World Player of the Year 2018 - UPDATED

First topic message reminder :

Nominees Announced:

Beauden Barrett
Jonathan Sexton
Malcolm Marx
Faf de Klerk
Reiko Ioane

https://www.balls.ie/rugby/johnny-sexton-award-400031

Surprised to see Barrett make the list but all others not really unexpected. Sexton's to lose?

Previous article:

Young Player of the Year Nominees:

https://www.world.rugby/news/374327
Jordan Larmour (Ireland)
APHIWE DYANTYI (SOUTH AFRICA)
KARL TU’INUKUAFE (NEW ZEALAND)

ebop wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:World IRB nominees if collapse were to chose them, in no particular order would be:-

THE WHOLE IRELAND SQUAD.

back up would be:-

THE WHOLE LEINSTER SQUAD.


Then there's the rest.

God youre stupid. Did you read the article?

When the ABs wipe the floor with Ireland in their own back yard this November it’s going to be fun winding you up

Nah, it wont be, he’ll disappear for a while until its safe to come out. We could lose that match, but not because of anything guns has said.

You're right because I haven't said anything about Ireland winning that game. I have only generally passed comment on games in the past.

When the ABs beat Ireland up in Dublin and kept them try-less, Guns was one of the biggest sooky bubbas along with BOD. It was a real eye opener. I knew Irish people can be overly emotional but the amount of shed tears was off the scale.

ebop wrote:When the ABs beat Ireland up in Dublin and kept them try-less, Guns was one of the biggest sooky bubbas along with BOD. It was a real eye opener. I knew Irish people can be overly emotional but the amount of shed tears was off the scale.

I don't think anyone could compete with Hansen's whinging after the last test. It is really funny how NZ went into meltdown over the ABs being called dirty and then fast forward to the Lions tour and they got their first red card in 50 years and no one saw it coming. Bahahaha

Taylorman wrote: We could lose that match, but not because of anything guns has said.

If you do lose the game it'll be because Ireland were lent some Welsh players of course. We all know Ireland can't win against SH competition without the need for some of Lord's bunch helping us out

ebop wrote:When the ABs beat Ireland up in Dublin and kept them try-less, Guns was one of the biggest sooky bubbas along with BOD. It was a real eye opener. I knew Irish people can be overly emotional but the amount of shed tears was off the scale.

Why do you blame his 'Irishness' for some of Gun's characteristics? As far as I recall he's a bit of a Schmidt in terms of dual-identity? I could be wrong but I seem to recall that morsel coming out previously?

I'm getting a little sick looking at what appears to me to be a bunch of SH style minds fighting with each other and then branding it somehow an Irish v Kiwi battle................

Collapse2005 wrote:

ebop wrote:When the ABs beat Ireland up in Dublin and kept them try-less, Guns was one of the biggest sooky bubbas along with BOD. It was a real eye opener. I knew Irish people can be overly emotional but the amount of shed tears was off the scale.

I don't think anyone could compete with Hansen's whinging after the last test. It is really funny how NZ went into meltdown over the ABs being called dirty and then fast forward to the Lions tour and they got their first red card in 50 years and no one saw it coming. Bahahaha

Hansen whinging? He was more astounded at the amount of sooky bubbering coming out of Ireland. Honestly, the amount of salty tears from Ireland after that game drowned out any sense of achievement felt from winning that game. It really detracted from the win and was unprecedented.

ebop wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

ebop wrote:When the ABs beat Ireland up in Dublin and kept them try-less, Guns was one of the biggest sooky bubbas along with BOD. It was a real eye opener. I knew Irish people can be overly emotional but the amount of shed tears was off the scale.

I don't think anyone could compete with Hansen's whinging after the last test. It is really funny how NZ went into meltdown over the ABs being called dirty and then fast forward to the Lions tour and they got their first red card in 50 years and no one saw it coming. Bahahaha

Hansen whinging? He was more astounded at the amount of sooky bubbering coming out of Ireland. Honestly, the amount of salty tears from Ireland after that game drowned out any sense of achievement felt from winning that game. It really detracted from the win and was unprecedented.

I found it really funny how much he crumbled when the Irish presenter put a few difficult questions to him.

