary earners, but the value of some players simply cannot be calculated.

Dan Carter's salary at Racing Métro after the World Cup might bring you to tears but, unlike in previous years, there won't be much crying in New Zealand if he is absent from the All Blacks squad.

Rugby is a team game but there are certain players in the world that play such a vital role for their side that losing them would have almost catastrophic consequences.

Here are the players we reckon could play the most important roles at the 2015 World Cup and whose absences would be most keenly felt if they were missing.

Dane Coles: It might be odd to say a player with only 28 caps is New Zealand's most important player but with depth in the hooker position not as healthy as Steve Hansen would like, Coles is vital to the All Black cause. Keven Mealamu holds the experience and has been used sparingly by the Blues while Hika Elliot is probably third in line at the moment, but outside of that and there's a lack of Test class. Coles must remain fit.

Julian Savea: Keeping this Hurricane injury-free and in the consistent form he has shown for both franchise and country since his debut is going to be vital to New Zealand. Many a full-back has been bumped off as a final attempted tackler and with more games under his belt, Savea has even developed a strong kicking game and cleverness with offloads. Yes, the All Blacks have options at wing but this 24-year-old is another level up.

Leigh Halfpenny: Wales have other options at full-back - like Liam Williams and James Hook - but Halfpenny is the world's best from the kicking tee and his accuracy has proved invaluable for Warren Gatland's team. With a style of play that looks to force errors more than create chances out wide, Halfpenny's ability to keep the scoreboard ticking - especially from long range - is key to their chances of success.

Samson Lee: Arguably Wales' only international class tighthead, Lee is currently recovering from a torn Achilles. More than anyone else in this list, we'll be able to see how valuable Lee is, because he seems a long shot to be fit for September. The replacement for Adam Jones, the 22-year-old looks comfortable at Test level, whereas potential replacements Aaron Jarvis and the uncapped Tomas Francis have yet to prove their worth. Without Lee, Wales could really struggle at scrum-time against England and even Australia might get the upper hand against them.

Sergio Parisse: It's no secret that Parisse is an indispensable player in the Azzurri squad. A real leader of men who at times has carried his team, the 31-year-old Stade Français veteran could be set for his last World Cup so he will want to go out with a bang. Italy rely so heavily on their skipper, his retirement one day will be a major setback.

Duane Vermeulen: 'Thor' has been outstanding for the Springboks over the past twelve months. The Stormers number eight has unrivalled physicality and is arguably one part of the strongest back-row options any international coach has heading into the World Cup. However, while the Boks have plenty of flankers, no other number eight offers Heyneke Meyer the kind of ball-carrying ability that has made Vermeulen one of the best players in the world. There's a reason Springbok fans were so concerned at his recent neck injury.

Willie le Roux: South Africa's coaching staff will be praying that the Cheetahs speedster will make it to England in top shape because without him, the Springbok attack is blunt and predictable. There are a few youngsters coming through the Super Rugby ranks - like Jesse Kriel - that are exciting prospects but none of have any real international experience, meaning Pat Lambie is set to be the Boks' back-up 15.

Jonathan Sexton: Ireland simply are not the same side without Sexton at 10. His decision making and ability to control the game make him one of the best pivots in the world. Without a clear second-choice in the fly-half berth, Ireland will be banking on Sexton to direct traffic in the big games in October.

Paul O'Connell: We've run out of words to describe this Irish stalwart over the past two or three seasons. At 35 and nearing the end of his Test career, O'Connell is not showing his years and continues to be a colossus for both Munster and Ireland. If he is leading by example and others also step up to the plate, Joe Schmidt's outfit can seriously challenge for this World Cup crown. After that they can worry about replacing him.

Jonathan Joseph: Would this outside centre have made our list before the news that Manu Tuilagi would miss the World Cup? Maybe not but right now, England are low on experience as his back-up. Elliot Daly has impressed for Wasps while the option of shifting Brad Barritt out a position is not something new for Stuart Lancaster, but to unlock defences the tournament hosts need Joseph starting and in his recent fine form.

