Beauden Barrett wins world player of the year award!!

First topic message reminder :

https://www.worldrugby.org/news/293375

Shortlist:
BEAUDEN BARRETT (NEW ZEALAND)
The 26-year-old could become only the second player to win the prestigious accolade two years in a row after another impressive season in the All Blacks No.10 jersey. He celebrated his 50th test against Samoa with a two-try, 24-point haul and a piece of All Blacks history alongside his brothers, and finished the Lions series as top point scorer with 41. The attack-minded fly-half, who is equally at home at full-back, continued to torment defences with his instinctive play and captained the All Blacks for the first time in the non-capped victory over the Barbarians earlier this month.

OWEN FARRELL (ENGLAND AND LIONS)
Another player nominated for the second year running and third time in total, Farrell continued to pull the strings for England and the Lions at inside centre in 2017. He started all five tests in England’s victorious Six Nations campaign, reaching 50 caps for his country against Italy in February and breaking through 600 test points in the final round loss to Ireland. The 26-year-old also started the three tests on the Lions tour of New Zealand, the first of them at fly-half, and contributed 31 points in the drawn series.

ISRAEL FOLAU (AUSTRALIA)
The oldest of the nominees at 28, Folau has been back to his scintillating best in 2017. The full-back came into the year without a try in his previous 11 tests, but rediscovered his scoring touch to set a new Australian record for tries in a calendar year with 12 in his 10 tests, failing to cross the line in only two matches. The first Wallaby to score doubles in three consecutive tests back in June, he was joint top try-scorer in the Rugby Championship and will be missed on their end of year tour after electing to take a break after a long season.

RIEKO IOANE (NEW ZEALAND)
Ioane, the youngest of the nominees at only 20, is also nominated for the World Rugby Breakthrough Player of the Year award having made the All Blacks starting left-wing spot his own following a two-try haul in his first test start against the British and Irish Lions in June. He then shared the top try-scoring honour in the Rugby Championship after topping the charts for defenders beaten, clean breaks and metres made, and arrives in Europe with a record of eight tries in as nine starts this year.

MARO ITOJE (ENGLAND AND LIONS)
The Breakthrough Player of the Year in 2016, Itoje is nominated for this prestigious award for the second year running after continuing his impressive form in 2017. Deployed at blindside flanker, rather than second-row, throughout England’s victorious Six Nations campaign, his performances ensured his place on the British and Irish Lions tour to New Zealand. He came off the bench in the first test and earned a starting spot in the second-row for the remaining tests.

Winner: Barrett

Sgt_Pooly wrote:NZ scrum is much stronger without Frank's and Moody. Franks is an average to poor Int scrummager but has great work rate, you can see why he fits NZ.

Mako is such a lottery come scrum time. He can be awesome or dire, not his strongest skill which is a problem. What he does bring is carrying, work rate (10+ tackles at a min) and fantastic hands.

Mako's jackling is also as good you will get from any prop, his technique reminds me a lot of Rory Best who is a front row master of the turnover. Baring in mind that he is 26 and has the time to work on it, if he can develop his scrum work he really would be a force to be reckoned with.

Agree on Franks, but I think Whitelock is brilliant and would definitely have him in the top 5 locks

I'm probably biased, but its the two NZ guys and Itoje, Lawes and Launchbury for me

Agree on Whitelock, outstanding lock. I'd go as far as top 3 with Retallick no 1.

The difference is the way NZ treat the Scrum,they always hook the ball,not try to collapse it to milk penalties.Can`t
remember the last time they lost the ball on their own feed.

Always holier than thou.

NO under the new rulings hookers MUST attempt to hook the ball.

emack2 wrote:NO under the new rulings hookers MUST attempt to hook the ball.

In theory only.

Any Welsh battlers make the top 100?

ebop wrote:Any Welsh battlers make the top 100?

You must have looked at the list provided in order to Identify the NZ players so you could not have missed Jonathan Davies at high ranking of 7 in the world. Is that good enough for you?

I know you are just being a pathetic WUM again in order to get a rise out of the Welsh posters. Its a real shame you do this actually and I wish you would stop. In fact, I wish the Mods would do something about posters like you ruining this site

Ah, Jonathon Davis is #7

Thanks eirebilly

Holier than thou in not committing fouls at the scrum. They do. Everyone does.