They funniest part apart from his off the chart whinge was the fact that the Irish presenter was absolutely correct in her assessment as the ABs copped a ban the following week and a red in the subsequent Lions tour. It was a classic.

In fairness to poor old Hansen he is used to people back home telling him how amazing he is all the time so it is probably quite hard for him to stay in touch with reality at times.

Collapse2005 wrote:

ebop wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

ebop wrote:When the ABs beat Ireland up in Dublin and kept them try-less, Guns was one of the biggest sooky bubbas along with BOD. It was a real eye opener. I knew Irish people can be overly emotional but the amount of shed tears was off the scale.

I don't think anyone could compete with Hansen's whinging after the last test. It is really funny how NZ went into meltdown over the ABs being called dirty and then fast forward to the Lions tour and they got their first red card in 50 years and no one saw it coming. Bahahaha

Hansen whinging? He was more astounded at the amount of sooky bubbering coming out of Ireland. Honestly, the amount of salty tears from Ireland after that game drowned out any sense of achievement felt from winning that game. It really detracted from the win and was unprecedented.

I found it really funny how much he crumbled when the Irish presenter put a few difficult questions to him.

They funniest part apart from his off the chart whinge was the fact that the Irish presenter was absolutely correct in her assessment as the ABs copped a ban the following week and a red in the subsequent Lions tour. It was a classic.

In fairness to poor old Hansen he is used to people back home telling him how amazing he is all the time so it is probably quite hard for him to stay in touch with reality at times.

That Irish presenter was a bit salty after seeing her boys get beat up. She was no doubt choking back the tears  like a lot of yas. Very ungracious losers that day, lol.

Even though she was proven right? That's the funniest part. Hansen simply isn't used to people telling him the truth, he couldn't handle it.

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote: We could lose that match, but not because of anything guns has said.

If you do lose the game it'll be because Ireland were lent some Welsh players of course.  We all know Ireland can't win against SH competition without the need for some of Lord's bunch helping us out

Like the Lions.

Look you'd start crying too if you were a Damsel in distress and had to interview Herman Munster after a game!

She woz terrified!

At least he had the good grace to remove the bolt before approaching her.

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote: We could lose that match, but not because of anything guns has said.

If you do lose the game it'll be because Ireland were lent some Welsh players of course.  We all know Ireland can't win against SH competition without the need for some of Lord's bunch helping us out

Like the Lions.

Yeah, that jamboree, Lord. When Irish players have to cut down their win rate to satisfy a brotherly lurve kinda travelling circus jaunt

She was unprofessional and badgering Hansen. He doesn’t suffer fools and especially over emotional ungracious post game interviewers.

ebop wrote:She was unprofessional and badgering Hansen. He doesn’t suffer fools and especially over emotional ungracious post game interviewers.

Haha that's the best one yet. Oh boo hoo she was unprofessional, poor Hansen the meanie Irish presenter asked him a tough question. Haha, you're an even bigger whinge bag than Hansen.

Collapse2005 wrote:

ebop wrote:She was unprofessional and badgering Hansen. He doesn’t suffer fools and especially over emotional ungracious post game interviewers.

Haha that's the best one yet. Oh boo hoo she was unprofessional, poor Hansen the meanie Irish presenter asked him a tough question. Haha, you're an even bigger whinge bag than Hansen.

Lol, you’re the one whinging because he basically told her to f**k off after repeatedly asking a stupid question. Beating Ireland up that day did feel good.

Well that's the point it wasn't at all stupid because she turned out to be absolutely right, the citing commissioner agreed with her and the ABs shot themselves in the foot with their own dirty play in the Lions tour once again proving her right. The joke is on you and Hansen, Ebop. Haha.

ebop wrote:She was unprofessional and badgering Hansen. He doesn’t suffer fools and especially over emotional ungracious post game interviewers.

Ebop, Hansen doesn't suffer fools gladly even when he's looking in the mirror.

Come on, just admit it, he growls at his own reflection every morning, asking his wife: "Who the f**k is this guy in the bathroom with me? I told you I wasn't going to stand for this guy bein' around every morning. At least have the dycency to tike it to a hotel!"