Tom Youngs: Probably second choice when England named their 50-man preliminary squad, Youngs is now nailed on as a starter at hooker for the Red Rose. The absence of Dylan Hartley through suspension means the pressure is really on Youngs. While his line-out throwing is occasionally wobbly, he'll need to step up, because those behind him in the pecking order are either novices at Test level - Luke Cowan-Dickie and Jamie George - or out of form and second choice at their club in the case of Rob Webber.

Israel Folau: While the Waratahs full-back has not had anywhere near the blistering try-scoring form of 2014 this year, his numbers with ball in hand are still impressive. Unbeatable in the air under the high ball and dynamic with his carries, Australia don't have a great deal of strength and consistency as his back-up. There are a few options available to 15 for Michael Cheika - including James O'Connor - but he is not a specialist and doesn't offer the same counter-attacking threat as Folau.

Kurtley Beale: We're breaking our own rules by including Beale here because Australia have world-class players in all of the positions he can fill. But he is worth a mention because he is one of those rare players who can perform at Test level at just about anywhere in the backline. Versatility is invaluable in World Cup squads where restricted numbers mean that a player like Beale can open up places for specialists elsewhere.

Louis Picamoles: Philippe Saint-André would probably disagree with us, but it wouldn't be the first time we've failed to see eye-to-eye with the France head coach. In top form, Picamoles is a game changer and France don't have another ball carrier of his strength. Illness and injury meant that his power at the base was sorely missed during the Six Nations. He's struggled to reach his previous heights this year, but with the Toulouse man at his best, France are a different beast. If Picamoles can start offloading more and getting those around him involved, he will return to being one of the game's best eights and solve arguably France's biggest problem up front.

Thierry Dusautoir: Four years on from being named World Player of the Year and almost carrying France to a World Cup title, there's a chance Dusautoir will be the only survivor from France's starting team at Eden Park. While les Bleus' skipper has lost a step he remains a ferocious presence in defence and the real leader of the French team. He showed his selfless side during the Six Nations by adapting his game and taking on a more offensive role to accommodate Bernard le Roux and his experience will be vital to France's chances once more.

Nemani Nadolo: Fiji have lots of wingers so Nadolo will likely play at 12 for them. They are short of top quality midfielders and the Crusaders star has an incredible recent scoring record. Nadolo has 14 tries in his last 14 starts at Test level, and even took over kicking duties in last year's November Tour. In the group of death, the likes of George Ford, Dan Biggar and Bernard Foley won't fancy seeing Nadolo coming down their channel.

Agustin Creevy: Hooker seems to be a popular position in this list, and we could even have added in Stephen Moore for the Wallabies. Unlike other countries where lack of depth saw the hooker get the nod, Creevy is included here for his leadership skills. Somewhat of a surprise selection as Pumas skipper, Creevy marshals his troops in a way few can on the international stage. Last year's win over France in Paris was proof of what he brings to his team, and it's difficult to see them getting very far without him in charge.

Finn Russell: It seems crazy that a 22-year-old with less than a year's Test experience can crack this list, but the in-form Russell will be crucial to Scotland's chances. As he's shown for Glasgow this season, Russell's crisp passing game is vital for a team that want to play with ambition. His back-up for both club and country, Duncan Weir, offers a completely different skill-set and would force Vern Cotter to overhaul his game plan if Russell were absent.

by lostinwales Thu 11 Jun 2015, 2:33 pm

Rodders = Nobody?

by **George Carlin** Thu 11 Jun 2015, 2:54 pm

Rodders is John Eales? Bugger me with a golf umbrella.

by bedfordwelsh Thu 11 Jun 2015, 2:57 pm

George Carlin wrote:Rodders is John Eales? Bugger me with a golf umbrella.

I see what you done there GC Wink

by **LondonTiger** Thu 11 Jun 2015, 3:05 pm

George Carlin wrote:Rodders is John Eales? Bugger me with a golf umbrella.

