All time greatest players

Something that gets on my nerves is that whenever someone posts a thread selecting their all time greatest XV there is always at least one person who says 'you can't compare players from different eras, training methods and everything is different...'. This is annoying for more than one reason. My favourite reason for finding this annoying is that an all time great would be able to play in any era and still be great.

Gareth Edwards would still be a brilliant scrum half now because he was quick, strong and had a rugby brain. Going further back Wavell Wakefield revolutionised back row play and would more than likely still be terrorising half backs if he was playing now. From the SH Frik Du Preez was an athletic forward who would fit in perfectly in the modern game although he might be moved to the back row. Nobody could suggest that Serge Blanco would not still be able to cut defences to pieces now even though he might be smaller than the modern giant players.

What sets these players apart is not their size or brawn it's the fact that they think differently and respond in ways that the average rugby player isn't able to.

I have given some examples above of players I think would be just as good if they were playing now. I would be interested to know other peoples ideas of the all time great players. There will be argument and disagreement (I hope) so bring on your best ones!

When you try to pick a selection of greatest players,if you have`nt seen them play you can only go on hearsay.It is certainly true,that a great is a great.But
a 6 foot 3 lock,16 stone,is not a 6 Foot 7 18stone lock.Size and weight do make a difference.The great s of yester year would have to adapt there game,as they most certainly.would .At 6 foot 1inch,15or so stone.Kevin Skinner was big for his time,a highly mobile prop,great scrummager on either head.Line out option at front of lineout 2 and rock hard no one messed with him twice.Ask Chris Koch or Jaap Bekker.Playeres relied on brains to outwit men.tricks Quade Cooper is credited with J.B [Johnnie Smith] was performing better with the Kiwis in 1946.He was actually given a trial for the 1953 tour,lord i`d have loved to have seen him there.With Bob Scott,Tiny White,Peter Jones ,Ron Jarden and all..

This is exactly what I mean. I'm not suggesting that they would transfer directly from their position into the current position but they would still be great players.

mckay,

how do you reckon Andy Irvine would fare today ? At 6ft and 14 stn not the biggest FB

No not the biggest but neither is medard. He was good under a high ball though and could join the line as well as anyone. I think he'd be more likely to go onto the wing these days though. Could use a player like him on the wing for Scotland now...

Too true mate. Thanks again

It may annoy you but it's still true. Saying that Edwards would be a great player now is just hot air. Maybe he would but maybe he wouldn't. Doesn't really matter as it's all just subjective anyway. No-one has seen the really early players.

Well, you can really only be compared to your contemporaries. Had we a very good simulator that could replicate the suitable attributes of greats-gone-by...I dunno. I think they'd be outdone by much of today. Moreso, I don't care. Sun Tzu is not going to beat me in Pro Ev, but he's probably a good reason why I'm ranked 26,477 in the world. (Or is it Dublin?) They were mighty at their peak, they left a legacy, but they're gone. You really can't give them any more praise beyond sycophancy.

Our mortality is forgotten by our productivity, y'know?

In my opinion you can only judge a player on his performances against his peers, if he stands clear as "peerless" in his day, I think it's fair to say he's something special for all time.

Gareth is my favourite player bar-none, he was outstanding in his day and I firmly believe his performances are still outstanding today, I've not seen another 9 do what he did on a regular basis.

Apart from the cusp of professionalism in the early nineties, you have to consider the game as a level playing field of the moment.

The Viet Gwent, for example, are right up there amongst the best front rows ever assembled, and I'd defy anyone to argue the toss with BW today. :run2:

If you take an example scrum half,first duty good fast pass,then tactical kicking game.Ideally able to run breaks as well and solid defence,Dickie Jeeps,Justin Marshall,Kevin Briscoe,Byron Kelleher.As examples ancient and modern seen them all.all could have played today or in 1960`s.Given modern medical/fitness/training all the greats could still play today.

just how old are you emack2?

Shane Williams would have been a great whenever. The bloke is like a rubber ball.

The best rugby players are always the best athletes of their generations. They would do what was necessary in the context of the game at any given time.