It'll be a laugh if Joe DID become AB coach in the future.... the Kiwi's would get a real shock as their coach smiled and grimaced painfully and joked with the media (especially the Irish media - he's on first name basis with the female interviewer )

After his first season he'll probably be tried for Treason for being too kind and communicative with the enemy in war!

No Guns, the joke is really on you and all the other Irish sooky bubbas that day because even though the ABs had just convincingly beat Ireland, the over emotional ungracious post game interviewer only wanted to talk about discipline. It was pathetic. Cane wasn’t cited. Fekitoa’s tackle was but it was hardly worthy of the pathetic aftermath that transpired.

Dirty play in the Lions? What a mistimed tackle from SBW? Anything else? What about SOB kneeing Naholo in the head. Ireland players have form with that don’t they mate?

Hansen lives in cloud cuckoo land. He spouts utter nonsense in post match interviews that directly contradicts what has happened on the pitch in front of the cameras minutes earlier. After Fekitoa clotheslined Zebo he actually came out and said that "he didn't impede him". That's a level of arrogance that could only be attained after years of dealing with a fawning media and public back home. The NZ media reaction to a reporter daring to ask him to give a straight answer was even worse, thinly veiled sexism.

The reaction in NZ was really just astonishment at the level of melt down in Ireland. As I said, it was off the charts. You had every single Irish hasbeen rugby player and pundit putting their 2c in and it was pretty funny to be fair. That day and the aftermath showed us a side of Ireland we’d not really seen before.

ebop wrote: What about SOB kneeing Naholo in the head. Ireland players have form with that don’t they mate?

Hansen: I don't know this player, Nabludo? Naluditito? Anyway, his family'ill be proud of him, I suppose. They thought they produced a son maybe, and now they know different. SOB never hit the bloke. It's rugby, are you going to tell me that these plyers are wanting protection from being hit? Maybe they picked the wrong sport. Maybe this Narhole bloke is a closet snooker plyer, mate"

ebop wrote:No Guns, the joke is really on you and all the other Irish sooky bubbas that day because even though the ABs had just convincingly beat Ireland, the over emotional ungracious post game interviewer only wanted to talk about discipline. It was pathetic. Cane wasn’t cited. Fekitoa’s tackle was but it was hardly worthy of the pathetic aftermath that transpired.

Dirty play in the Lions? What a mistimed tackle from SBW? Anything else? What about SOB kneeing Naholo in the head. Ireland players have form with that don’t they mate?

SOB kneeing Naholo in the head. Bahahaha now I know you definitely haven't a clue what you are talking about. It wasn't a knee it was a fairly innocuous forearm while joining a maul.

ebop wrote:The reaction in NZ was really just astonishment at the level of melt down in Ireland. As I said, it was off the charts. You had every single Irish hasbeen rugby player and pundit putting their 2c in and it was pretty funny to be fair. That day and the aftermath showed us a side of Ireland we’d not really seen before.

They funniest part is the general populous in NZ ended up with egg on their face as Hansen was proven well and truly wrong. You still cant see it. Lol.

Ah yes you’re right, a swinging forearm from SOB that knocked Naholo out and no citing

O'Bryynne, O'Byrnen, OByenan.... anyway, that guy - he's clean as a whistle player.  Never even been carded, mate, in his entire career.

Proven wrong how Guns?

ebop wrote:Ah yes you’re right, a swinging forearm from SOB that knocked Naholo out and no citing

Well it would have been daft to cite it. It wasn't exactly swinging either as his arm wasn't cocked backwards and he was just joining a maul the same way anyone joins a maul. Its unfortunate that Naholo got his head into a bad position.

Funny how on a thread about who is the best player in the world you haven't given your opinion on who you think it is but would rather talk about a whinge Hansen had two years ago. Why don't you set up a separate thread called Hansen's whinges. It would be a long thread.

ebop wrote:Proven wrong how Guns?

The Irish presenter described the ABs as "heavy handed". Hansen disagreed and yet he had a player banned the following week and his discipline issues followed his team into the Lions tour. Its fairly clear unless you live under a rock that he was wrong.

Engine#4 wrote:Hansen lives in cloud cuckoo land.  He spouts utter nonsense in post match interviews that directly contradicts what has happened on the pitch in front of the cameras minutes earlier.  After Fekitoa clotheslined Zebo he actually came out and said that "he didn't impede him".  That's a level of arrogance that could only be attained after years of dealing with a fawning media and public back home. The NZ media reaction to a reporter daring to ask him to give a straight answer was even worse, thinly veiled sexism.