Open umbrella?

by **George Carlin** Thu 11 Jun 2015, 3:14 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
George Carlin wrote:Rodders is John Eales? Bugger me with a golf umbrella.

Open umbrella?

by Fanster Thu 11 Jun 2015, 7:05 pm

TJ wrote:So funny to see people slating Russell who have not seen him play much, who do not understand how crucial he is to scotland ( the point of the article) and who want him to be Dan Carter in is prime after so little experience.

Oh - and we do have a controlling 10 as well. Weir. Not shown his potential due to two seasons wrecked with injury and crap selections.

Ask the ulster fans how good Russell is.

Fanster - you slate him and then admit you haven't seen him play much.

Not to rage on about Russell too much, but I thought I'd reply to this...

I have seen him play plenty, in both the Rabo and internationally and well as much as he's hailed the Scottish messiah I just don't see it yet. He has flashes of decent spells, but his instincts aren't there, and his boot is nowhere near international standard.

I'm not saying he's a bad player, far from it because he's a good player, but I watched the Pro 12 semi, and well he was average in that game with 1 decent pass and kick within the last few minutes, that MOTM performance reminded me of a lot of halfpenny's, crowd pandering by pundits.

by The Great Aukster Thu 11 Jun 2015, 8:40 pm

In a few seasons if Russell progresses as far as he has already he will be a top flyhalf. There is undoubtedly a big drop-off to the next option on recent form and that makes him 'invaluable' to the team.
However paradoxically his 'value' to the team is as a playmaker who will get his team a victory that they wouldn't have without him and that hasn't been happening for Scotland. In other words Scotland would still have lost those games with an alternative 10, so is he really that 'valuable'?

by alexgmacdonald Fri 12 Jun 2015, 7:55 am

Fanster wrote:
TJ wrote:So funny to see people slating Russell who have not seen him play much, who do not understand how crucial he is to scotland ( the point of the article) and who want him to be Dan Carter in is prime after so little experience.

Oh - and we do have a controlling 10 as well. Weir. Not shown his potential due to two seasons wrecked with injury and crap selections.

Ask the ulster fans how good Russell is.

Fanster - you slate him and then admit you haven't seen him play much.

Not to rage on about Russell too much, but I thought I'd reply to this...

I have seen him play plenty, in both the Rabo and internationally and well as much as he's hailed the Scottish messiah I just don't see it yet. He has flashes of decent spells, but his instincts aren't there, and his boot is nowhere near international standard.

I'm not saying he's a bad player, far from it because he's a good player, but I watched the Pro 12 semi, and well he was average in that game with 1 decent pass and kick within the last few minutes, that MOTM performance reminded me of a lot of halfpenny's, crowd pandering by pundits.

From watching him all the way across the season for both Glasgow and Scotland, I would say the opposite. He has the instincts but not the control of a game. He can definitely improve in both facets of his game (instinct and control) and is nowhere near the finished product. For Scotland, its amazing to have a player who is very confident and has some talent as well.

by beshocked Fri 12 Jun 2015, 9:58 am

Fanster does talk a lot of sense. Russell has been talked up as the Scottish messiah. He's not yet that good enough to have that tag in my opinion.

alexgmacdonald you hit the nail on the head - it's Russell's lack of control of the game that's not up to international standard yet.

Not doubting that Russell is a good young prospect at 10 for Scotland but the point is that he's far from the finished article at the moment.

The likes of Biggar,Ford,Farrell and Sexton are much better 10s. Ford is the same age as Russell, Farrell is one year older...

If Scotland are to have aspirations to beat the likes of Wales,Ireland and England then Russell will need to be able to stand up to these guys. His first attempt in the 6 nations has not been so impressive.