Some more than others

Indeed. To pretend a team is above a deliberate foul is just lying to yourself.

Guess so, but when it’s the default is when stereotypes develop

The default level of every team will cheat when they're on the field holds up pretty well.

eirebilly wrote:I know you are just being a pathetic WUM again in order to get a rise out of the Welsh posters. Its a real shame you do this actually and I wish you would stop. In fact, I wish the Mods would do something about posters like you ruining this site

It’s overly sensitive crybabies that ruin forums ‘EIREBILLY’ They complain, sulk and think they control the narrative.

Jonathon Davis isn’t the 7th best player in the world, not even close. Is he the guy that wears the hat? He is very far from being the 7th best player in the world, lol. Is that a token thing?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:NZ scrum is much stronger without Frank's and Moody. Franks is an average to poor Int scrummager but has great work rate, you can see why he fits NZ.

Mako is such a lottery come scrum time. He can be awesome or dire, not his strongest skill which is a problem. What he does bring is carrying, work rate (10+ tackles at a min) and fantastic hands.

No its not, Moody is our best loosehead followed by Hames and the sometimes performing Crockett. Like Mako, Moody excels in the loose which for NZ purposes makes him the better prop as we will always go for mobility between two close scrummagers and both are fine there. Franks will have to push forward in 2018 as players like Laulua are fast running him down. Our props are fine and all uninjured we have a better position than anyone going forward.

If youre saying Crockett at 34 and an AB part timer his whole career, or Hames, the newcomer, and frankly quite poor around the field are better options than Moody then Id love to hear your reasons, because frankly, I think its just another of your bland statements regarding propping that dont carry any merit at all.

And... nothing wrong with that. But be nice to hear how you come to that fonding?

Tabloids, perhaps?

ebop wrote:Ah, Jonathon Davis is #7

Thanks eirebilly

Yes well thankfully whoever picks these things dont pick the All Blacks. Dont see how Hooper and Davies, and probably a couple of others get ahead of Ioane on the list.

The biggest mistake here though is putting Farrell at 1. As a creator of play hes behind many 10s or 12s in 2017. In the Lions series he was ok, goalkicking was ok when needed them but he did missed some still but for any rugby source to place a player of his very minor status as a playmaker in the modern game borders on ignorance.

Hes very good at what he does but if we are going to celebrate average at the top of our game then were in big trouble. ABs wouldnt pick him, certainly not at 10, perhaps at 12 but he would have to improve his ability to link with players, increase his work rate, improve his tackling, which was average at Lions time. He has zero x factor, is solid, and with it just as predictable.

Compare his match to match overall stats to others in his position and he pales considerably.

Love these lists.

Never get why people didn't see and probably don't see the tactics employed by the likes of saracens england and the lions in the summer isn't to necessarily make the first up tackle but atop the ball getting wide early.

Is that why Farrell topped that list 7.5?

These lists tend to be click bait. Not even read this one tbh so don't know if they include reasoning on their decision or who made it. I've been pretty clear that I judge retallick to be the best rugby player in the world. Farrell is underrated by many, though tends to be more by fans than pundits players or coaches.

No 7&1/2 wrote:These lists tend to be click bait. Not even read this one tbh so don't know if they include reasoning on their decision or who made it. I've been pretty clear that I judge retallick  to be the best rugby player in the world. Farrell is underrated by many, though tends to be more by fans than pundits players or coaches.

Yeah Farrell can be underrated where here he is definitely being overated. He has improved his game which now includes be able to play well at 10 and 12.

But if youre going to be at the top of the tree you have to have something special, and Farrell is still largely a solid, goalkicking back. Barrett has more rugby talent in his little finger than Farrell ever will have but for those seeking a safe performance, reliability, kicks at goal then Farrels your man. Just dont expect any bright coloured fireworks, or an exhausted player after 80 minutes.