Agree with all that. Not sure about the sexism part though. I just think the NZ populous just aren't used to anyone questioning anyone involved with the ABs as they are treated as untouchable in NZ.

How the lady was treated in the centre of the Aaron Smith toilet controversy really does add credence to the view that ABs are pretty much untouchable in NZ. She was given a fairly hard time over it despite the fact that Aaron Smith lied his a$$ off all throughout. Typical AB, default response is to deny guilt.

Engine#4 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Engine#4 wrote:Not starting a few games hasn't prevented players winning in the past but Retallick hasn't even had the best season of all locks in the world.

You are right however if you miss as many as Retallick has I dont think it would be right to win the award. I think James Ryan has had a bigger year than Retallick but Ryan is not established enough yet to win. Ryan played every test of the year too.

"Established". That being a perceived criteria doesn't say much for the award in my opinion. Ryan has played what, 25+ games of rugby all year?  Lost one. Stats off the charts.  Beat the best club sides in Europe; Montpellier, Racing, Exeter, Saracens, Scarlets, Munster, Glasgow.  Won the Grand Slam. Beat Australia, South Africa and Argentina.  Man of the Match in the European final and player of the tour down under yet won't be considered because he is not a name yet.

Yeah he must be good if he beat all those teams, I guess the rest of the team just made up the numbers.

Ryan was one of the best players all throughout to be fair.

Engine#4 wrote:"Established". That being a perceived criteria doesn't say much for the award in my opinion. Ryan has played what, 25+ games of rugby all year?  Lost one. Stats off the charts.  Beat the best club sides in Europe; Montpellier, Racing, Exeter, Saracens, Scarlets, Munster, Glasgow.  Won the Grand Slam. Beat Australia, South Africa and Argentina.  Man of the Match in the European final and player of the tour down under yet won't be considered because he is not a name yet.

None of the achievements you mentioned in bold count towards this award. It is only for national side performances.

Still, Ryan has a good shout if he excelled in the Tests. Experience won't count against him, since Owen Farrell was nominated in 2012, which was his debut year. England didn't win the 2012 Six Nations that year, and lost two Tests on tour in South Africa, so the record of the team you play for, is less important than the impression you create on the field.

Biltong wrote:

Engine#4 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Engine#4 wrote:Not starting a few games hasn't prevented players winning in the past but Retallick hasn't even had the best season of all locks in the world.

You are right however if you miss as many as Retallick has I dont think it would be right to win the award. I think James Ryan has had a bigger year than Retallick but Ryan is not established enough yet to win. Ryan played every test of the year too.

"Established". That being a perceived criteria doesn't say much for the award in my opinion. Ryan has played what, 25+ games of rugby all year?  Lost one. Stats off the charts.  Beat the best club sides in Europe; Montpellier, Racing, Exeter, Saracens, Scarlets, Munster, Glasgow.  Won the Grand Slam. Beat Australia, South Africa and Argentina.  Man of the Match in the European final and player of the tour down under yet won't be considered because he is not a name yet.

Yeah he must be good if he beat all those teams, I guess the rest of the team just made up the numbers.

That's exactly why this award is a crock of sh!t!

Rugby is a team sport so singling out an individual is contrary to the very ethos of the game. Players from the ABs should win the award every year because they have the best XV. Any player will 'look' good with 14 ABs around him, whereas in reality it may be the players who carry teams that win nothing who may be the real players of the year. Why should Barrett win the award when he has to rely on Smith to give him the ball, who has to rely on Read, who has to rely on Retallick, who has to rely on Taylor, etc...

This award is just another excuse for a black-tie junket and an excuse for WR to rack up some expenses in pursuit of self-promotion. If they were really wanting to promote the game they should be picking a player for every position, 1 to 15 and then make the overall winner Captain. It would still be the ABs team though but at least would go some way to assuage New Zealander fears that rugby is in any danger of not being the most important thing in the world.

Farrell was a bit of a leftfield inclusion that year to be fair. The panel being made up of UK based Skysports pundits probably influenced that one.