Same issue with Samson Lee - he's far from the finished article too.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 12 Jun 2015, 10:14 am

Given all that though Russel is more valuable for Scotland than Ford is for England, because we have Farrell, Cips (sometimes), Burns, Myler.

by The Great Aukster Fri 12 Jun 2015, 11:49 am

Ford gives England far more attacking options and general play-making than the rest. He's still a bit callow too but is a lot more likely to be the difference between a win and a loss because of the competitiveness of the side he's playing in, therefore he has to be more valuable as a team member than FR.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 12 Jun 2015, 11:53 am

There's not too much of a drop to Farrell at all. It would be a very intersting battle between the 2 when they're both at their peak. I don't particularly rate any Scottish FH that much after Russell.

by **rodders** Fri 12 Jun 2015, 11:54 am

The Great Aukster wrote:Ford gives England far more attacking options and general play-making than the rest. He's still a bit callow too but is a lot more likely to be the difference between a win and a loss because of the competitiveness of the side he's playing in, therefore he has to be more valuable as a team member than FR.

Is that because Scotland are likely to lose in any case ... sorry only joking Smile

Agree Ford is vital to England, none of the others have anywhere near his ability with ball in hand so the whole game plan changes if he is out...

by beshocked Fri 12 Jun 2015, 12:26 pm

rodders Ford's ability with ball in hand didn't exactly help him when Ireland faced England in the 6 nations.....

Personally I thought Farrell had a good 2014 6 nations. Ford was good in 2015 6 nations too.

Neither were able to lead England to a GS though.

I would say both players are good in their own way but have their weaknesses too. I don't think Ford is a more significant match winner than Farrell - he just currently suits Lancaster's current strategy more at the moment IMO.

If Ford is injured then Farrell will be able to easily step in. Sure he's a different 10 to Ford but he's got strengths that Ford doesn't. With Farrell as 10, England have not lost to Ireland for example.

I would say Ford is a great asset to England but England could cope in his absence.

by Fanster Fri 12 Jun 2015, 12:33 pm

I think Ford and Russell is a good comparison, Ford is a large step ahead in every aspect right now, but give Ford the platform Russell has for Scotland ala the Ireland England game and he is shown to be wanting also.

I am a huge fan of Farell, not as exciting as Ford, but his decision making and control have gotten so much better recently, he's really matured.

I would also agree though that Russell is more important to Scotland than Ford is for England, and would also agree around Samson Lee, he's far from the finished article and will be tested massively come RWC time.

Alex - By using the word instincts, which is probably the wrong word I meant his reaction to situations under pressure, and in that way did mean control also.

by **George Carlin** Fri 12 Jun 2015, 8:20 pm

Fanster wrote:I think Ford and Russell is a good comparison, Ford is a large step ahead in every aspect right now, but give Ford the platform Russell has for Scotland ala the Ireland England game and he is shown to be wanting also.

I am a huge fan of Farell, not as exciting as Ford, but his decision making and control have gotten so much better recently, he's really matured.

I would also agree though that Russell is more important to Scotland than Ford is for England, and would also agree around Samson Lee, he's far from the finished article and will be tested massively come RWC time.

Alex - By using the word instincts, which is probably the wrong word I meant his reaction to situations under pressure, and in that way did mean control also.

As I said in my earlier post, the only respect in which you can meaningfully compare Ford and Russell is that they are both 22. In all other respects, their careers have been light years apart and comparing them has very little utility.

Ford has almost literally three times as many minutes in the professional game than Russell. Ford was the youngest player ever to sign a professional Aviva contract and has been playing full time and professionally since 2009. Finn Russell was a full time apprentice stonemason until last season, playing rugby for his club sides Stirling County and Ayr part time. Russell has had one full time professional season (2014-2015), and therefore one year of full time professional conditioning.

It is enormously obvious that a lot of posters here have only ever seen him play in the last 6 Nations, which was essentially a disaster for anyone wearing navy and the reasons for which have been thrashed to death on these boards. Dan Carter would have looked average playing for that Scotland team and an over-analysis of Russell's time in a Scotland shirt as a yardstick for his ability is, as Gregor Townsend said in an interview last week, facile and almost entirely pointless. Most of his professional life happened after that tournament.