Last test the two both played, draw at Auckland:

Farrell:
7 meters ran
1 cln brk
1 def beaten
2 turnovers
8 tackles made, 5 missed
12 points

Barrett:
78 m ran
1 cln break
3 defenders beaten
3 turnovers
3 tackles made, 0 missed.
5 points

Farrells work rate is poor and his stats compare pretty much this way across the board. He doesnt get involved enough, doesnt create play.

First tests even worse:
Bb:
31m run
1 cln brks
4 Def btn
2 offloads
3 turnovers
Made 3 tackles missed 1
15 points

Farrell:
7 m ran
CB, DB, Offloads, turnovers all 0
Made 11 tackles missed 2

Didnt add the second test as Farrell was at 12 and NZ lost theirs half way through.

And from a NZ point of view Barrett had a poor series.
Farrell certainly fared no better.

ebop wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I know you are just being a pathetic WUM again in order to get a rise out of the Welsh posters. Its a real shame you do this actually and I wish you would stop. In fact, I wish the Mods would do something about posters like you ruining this site

It’s overly sensitive crybabies that ruin forums ‘EIREBILLY’ They complain, sulk and think they control the narrative.

Jonathon Davis isn’t the 7th best player in the world, not even close. Is he the guy that wears the hat? He is very far from being the 7th best player in the world, lol. Is that a token thing?

Ignore him eirebilly, he knows the square root of diddly about rugby....dismissed Barrett as being poor in the year that everyone else rated him as having his Best Year.

Ffs

Taylorman wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:NZ scrum is much stronger without Frank's and Moody. Franks is an average to poor Int scrummager but has great work rate, you can see why he fits NZ.

Mako is such a lottery come scrum time. He can be awesome or dire, not his strongest skill which is a problem. What he does bring is carrying, work rate (10+ tackles at a min) and fantastic hands.

No its not, Moody is our best loosehead followed by Hames and the sometimes performing Crockett. Like Mako, Moody excels in the loose which for NZ purposes makes him the better prop as we will always go for mobility between two close scrummagers and both are fine there. Franks will have to push forward in 2018 as players like Laulua are fast running him down. Our props are fine and all uninjured we have a better position than anyone going forward.

If youre saying Crockett at 34 and an AB part timer his whole career, or Hames, the newcomer, and frankly quite poor around the field are better options than Moody then Id love to hear your reasons, because frankly, I think its just another of your bland statements regarding propping that dont carry any merit at all.

And... nothing wrong with that. But be nice to hear how you come to that fonding?

Tabloids, perhaps?

I rarely read papers Taylor, I just watch games.

I don't think you're reading my comment....as normal. I'm saying the NZ scrum is stronger without Franks and Moody (more so Franks tbh). I'm not saying they're not good props, you're putting words in my mouth yet again.

Crockett is dire, I'm happy in that regard. Hames and Laulua are excellent scrummagers and have took your set piece from being a problem to an offensive weapon over the past year year or so.

Franks isnt a great scrummager but excellent in other aspects, a bit like Mako for us.

We have been through this before.

Think you're missing out a lot of stats there on 2 players Taylor but a lot of people do just focus on pretty play.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:NZ scrum is much stronger without Frank's and Moody. Franks is an average to poor Int scrummager but has great work rate, you can see why he fits NZ.

Mako is such a lottery come scrum time. He can be awesome or dire, not his strongest skill which is a problem. What he does bring is carrying, work rate (10+ tackles at a min) and fantastic hands.

No its not, Moody is our best loosehead followed by Hames and the sometimes performing Crockett. Like Mako, Moody excels in the loose which for NZ purposes makes him the better prop as we will always go for mobility between two close scrummagers and both are fine there. Franks will have to push forward in 2018 as players like Laulua are fast running him down. Our props are fine and all uninjured we have a better position than anyone going forward.

If youre saying Crockett at 34 and an AB part timer his whole career, or Hames, the newcomer, and frankly quite poor around the field are better options than Moody then Id love to hear your reasons, because frankly, I think its just another of your bland statements regarding propping that dont carry any merit at all.

And... nothing wrong with that. But be nice to hear how you come to that fonding?

Tabloids, perhaps?

I rarely read papers Taylor, I just watch games.