The Great Aukster wrote:

That's exactly why this award is a crock of sh!t!

Rugby is a team sport so singling out an individual is contrary to the very ethos of the game. Players from the ABs should win the award every year because they have the best XV. Any player will 'look' good with 14 ABs around him, whereas in reality it may be the players who carry teams that win nothing who may be the real players of the year. Why should Barrett win the award when he has to rely on Smith to give him the ball, who has to rely on Read, who has to rely on Retallick, who has to rely on Taylor, etc...

This award is just another excuse for a black-tie junket and an excuse for WR to rack up some expenses in pursuit of self-promotion. If they were really wanting to promote the game they should be picking a player for every position, 1 to 15 and then make the overall winner Captain. It would still be the ABs team though but at least would go some way to assuage New Zealander fears that rugby is in any danger of not being the most important thing in the world.

Based on 2018 why would it be the ABs team? I mean yes they are the best team in the world still but their achievements this year are almost identical to Ireland's. Both have lost just won one game. Both won their summer tour and both their domestic tournament albeit Ireland had to play higher ranked sides and got a grand slam and also had to play their summer tour away against a higher ranked side than NZ beat at home. I do still think NZ set the bar but you could easily make a case for Ireland's achievements being greater this year:

Gained more ranking points this year than NZ
Won a summer tour away
100% record at home.
Lost 1 test to 3rd ranked side away
NZ lost 1 test to 7th ranked side at home

etc. etc.

In any case it is an individual award based on player performances across games up to the start of November so team results shouldn't be that big a factor.

Gained more ranking points than NZ. Thats a funny one. Durr, you dont get as many when youre at the top. Not that you’ve ever had anything to do with that.

And its because Ireland didnt play the ABs that they were able to be so successful. Oz and SA play us 3 and 2 times a year, so yeah, remarkeable how the sides compare when one doesnt play the other.

Ireland have benefitted far more than NZ in terms of rankings with the recent drop in form by SA and Oz. Lets see how they would go when both actually have good teams as they used to.
Its not just about a stronger Ireland, but also a weaker SH contingent.

Teams that dont lose players in hordes to overseas pro sides just happen to be the ones improving. How...quaint.

Collapse2005 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

That's exactly why this award is a crock of sh!t!

Rugby is a team sport so singling out an individual is contrary to the very ethos of the game. Players from the ABs should win the award every year because they have the best XV. Any player will 'look' good with 14 ABs around him, whereas in reality it may be the players who carry teams that win nothing who may be the real players of the year. Why should Barrett win the award when he has to rely on Smith to give him the ball, who has to rely on Read, who has to rely on Retallick, who has to rely on Taylor, etc...

This award is just another excuse for a black-tie junket and an excuse for WR to rack up some expenses in pursuit of self-promotion. If they were really wanting to promote the game they should be picking a player for every position, 1 to 15 and then make the overall winner Captain. It would still be the ABs team though but at least would go some way to assuage New Zealander fears that rugby is in any danger of not being the most important thing in the world.

Based on 2018 why would it be the ABs team? I mean yes they are the best team in the world still but their achievements this year are almost identical to Ireland's. Both have lost just won one game. Both won their summer tour and both their domestic tournament albeit Ireland had to play higher ranked sides and got a grand slam and also had to play their summer tour away against a higher ranked side than NZ beat at home. I do still think NZ set the bar but you could easily make a case for Ireland's achievements being greater this year:

Gained more ranking points this year than NZ
Won a summer tour away
100% record at home.
Lost 1 test to 3rd ranked side away
NZ lost 1 test to 7th ranked side at home

etc. etc.

In any case it is an individual award based on player performances across games up to the start of November so team results shouldn't be that big a factor.

The individual award has no merit because any specific player's performance has to be taken in the context of his (or her) team. The promotion of one cog in a 15 part machine is arguably anti-rugby.

As a fantasy exercise with no objective basis to stimulate interminable debate - it is a success, and to be fair to WR it does get them into the news.

Taylorman wrote:Gained more ranking points than NZ. Thats a funny one. Durr, you dont get as many when youre at the top. Not that you’ve ever had anything to do with that.