Conrad Smith isn't that big and he would be one of the best Centres for the last 20 years

emack and Glas

totally agree with both of you. Obviously it's impossible to physically compare players from different generations and thanks for the dullards for pointing that out. The point is that a truly great player could fit into the game at any time period and still stand out.

Hydroxymoron

I can't really see any connection between Sun Tzu and Pro Evo. I think you're being deliberately obtuse in your point. It seems that what you're saying is that only now is relevant and while the past was fine then it should be left there. I don't agree with that. There are a lot of lessons to be learnt from the past and perhaps our game would be better if some of the players were a bit more individually creative. Look at the Australian backs. they're doing things that was not unusual 30 years ago but is now seen as revolutionary.

mckay1402 wrote:Hydroxymoron

I can't really see any connection between Sun Tzu and Pro Evo. I think you're being deliberately obtuse in your point. It seems that what you're saying is that only now is relevant and while the past was fine then it should be left there. I don't agree with that. There are a lot of lessons to be learnt from the past and perhaps our game would be better if some of the players were a bit more individually creative. Look at the Australian backs. they're doing things that was not unusual 30 years ago but is now seen as revolutionary.

Sorry, mckay. I was saying that the comparative is unnecessary to determine a player's greatness, but that lessons are surely learned; hence, why I'm stuffed playing football online. I guess there's a fine line between how one acknowledges the past - with nostalgia, or with adequate pursuit of knowledge.

Apologies again for being obtuse. I'd had "one of those days"!

NGANBOY I am 68,started playing Rugby at age 11,but watched England v France 1953.First time I had ever seen television,let alone a Test match.1953 was a wonderful year for sport in England,The Mathews F.A Cup Final.Hungarians winning 6-3 at Wembley,regaining the Ashes,first four minute Mile run,Everest conquered.For me personally a school trip to watch 1953-4 All Blacks versus Southern Counties,and with relative v Combined Services on Boxing Day 1953.An average Tour by the All Blacks standards with 4 losses two each in France and Wales.But many of that squad that in 1956 wrested the World Crown from the Boks were there.Peter Hilton _Jones ,Skinnner,Hemi,Tiny White,Ian Clarke,Bob Scott,Bill Clarke,Ron Jarden.Fitzsy`s Dad Brian was there too a member of the Wellington side alongside,FitzGerald,Jarden and Bill Clarke.Bill Clarke the sole loosie in a great pack,12 stone tops ringing wet made the template for Flankers copiied by all the 7`s since.A game patterned on Hennie Mullers,All Blacks then were in the age of reality.Massive packs,who attacked ,defended,and rucked as one.Lord did they Ruck,THE OTAGO GAME,refined by Vic Cavanagh Junior.Meant loads of go forward ball for the backs,10 man rugby,man for man and cover marking.Tries were created by kicks,the centreing kick by the wing under the posts for Bill Clarke to follow up.Perfected by Ron Jarden,great player,author of Rugby on Attack one of the best coachin g manuals ever.Scored 156 tries in his career in an era when Wings did`nt score tries,just threw in to Lineouts.Chased kicks,tackled,then froze on the touchline,200yards Olympic class sprinter he kicked Goals too.HE is a prime example of a player who would have shone in any era.Bob Scott ,Great Scott did all the full Back skills well,best back in World Rugby.Was among those who wrote the book on attacking full back play for people like Christian Cullen to follow.Kicked Goals bare foot from half way place or Drop as a party piece.His inability to kick Goals in SA in 1949 may have been the difference between a shared series and a white wash.Every era has its greats,people who say players like Ella,Spencer,Cooper were genius`s never saw the like of J. B. Smith or Peter Jackson .Players who used there brains and the speed of the passed ball to beat the man.There`s nothing new under the sun,THE KIWI`s of 1945-6 one,two steps then offload the ball.Things people today is modern pro training. With in the constraints of size,weight,and modern rules players form the past would adapt there game.Coaches then may not of had computer and tv analysis,but they had game plans.The players who could exexute them,power Rugby,Boring England?just watch All Blacks v Boks any time 1949 onwards.they wrote the book.

Emack.

Great to see someone here versed in the ways of Vic Cavanagh.
Both Vic Snr and jnr would want rucking bought back.
And they outta know!!