I don't think you're reading my comment....as normal. I'm saying the NZ scrum is stronger without Franks and Moody (more so Franks tbh). I'm not saying they're not good props, you're putting words in my mouth yet again.

Crockett is dire, I'm happy in that regard. Hames and Laulua are excellent scrummagers and have took your set piece from being a problem to an offensive weapon over the past year year or so.

Franks isnt a great scrummager but excellent in other aspects, a bit like Mako for us.

We have been through this before.

Yep true, nothings changed. And you dont play 95 tests and win two world cups without being a great scrummager.

I can just imagine England winning two world cups in a row.. well I cant quite... but if they had and the same prop anchored the scrum as successfully as the ABs did as well as that player having a 90 odd % win rate when he played- in trying to argue the player isnt a great prop Id feel a bit of an idiot without some decemt facts to support it but you seem to do ok so we wont go there again- Im not really into a lack of facts and blase statements....As we know. You plodder on with your little anecdotes though. All good.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Think you're missing out a lot of stats there on 2 players Taylor but a lot of people do just focus on pretty play.

Thats just the first two I looked at, one of them being a draw.
Think youll find Farrells will be generally lacking in terms of numbers in those areas.
Flashy? What on earth does that mean? Farrell isnt flashy? With that haircut?

Its about involvement, creating, contributing not just having a mistake free repetoire.

When have I said Farrell is flashy? Just pointing out that to judge players yu need to look at the bigger picture. Both fantastic players but very different. I've pointed out things where looking at missed tackles can be misleading for instance. For me Farrell is the better 10. Personally think Barrett is maybe gong to be more a 15. Like england though you have a player that can slot in a couple of places for the overall benefit of the team.

No 7&1/2 wrote:When have I said Farrell is flashy? Just pointing out that to judge players yu need to look at the bigger picture. Both fantastic players but very different. I've pointed out things where looking at missed tackles can be misleading for instance. For me Farrell is the better 10. Personally think Barrett is maybe gong to be more a 15. Like england though you have a player that can slot in a couple of places for the overall benefit of the team.

Yes and my point is completely lost on you. We win matches through doing stuff, through pushing boundaries, through taking risks. Its essential. Its about what each person can possibly contribute in the period theyre on, not about what mistakes they dont make.

Farrells never push a boundary in his career. If our 10 pushed those sorts of numbers out theyd be on the next flight home, thats if they managed to get selected on the first place. They must come off the field having done everything possible to expose the weaknesses of the opposition, whether thats by run kick or pass. Cruden was better at that, barrett has other skills and a rugby speed like no other.

Anyway, never mind, its clearly a north south thing. Will stop banging my head now.

Why can't you get 95 caps without being a top scrummager? Franks has done this as hes been the best NZ have had and they've worked round have a good scrum. I don't know why you're so defensive about this, I'm openly admitting Laulua is strong in the set piece.

Hayes, Jenkins etc were never that strong in the set piece but amassed many caps. You deal with what you have. Mako will probably get 100 caps but I'd never suggest hes a strong scrummager.

Poor way of judging Taylor.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Why can't you get 95 caps without being a top scrummager? Franks has done this as hes been the best NZ have had and they've worked round have a good scrum. I don't know why you're so defensive about this, I'm openly admitting Laulua is strong in the set piece.

Hayes, Jenkins etc were never that strong in the set piece but amassed many caps. You deal with what you have. Mako will probably get 100 caps but I'd never suggest hes a strong scrummager.

Well I guess our interpretation of top is open to interpretation. Anyway far more knowledgeable people than you have expressed Franks world class scrummaging ability to the extent that there are few, if any better in his period as prop. He certainly has not had one person that has unsettled him on a regular basis. Anyway, Ill just put it down to naievety and lack evidence.. blandness shall we call it. All good.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Poor way of judging Taylor.

As opposed to what? Ooh let me see, i fink umm, hmm...

Yeah. That works. All good 7.5.

Taylorman wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Why can't you get 95 caps without being a top scrummager? Franks has done this as hes been the best NZ have had and they've worked round have a good scrum. I don't know why you're so defensive about this, I'm openly admitting Laulua is strong in the set piece.

Hayes, Jenkins etc were never that strong in the set piece but amassed many caps. You deal with what you have. Mako will probably get 100 caps but I'd never suggest hes a strong scrummager.