And its because Ireland didnt play the ABs that they were able to be so successful. Oz and SA play us 3 and 2 times a year, so yeah, remarkeable how the sides compare when one doesnt play the other.

Ireland have benefitted far more than NZ in terms of rankings with the recent drop in form by SA and Oz. Lets see how they would go when both actually have good teams as they used to.
Its not just about a stronger Ireland, but also a weaker SH contingent.

Teams that dont lose players in hordes to overseas pro sides just happen to be the ones improving. How...quaint.

Regardless of whether NZ gain less ranking points because their are ranked 1 they still faced lower ranked sides than Ireland have this year so all things being equal Id imagine NZ would still have earned less points.

Yes if Ireland lose to NZ then its obvious beyond any doubt that NZ have had a stronger year however, if Ireland win the opposite can be said so that will answer a lot of questions.

As for the rest of your rant there isn't much of substance worth responding to.

The Great Aukster wrote:

The individual award has no merit because any specific player's performance has to be taken in the context of his (or her) team. The promotion of one cog in a 15 part machine is arguably anti-rugby.

As a fantasy exercise with no objective basis to stimulate interminable debate - it is a success, and to be fair to WR it does get them into the news.

Maybe so but by that logic whoever wins the RWC has no merit either as international rugby isn't a level playing field when you consider some countries have vastly greater wealth and playing populations to others so it isn't a level playing field. You can apply the same argument you are making to almost any award. Even in individual sports there is often a large team behind the individual.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Engine#4 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Engine#4 wrote:Not starting a few games hasn't prevented players winning in the past but Retallick hasn't even had the best season of all locks in the world.

You are right however if you miss as many as Retallick has I dont think it would be right to win the award. I think James Ryan has had a bigger year than Retallick but Ryan is not established enough yet to win. Ryan played every test of the year too.

"Established". That being a perceived criteria doesn't say much for the award in my opinion. Ryan has played what, 25+ games of rugby all year?  Lost one. Stats off the charts.  Beat the best club sides in Europe; Montpellier, Racing, Exeter, Saracens, Scarlets, Munster, Glasgow.  Won the Grand Slam. Beat Australia, South Africa and Argentina.  Man of the Match in the European final and player of the tour down under yet won't be considered because he is not a name yet.

Yeah he must be good if he beat all those teams, I guess the rest of the team just made up the numbers.

That's exactly why this award is a crock of sh!t!

Rugby is a team sport so singling out an individual is contrary to the very ethos of the game. Players from the ABs should win the award every year because they have the best XV. Any player will 'look' good with 14 ABs around him, whereas in reality it may be the players who carry teams that win nothing who may be the real players of the year. Why should Barrett win the award when he has to rely on Smith to give him the ball, who has to rely on Read, who has to rely on Retallick, who has to rely on Taylor, etc...

This award is just another excuse for a black-tie junket and an excuse for WR to rack up some expenses in pursuit of self-promotion. If they were really wanting to promote the game they should be picking a player for every position, 1 to 15 and then make the overall winner Captain. It would still be the ABs team though but at least would go some way to assuage New Zealander fears that rugby is in any danger of not being the most important thing in the world.

Its why they pay the quarterbacks more. Fact is in team sports individuals can and will stand out. Why does Carter earn more than most if its a team game? Why have man of the match awards? Because rugby players are still people, individuals trying to the best for themselves and their team.

And the anyone would look good in an AB side is your biggest crock of all. Its as though youre saying none of them are good individually, they just have great individuals around them. Well thats logical...not.

ABs have a standard individuals have to meet to even be in the team, so its actually the reverse. The team is good because of the individuals within it. Not the reverse. They represnt the best of the system that has put them there. Players striving to make the side could harp on and moan that they cant get in because theres 14 others helping the player theyre trying to replace keep them out. Thats a crock too, yet the only ones that seem to complain are those from not within that system...like you for instance.

To be better, you have to have a better system that is able to bring better players through. Sitting there moaning about the end result without acknowledging the work done is the biggest crock of all.

Taylorman wrote:Its why they pay the quarterbacks more. Fact is in team sports individuals can and will stand out. Why does Carter earn more than most if its a team game? Why have man of the match awards? Because rugby players are still people, individuals trying to the best for themselves and their team.