Yes Young Vic and Old Vic,what sadness the politics of the time did`nt allow either to coach All Blacks.Young Vic may have come up with the answer to Hennie Mulller. Mullers tactic of standing in mid field at lineouts to tackle the
back receiving the ball was mentioned.Cavanagh suggested throwing the ball to Muller then burying him in a ruck.

I think that you could take the great backs out of any generation and they would stil be good today but the forwards would be a different story, they are so much bigger and stronger today in the professional setup than in the past.

One of my most favourite players of all time was the Aussie John Eals, he had it all and was a brilliant captain.

eirebilly wrote:I think that you could take the great backs out of any generation and they would stil be good today but the forwards would be a different story, they are so much bigger and stronger today in the professional setup than in the past.

One of my most favourite players of all time was the Aussie John Eals, he had it all and was a brilliant captain.

Yes but those men were big for society's standards at the time, that's the point. And, should modern day players meet an old timer in a dark alley I wouldn't be taking bets on the winner. It may be a cliche but those men had the strength only manual work can give you.

I just mean in a purely playing way Glas, the training regime is now much harder than what it was and the fittness levels of the big men are different now than what they were. Its really hard to say because the older generation of forwards also had a bit more nouse than the new generation. It would be some matchup.

There are some players that i think were that good it would'nt matter what era you dropped them in they would be stars. Scott Quinell is one of those players. Had size, skill and such an awareness that he would fit into any team in any generation as would John Eales.

Hydroxymoron

No problems. We all have those days...I appreciate that the comparison is unnecessary and perhaps I over egged it a bit in the OP. What I mean to say is given the same training that modern players have the old timers would still be as mesmeric and show the genius that they showed in their time. Likewise, players like Shane Williams and Jonny Wilkinson would be as good back then as they are now...

You mention the forwards being much bigger but look at Neil Back. He was kept out of the England team for so long because he was deemed too small but when he played for England he was one of their best forwards for decades. He is definitely one who could play in any era and still be effective. John Eales as mentioned above would be another. I also stand by my original suggestions of Du Preez and Wakefield.

Picking up on a few of the comments comparing today's players with past greats, I was reminded of a point in Alexander McCall Smith's book 'Quartered Safe Out Here', in which he related his experiences as a young sergeant posted to a Geordie regiment in Burma in the Second World War.

Referring respectfully to the 'professional' label attached to modern British soldiers, he said something like, "They are professionals and we were not - but we were EXPERTS". Could there be a valid comparison with rugby?

To be fair, he was writing before the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, which have without doubt turned many of today's professional soldiers into experts of the sort he meant.

There's a difference between considering someone as an all-time great player and tyring to see how they would fit into the modern era of the game. Some positions have changed relatively little (scrum half being one, where a pass, kick, break, bravery in fringe defence and the absolute and certain knowledge you are a better ref than the ref always were and always will be the prerequisites), whereas front row and second row forwards are now a completelly different physical specimen from their pre-professional fore-runners.

Even going back just to Bill Beaumont in the late 70s, early 80s, he was a world class 2nd row at about 6ft 3 and about 17 st - these days that would be considered on the small side for a 6 or 8. Would he (or Dean Richards) have found a way to be effective in the modern game? Absolutely. Would htey have been outstanding players? Maybe not (would have depended on how well they adapted to the more physical training regime now in place).

The point is how the coaches adapted there game,most players like Meads ,Eales,Haden.Peter Whiting,would adapt.Props don`t have to be 6 foot eight 25 stone giants.A long back is a disadvantage at scrum time.decent scrumming technique is lost art.Scrums are often few and far between,props spending most of there set piece time throwing props into the air.Line out is seldom the two handed catch followed by a controlled or maul or ruck,but a desperate swipe.Competing a euphism for jumpimg across pre throw but seldom penalised.Given modern training methods/diets they`d bulkup,most were ex - national service or farmers.miners,hard muscle opposed to gym monkeys.It is up to the coaches to fit them into the teams,but most would find a place somewhere.

dummy_half wrote:...................... whereas front row and second row forwards are now a completelly different physical specimen from their pre-professional fore-runners................................