Well I guess our interpretation of top is open to interpretation. Anyway far more knowledgeable people than you have expressed Franks world class scrummaging ability to the extent that there are few, if any better in his period as prop. He certainly has not had one person that has unsettled him on a regular basis. Anyway, Ill just put it down to naievety and lack evidence.. blandness shall we call it. All good.

Yet again, you're getting worked up and personally attacking me because I have an opinion that you don't agree with, there's really no need taylor.

Nobody outside NZ would state Franks has been one of the best scrummaging props of his generation, that's one of the funniest things I've heard for a while. He's a bloody good player.....top scrummager no. I don't need a pundit to tell me what I should think, I've been watching Franks for years and I feel in a good position to forge an opinion, if you disagree....no problem.

Hayman was the last top scrummager you had and he was just immense. I had the pleasure to watch him live for Falcons on a number of occasions and he was a joy to behold. He made every LH he played with look world class as he was was so dominant, one of the best ever.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Why can't you get 95 caps without being a top scrummager? Franks has done this as hes been the best NZ have had and they've worked round have a good scrum. I don't know why you're so defensive about this, I'm openly admitting Laulua is strong in the set piece.

Hayes, Jenkins etc were never that strong in the set piece but amassed many caps. You deal with what you have. Mako will probably get 100 caps but I'd never suggest hes a strong scrummager.

Well I guess our interpretation of top is open to interpretation. Anyway far more knowledgeable people than you have expressed Franks world class scrummaging ability to the extent that there are few, if any better in his period as prop. He certainly has not had one person that has unsettled him on a regular basis. Anyway, Ill just put it down to naievety and lack evidence.. blandness shall we call it. All good.

Yet again, you're getting worked up and personally attacking me because I have an opinion that you don't agree with, there's really no need taylor.

Nobody outside NZ would state Franks has been one of the best scrummaging props of his generation, that's one of the funniest things I've heard for a while. He's a bloody good player.....top scrummager no. I don't need a pundit to tell me what I should think, I've been watching Franks for years and I feel in a good position to forge an opinion, if you disagree....no problem.

Hayman was the last top scrummager you had and he was just immense. I had the pleasure to watch him live for Falcons on a number of occasions and he was a joy to behold. He made every LH he played with look world class as he was was so dominant, one of the best ever.  

Yes its good having a wee chuckle now and then, the list of better scrummagers just seems to flow effortlessly.

Heyman, though somewhat of a deserter was easily the best tighthead of his day, though hard to compare once he lowered himself to menial club matches only but just because Franks wasnt in Heymans class as a top scrummager., doesnt mean he wasnt a top scrummager. Anyway, glad to leave it there. Next time you waddle off your little not rating Franks comment ... again...Ill leave you with it.

I do rate Franks.....as I've already said. I just rate him as a top scrummager which isn't that controversial.

It would be easier to list worse scrummagers than Franks at the top level tbh, although I'd still struggle. Laulua has stepped in transformed your scrum so will take some shifting, unless the work rate of Franks is preferred to the superior scruming.

Taylorman wrote:Yes its good having a wee chuckle now and then, the list of better scrummagers just seems to flow effortlessly.

Slimani, Furlong, Cole. How's that for a start? Although Cole for me is past his best.

Farrell is not an expansive or flashy? I have seen him be flashy on many occasions but he is very much restricted by the coaches game plan (One of the reasons I feel he is also very good as he is so structured). People should see the bigger picture of a team game (game plan) rather than focus on individuals flashy skills.

The last time I truly saw him be 'flashy' was when Lancaster was the England coach and England put the AB's to the sword.

Farrell for me, suffers from the Wilkinson curse in that he is only seen as a kicker when in actual fact he is a very very good all round player and when given the opportunity can be very attacking.

Scottrf wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Yes its good having a wee chuckle now and then, the list of better scrummagers just seems to flow effortlessly.

Slimani, Furlong, Cole. How's that for a start? Although Cole for me is past his best.

Nel, Atonio, Herrera, Koch, Kepu.....fit and on form are stronger scrummagers, not necessarily better players though.