Aside from some posters still continuing to miss the point of this thread in general, the reason Scotland fans are excited about this player is that even with all of the international hard knocks, this is a skinny, ballsy kid surviving entirely on instinct and natural heads-up footballing ability. Add a couple of years of professional conditioning and who knows where he may end up if can pull off this sort of thing in a league semi-final playoff now:

by Fanster Fri 12 Jun 2015, 10:19 pm

George

Leave the sob stories for the X factor, I care not a jot about someones history. 2 players playing the same position, in championship winning sides, who are the same age, play similar styles of running rugby and have both been touted as the great hope are very much comparible!

Please rewatch the Ulster game, and you'll see Russell hampers Glasgow throughout that game, 1 good pass and kick do not make a performance, he was not great in that game, far from it.

And the reason most peope judge him on the 6N is because thats the highest level he's played at, and he was lacking pretty heavily. I would go as far to say that Scotland would probably have beaten Wales had Dan Parks been around (OK thats a half joke but you know what i'm getting at)

by **LondonTiger** Fri 12 Jun 2015, 10:57 pm

Has any one on the Russell side stated he is the finished article?

Have people claimed he is better than Ford right now?

Answer to both is No.

However Scots are excited about his potential, and so they should be. He may not fulfil their hopes, but it will be fun watching him try.

And while it is valid to compare Russell and Ford, it is also valid to point out that Russell is far more inexperienced.

PS only Russell is in a championship winning team. Ford has not won a championship since he left us.

by thomh Sat 13 Jun 2015, 12:34 am

LondonTiger wrote:Has any one on the Russell side stated he is the finished article?

Have people claimed he is better than Ford right now?

Answer to both is No.

However Scots are excited about his potential, and so they should be. He may not fulfil their hopes, but it will be fun watching him try.

And while it is valid to compare Russell and Ford, it is also valid to point out that Russell is far more inexperienced.

PS only Russell is in a championship winning team. Ford has not won a championship since he left us.

There was a thread around 6 Nations time where some were saying that they were yet to be convinced that Ford was as good as Russell.

by **George Carlin** Sat 13 Jun 2015, 3:25 am

Fanster wrote:George

Leave the sob stories for the X factor, I care not a jot about someones history. 2 players playing the same position, in championship winning sides, who are the same age, play similar styles of running rugby and have both been touted as the great hope are very much comparible!

Please rewatch the Ulster game, and you'll see Russell hampers Glasgow throughout that game, 1 good pass and kick do not make a performance, he was not great in that game, far from it.

And the reason most peope judge him on the 6N is because thats the highest level he's played at, and he was lacking pretty heavily. I would go as far to say that Scotland would probably have beaten Wales had Dan Parks been around (OK thats a half joke but you know what i'm getting at)

All fair craic Fanster - the only thing is that you seem to be arguing against points that nobody here is making.

by IanBru Sat 13 Jun 2015, 4:57 pm

George Carlin wrote:
Fanster wrote:George

Leave the sob stories for the X factor, I care not a jot about someones history. 2 players playing the same position, in championship winning sides, who are the same age, play similar styles of running rugby and have both been touted as the great hope are very much comparible!

Please rewatch the Ulster game, and you'll see Russell hampers Glasgow throughout that game, 1 good pass and kick do not make a performance, he was not great in that game, far from it.

And the reason most peope judge him on the 6N is because thats the highest level he's played at, and he was lacking pretty heavily. I would go as far to say that Scotland would probably have beaten Wales had Dan Parks been around (OK thats a half joke but you know what i'm getting at)
All fair craic Fanster - the only thing is that you seem to be arguing against points that nobody here is making.

I often think the official tagline for 606v2 is "The answer to a question no-one asked"... Very Happy

by Cyril Sat 13 Jun 2015, 7:09 pm

Fanster wrote:George

Leave the sob stories for the X factor, I care not a jot about someones history. 2 players playing the same position, in championship winning sides, who are the same age, play similar styles of running rugby and have both been touted as the great hope are very much comparible!