They are indeed! comparatively, these days, they are over protected muscle-Marys - all rippling physiques and impressive bench press stats. Put them back in the 1970s and up against the NZ or South Africans and they would wilt like a pansy without water with the first punch between the eyes.

LOL

Another way of looking at it is to imagine how well modern-day players would fare if they were transported back to, say, the '70s without the physical and nutritional advantages they have now. Add to that they fact that they wouldn't be able to spend so long in the gym as they'd have to hold down a full-time job. But even if you look at it that way, it's still only speculation.

I have to agree with the OP and others: if a player stood out as a quality player in his era, then he was a quality player, simple as that.

Thanks luckless. I think that being a great player is more about what goes on in your head more than what sort of muscles you have. a great player will always adapt

The comments i am about to make may seem a little off subject,bear with me
I need to lay the back ground first GUNNER this is for you,the comments are a mix of second hand from books,NZ friends now sadly deceased and facts.In early 1930`s the IRB at Englands instigation the NZ 2-3-2 scrum was outlawed.NZ adopted the SA 3-4-1 scrum but failed to learn the dynamics until mid 1949 tour when Danie Craven and Bo Wintle showed them how.By the end of the tour they were as good as the Boks.Going back a bit in 1930`s the English back row under Wavell Wakefield evolved the back row as we know it.NZ did`nt use loose forwards,they attacked or defended as a pack using short passing or dribbling rushes. Now to the laws of the time the full wheel of the scrum was legal,direct kicking to touch was legal.Scrums could be taken for lineouts,the line out in theory ran straight across the field[not ended by the last man in the line].Offside was the rear foot of the scrum,and centre of lineout.Players could stand out in mid field at the lineout.No 10 yard gap at line out,or 5 yard at scrum.defending backs stood to the off side line .Man to man marking and cover defence was the key.The age of reality ,tries were considered near impossible from a set piece.Those that were they had created by standard moves,winger in,full back in,or the half break,or loop all standard moves.The All Blacks scrum was badly underpowered from the 2-3-2 outlawing till mid 1949.The 1935-6 ,1937 especially,and possibly 1949 were all effected by this,but 1949 was mainly due to goal kicking difference.Boks kicked em,all Blacks did`nt.Immediatly pre war the Victor Cavanaghs jr and sr.at various clubs and with Otago.Evolved the Otago game,for ward orientated rock solid set pieces[tries being created by moves mentioned earlier]or tactical kicking.Then the RUCK in its basic form,the first two forwards arriving stood over the ball after a tackle and BOUND.Each player joining rushed in with correct body angle,and explosive driving hit the ruck then bound.Eventually you had a 2-3-2,or 3-3-2 driving scrum the ball either emerged rapidly,or was held and driven.Defending side had to watch the off side law as the scrum was moving forward.The Ruck was also described as a loose scrum or a dynamic ruck.The Maul sometime was described as a static ruck.When forming a ruck ploys were evolved in taking the tackle to form a ruck.Immediatly tackled the player usually Ron Elvidge[in later years Ian Macrae]released the ball,rolled away then sprinted back to his position,Vic Cavanagh sides were drilled like a swiss watch.If the blindside wing entered it was between the centres,full back OUTSIDE the winger.There a couple of stories told about Cavanagh,first after a match he went in to the dressing room
walked up to player A "saw a lot of you today " the player pleased with himself then came "Who was doing all your work when you were running about ".Then walked uo to player B " did`nt see much of you well done !!!" Otago losing badly Cavanagh is steaming heads for the dressing room.then stands there silent for several minutes.As there about to go back on "Out you go Girls" Otago tore them apart the second half man management.There were two schools of thought in NZ post war.The forward game of the South island and the style perfected by the Kiwi`s in the North island[running ,fast unloading style].To be a seagull was the biggest insult to a forward in Nz.In 1949 the All Blacks trying to play running Rugby lost every test to Sa and Australia.1950 on they played mostly 10 man for 15 years.losing only a single narrow series to the Boks in 1960.Roy John famous Welsh Lock said the Otago side he played
against in 1950 was the best he ever faced including the All Blacks!!!

Crikey emack thats a bit of knowledge tucked away.
I painted my apartment blue and yellow to commemorate the first NZ team to leave our shores