As opposed to viewing the player as a whole team tactics etc. If you want to look at a ten and then breaks without the bigger picture if you want to try and suggest that Farrell is a poor tackler without understanding what he's been asked to do; well of course you can but it detracts from your point for me.

I wouldn't immediately pick Farrell either but teams he is in tend to win a lot of games, and I guess he contributes a lot to that. He's not a great runner and will never match the kinds of stats quoted for the NZ 10's, but it has to be said that fancy running does not win matches, points do.

Since you guys love lists so much, just thought I'd share some more with you from Rugby Vision, Only 2 New Zealand clubs in the World top 3, How could thid be?

https://twitter.com/rugbyvision?lang=en

Interesting. The Argentinian national side would only be 9th in the Aviva Prem...

lostinwales wrote:I wouldn't immediately pick Farrell either but teams he is in tend to win a lot of games, and I guess he contributes a lot to that. He's not a great runner and will never match the kinds of stats quoted for the NZ 10's, but it has to be said that fancy running does not win matches, points do.

As I said above, I do believe that Farrell is limited by the game plans at Sarries and England somewhat. I do believe he has the ability to be a very attacking and flashy player but sticks to the game plan. I am not a fan of Farrell by any stretch of the imagination but he is certainly up there as one of the best rugby players in the world.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I do rate Franks.....as I've already said. I just rate him as a top scrummager which isn't that controversial.

It would be easier to list worse scrummagers than Franks at the top level tbh, although I'd still struggle. Laulua has stepped in transformed your scrum so will take some shifting, unless the work rate of Franks is preferred to the superior scruming.

Yeah fair enough, its not in NZs interest to pick tight five positions based solely on the core role anyway. Hansens on record as saying hes the best prop in the world and that will be for his non scrum role as well. Hes injured now and isnt back till May so could struggle to hold his position through to 19. We are still good with those coming through and whatever the do lack in scrummaging Mike Cron will fix.

eirebilly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I wouldn't immediately pick Farrell either but teams he is in tend to win a lot of games, and I guess he contributes a lot to that. He's not a great runner and will never match the kinds of stats quoted for the NZ 10's, but it has to be said that fancy running does not win matches, points do.

As I said above, I do believe that Farrell is limited by the game plans at Sarries and England somewhat. I do believe he has the ability to be a very attacking and flashy player but sticks to the game plan. I am not a fan of Farrell by any stretch of the imagination but he is certainly up there as one of the best rugby players in the world.

Yes he is, my point was thats hes not THE best in the world and thats more for what he doesnt do than what he does. But that is understandably a north south difference. While Barrett probably could not be better than he is Farrell probably could and that irks us kiwis. We believe no player, back or forward, should leave anything out on the field.

Farrells structured approach might be some sort of calming influence on the side where his team dont see him trying things he probably shouldnt but despite what people think a greater percentage of a rugby match is unstructured and thats where we think the gains are to be made. And thats why we expect all our players to have high levels of skill and speed in those areas, especially in the tight.

Its why we can get guys like Retallick scoring on the end of a seventy meter try. We train them to extend themselves and we license them to use it, anywhere and everywhere they can.

You call it flashy, we call it an essential and core part of winning. And the 10 is at the crux of it all, simply because that is the best position on the field to apply multiple variations of play.

Thats where Farrell lacks as far as I am concerned. If he were our 10 the first change would be to install a more effective link game with his backs. Guys like Ioane, Smith, Naholo need to be put away in space and its the 10 that initiates that as a core part of the role. When I watch him he frustrates by doing a mostly 'ticksheet' stuff.

Does it well but its just not enough. I can see why Jones doesnt like him at 10, simply because hes not creative enough. Great player, just not THE best in the world, thats selling others way too short.

Yeah you'd never see a nh foward getting on the end of a length of the field move to score a try.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah you'd never see a nh foward getting on the end of a length of the field move to score a try.

Perhaps only the Irish one you are thinking of. Surely no-one else

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah you'd never see a nh foward getting on the end of a length of the field move to score a try.

Perhaps only the Irish one you are thinking of. Surely no-one else

Well Tom Croft used to get criticisized for doing it