Please rewatch the Ulster game, and you'll see Russell hampers Glasgow throughout that game, 1 good pass and kick do not make a performance, he was not great in that game, far from it.

And the reason most peope judge him on the 6N is because thats the highest level he's played at, and he was lacking pretty heavily. I would go as far to say that Scotland would probably have beaten Wales had Dan Parks been around (OK thats a half joke but you know what i'm getting at)

Blimey, it hasn't taken long for the mask to slip this time. Still, at least in this incarnation he's annoying the Scots for a change. Sharing the love around and all that...

by nganboy Mon 29 Jun 2015, 1:07 pm

For NZ its Dane Coles/Conrad Smith/Aaron Smith in that order I reckon.

by Fanster Mon 29 Jun 2015, 1:48 pm

George Carlin wrote:
Fanster wrote:George

Leave the sob stories for the X factor, I care not a jot about someones history. 2 players playing the same position, in championship winning sides, who are the same age, play similar styles of running rugby and have both been touted as the great hope are very much comparible!

Please rewatch the Ulster game, and you'll see Russell hampers Glasgow throughout that game, 1 good pass and kick do not make a performance, he was not great in that game, far from it.

And the reason most peope judge him on the 6N is because thats the highest level he's played at, and he was lacking pretty heavily. I would go as far to say that Scotland would probably have beaten Wales had Dan Parks been around (OK thats a half joke but you know what i'm getting at)
All fair craic Fanster - the only thing is that you seem to be arguing against points that nobody here is making.

I semed to have left the thread and never returned for some reason.

My comments there look really harsh out of place, maybe I was discussing with someone elsewhere where Ford and Russell were compared and it was argued Russell was as good if not better.

by Sin é Mon 29 Jun 2015, 2:55 pm

I'd say Russell would be as good as Ford and Farrell if he too had a father who was a professional coach. He has a bit of catching up to do on those two, but he looks to have the talent.

by **George Carlin** Mon 29 Jun 2015, 3:06 pm

Both are bright lights for their teams.

Ford is a prodigy by any reasonable use of the term and I also wonder what standard Russell could be at now if he'd also started playing pro rugby at 18. You cannot underestimate the difference that game time plays and it's worth stressing again that Ford has almost 3x as many pro minutes as Russell. Not sure if you can ever really catch up with that sort of experience.

I think the point is that I wouldn't say that Russell is as good as Ford, but there's clearly a very good reason for that and in 5 years time I would expect the gap between them to have narrowed considerably.

by Fanster Mon 29 Jun 2015, 3:07 pm

Sin é wrote:I'd say Russell would be as good as Ford and Farrell if he too had a father who was a professional coach. He has a bit of catching up to do on those two, but he looks to have the talent.

Someone put it another way the other day, and asked which 6N squads Russell would actually make it into for the RWC, and well we could only answer Scotland Italy and France.

Thats not to say he wouldn't leapfrog the likes of Biggar, Preiastland, or Maddigan, but I don't think Ireland England or Wales would bother taking him to the RWC this time around.

by **LondonTiger** Mon 29 Jun 2015, 3:18 pm

But the original debate is not whether Russell is better than Ford (or Farrell or Biggar or......).

It was about how important players are to their team. Thus we have to look at:

a) How they fit in the gameplan their team is trying to implement
b) The gap between them and their replacement.

So while few will argue that Russell is currently a better player than Ford, once we compare Russell to Weir and Ford to Farrellthe relative importances to the team become more apparent.

by **George Carlin** Mon 29 Jun 2015, 3:40 pm

Jaysus, this thread:

Rugby's most (in)valuable players - Page 2 Ground10

by Fanster Mon 29 Jun 2015, 3:46 pm

LondonTiger wrote:But the original debate is not whether Russell is better than Ford (or Farrell or Biggar or......).

It was about how important players are to their team. Thus we have to look at:

a) How they fit in the gameplan their team is trying to implement
b) The gap between them and their replacement.

So while few will argue that Russell is currently a better player than Ford, once we compare Russell to Weir and Ford to Farrellthe relative importances to the team become more apparent.

That is a good point, however is Weir that much weaker, and doesn't Horne play 10 also, despite a bumpy start?

If we're considering strength then, isn't it important to think of platform and opposition, is (lets keep with Russell) important enough to Scotland to be able to win a knock out game for them, does he posess that ability to be the match winner against SA, or another top 6 team, or will that largely depend on the pack in front of him. Do we have to be realistic in goalsetting and base that on how important he is.

So lets say Scotland are looking at 2nd in their group (Realistic I think), then Russells importance will depend on being able to beat USA, Samoa and Japan? Wouldn't there be a case to say Horne or Weir should be able to step in and get the job done against those 3?

by **LondonTiger** Mon 29 Jun 2015, 3:53 pm

George Carlin wrote:Jaysus, this thread:

Rugby's most (in)valuable players - Page 2 Maxresdefault

by Sin é Mon 29 Jun 2015, 7:03 pm

Fanster wrote:
Sin é wrote:I'd say Russell would be as good as Ford and Farrell if he too had a father who was a professional coach. He has a bit of catching up to do on those two, but he looks to have the talent.

Someone put it another way the other day, and asked which 6N squads Russell would actually make it into for the RWC, and well we could only answer Scotland Italy and France.

Thats not to say he wouldn't leapfrog the likes of Biggar, Preiastland, or Maddigan, but I don't think Ireland England or Wales would bother taking him to the RWC this time around.

I think he would make the Ireland squad. He played very well in the Pro12 final which suggests he has a big game temperment.

by beshocked Tue 30 Jun 2015, 2:01 pm

It's about strength and depth.

Scotland's options aren't great at 10 so of course Russell will compare favourably to other Scottish 10s.

It's when you compare Russell to other 10s outside Scotland when Russell does not look so impressive.

He's not the finished article but it's not as if the likes of Ford and Farrell are old men.

Same with Samson Lee of Wales - looks good compared to the TH options available to Wales but would struggle to make any other side in the 6 nations bar perhaps Scotland.

It is at 15 where Scotland have a player who compares very well indeed to other nations - Hogg. He's also the best 15 in Scotland by some distance.

Sexton is not just the best option by some distance for Ireland. He's one of the best 10s in the world. Russell is unproven at international level. Also his winning % in the 6 nations for Scotland was zero.

Surely value is partly based on how a player can affect a match? As Fanster points out Dan Parks was a match winner for Scotland. Something you cannot say of Russell in the 6 nations as of yet. Rugby is a team game but the 10 is hugely influential.

Russell as of yet has not inspired his team to victory like Parks used to. Russell has the potential to be far greater than Parks of course but he's not proven yet.

by **George Carlin** Tue 30 Jun 2015, 2:14 pm

That's all true Beshocked, but as someone who has watched both players extensively, similarly it is also true to say that Finn Russell has more talent in his Stirlingshire winkle than Daniel Arthur Parks has/had in his entire body.

by beshocked Tue 30 Jun 2015, 2:37 pm

George Carlin talent is very subjective indeed IMO. Is your definition of talent based more on flair and excitement? Normally players who are more eye catching with crowd pleasing runs and plays are seen as more talented.

I think mental strength is sometimes underestimated in the talent definition.

My point about Russell is that he looks like a great 10 prospect for Scotland but he's not yet earned the title of being Scotland's MVP IMO.

Also I don't think he's yet shown the game control that you need from a 10 to take the game by the scruff of the neck at international level.

His lack of experience counts against him.

There are some players who have great potential and could well be the complete package but proving this is another matter.

It's simply about Russell proving himself at international level - something I do not feel he has done yet.

by **George Carlin** Tue 30 Jun 2015, 3:16 pm

beshocked wrote:George Carlin talent is very subjective indeed IMO. Is your definition of talent based more on flair and excitement? Normally players who are more eye catching with crowd pleasing runs and plays are seen as more talented.

I think mental strength is sometimes underestimated in the talent definition.

My point about Russell is that he looks like a great 10 prospect for Scotland but he's not yet earned the title of being Scotland's MVP IMO.

Also I don't think he's yet shown the game control that you need from a 10 to take the game by the scruff of the neck at international level.

His lack of experience counts against him.

There are some players who have great potential and could well be the complete package but proving this is another matter.

It's simply about Russell proving himself at international level - something I do not feel he has done yet.

It's the most subjective thing in the world, I agree. With Russell, I meant that he has a more rounded game than Parks (Russell is particularly solid defensively for his size and has an excellent pass from either hand), has the potential to have his game develop to a higher aggregate standard all round and he has the potential to offer play that could break open a game in the way that Parks never could.

Yes, of course Russell's lack of experience counts against him. How could it not? Let's see how Finn gets on amongst a Scotland side that is now hopefully more settled this autumn (apart from in the centres, where all key players are currently broken).

As you say, the other reason that Scotland fans get more excited about Russell is that Parks executed about the only style of play that Scotland could do well at the time (abrasive pack, good defense, kick penalties) whereas at long last Scotland fans are realising that this not playing to the team's strengths any more. It is correct to say that if Parks had Alex Dunbar and Mark Bennett outside him rather than Graham Morrison and Nick De Luca he might have been inclined to pass it more rather than kick the arse off the ball at every opportunity.

We shall never know. But mud sticks.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 30 Jun 2015, 3:35 pm

So in a similar train of thought NZ don't have any invaluable players as they'll win no matter what anyway. Someone should just work out win % and have done.

by Fanster Tue 30 Jun 2015, 4:11 pm

George,

Although not a fan of Dan Parks, he was tried and tested at international level, and Scotlands attacking threat was based around his kicking abilities...

His contribution to some of Scotland’s famous victories cannot be underestimated, in 2010 won man of the match awards against Wales, Italy, Ireland, South Africa and Argentina in 1 year, once Russell contributes to a national team with that kind of impact he can be compared to Parks.

I thoroughly dislike this attitude that the better runners and passers of the ball are more talented, talent comes in many forms, including using the boot for your team, of which Parks was as good as anyone.

by **George Carlin** Tue 30 Jun 2015, 4:39 pm

I'm only kidding. Parks was the best of a very bad bunch and gave his all for the shirt every time. I met him 3 or 4 times and he was very good craic every time. Scotland owes him a debt of gratitude for toiling away during the leanest of years.

But let's put this in context, because we have long since wandered away from what the purpose of this thread was. Parks got his 66 caps because both Weir and Jackson were generally flakier than a stale croissant in a wind tunnel and he was the most solid alternative. The different between Parks and those two alternative options were measured in how much you valued Parks' ability to kick for position and for goal in light of the merits of the alternative approach offered by Jackson. It was subjective and if you look back on Scottish posters views on whom should play 10, everyone went back and forth. The common consensus was that on each player's day, there was little to choose between them.

That is not where we are with Russell. He is streets ahead of the competition in terms of both (a) what he brings now and (b) what he is likely to bring in the future. He has played for Scotland 9 times over the space of less than a year and the point of mentioning that is that this means he cannot logically be "tried and tested at international level". Nobody with fewer than, say 20 caps, could be described as such.

I think it is also dangerous to say that a player's benefit can only be assessed on what he brings to a winning team. For example, two of Argentina's greatest players in their history (Hugo Porta and Augustine Pichot) were undroppable, irreplaceable and crucial to the development of the entire sport in their country. Did Argentina suddenly win a greatly increased proportion of their games as a result? No, because their colleagues in the national side were abject in comparison.

Estimates as to importance are only meaningful infra-team or (as 7 1/2 says above), otherwise you are left in a position where teams like SA/NZ can hardly ever be said to have invaluable players.

by Sponsored content