And the anyone would look good in an AB side is your biggest crock of all. Its as though youre saying none of them are good individually, they just have great individuals around them. Well thats logical...not.

ABs have a standard individuals have to meet to even be in the team, so its actually the reverse. The team is good because of the individuals within it. Not the reverse. They represnt the best of the system that has put them there. Players striving to make the side could harp on and moan that they cant get in because theres 14 others helping the player theyre trying to replace keep them out. Thats a crock too, yet the only ones that seem to complain are those from not within that system...like you for instance.

To be better, you have to have a better system that is able to bring better players through. Sitting there moaning about the end result without acknowledging the work done is the biggest crock of all.

Disagree with Taylorman a lot, including some comments in this thread, but this seems right to me.

The award doesn't always go to players from the best team. Keith Wood, Shane Williams and Thierry Dusautoir all won it when Ireland, Wales and France weren't top dogs. New Zealanders have won it since 2012, but Dan Carter, Kieran Read, Brodie Retallick and Beauden Barrett are all exceptional.

I agree that the Individual player of the year award has its merits too and shouldn't necessarily go to a player from the best side. I don't get that logic. There are lots of great teams that are greater than the sum of their parts and equally teams who punch above their weight due to exceptional individuals. The prize is never going to be scientific nor perfect but so what.

Seems James Lowe is the toast of the Leinster side at the moment. He was never that in NZ. He was fringe AB material at best, one of many good Super rugby wingers...now hes presumably one of the best wingers in the NH tournament? so no, don't really agree that you need 14 other AB's around you to look good.

If you've got it, you've got it. Lowe learnt his stuff from the NZ environment and within about a year has adapted his abilities to perform at the top of the NH club scene.

Lowe couldn't defend when he arrived at Leinster. That's why he didn't start the big games last year. Fantastic going forward but a danger to his team without the ball, like many super rugby backs. Presumably that's why he was fringe AB material at best.

Taylorman wrote:Seems James Lowe is the toast of the Leinster side at the moment. He was never that in NZ. He was fringe AB material at best, one of many good Super rugby wingers...now hes presumably one of the best wingers in the NH tournament? so no, don't really agree that you need 14 other AB's around you to look good.

If you've got it, you've got it. Lowe learnt his stuff from the NZ environment and within about a year has adapted his abilities to perform at the top of the NH club scene.

In Brief: - Lowe is/was a good player. Leinster don't pick dud players (even if they come from the SH, and plenty of other European sides Have picked dud SH players)

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Seems James Lowe is the toast of the Leinster side at the moment. He was never that in NZ. He was fringe AB material at best, one of many good Super rugby wingers...now hes presumably one of the best wingers in the NH tournament? so no, don't really agree that you need 14 other AB's around you to look good.

If you've got it, you've got it. Lowe learnt his stuff from the NZ environment and within about a year has adapted his abilities to perform at the top of the NH club scene.

In Brief: - Lowe is/was a good player.  Leinster don't pick dud players (even if they come from the SH, and plenty of other European sides Have picked dud SH players)

Any fringe international is probably going to be a decent club player as he was with the Chiefs as he is with Leinster albeit he has definitely improved from where he was at last year. Not much to see here.

Its funny to see Taylorman down playing how good Lowe is because it clearly hurts inside to see him doing well and even improving in Leinster. Some of the comments in the article poster by T'man are lamenting the loss to NZ rugby that Lowe is so he is clearly a fairly valued player in his home country.

Collapse2005 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Seems James Lowe is the toast of the Leinster side at the moment. He was never that in NZ. He was fringe AB material at best, one of many good Super rugby wingers...now hes presumably one of the best wingers in the NH tournament? so no, don't really agree that you need 14 other AB's around you to look good.

If you've got it, you've got it. Lowe learnt his stuff from the NZ environment and within about a year has adapted his abilities to perform at the top of the NH club scene.

In Brief: - Lowe is/was a good player.  Leinster don't pick dud players (even if they come from the SH, and plenty of other European sides Have picked dud SH players)

Any fringe international is probably going to be a decent club player as he was with the Chiefs as he is with Leinster albeit he has definitely improved from where he was at last year. Not much to see here.

Its funny to see Taylorman down playing how good Lowe is because it clearly hurts inside to see him doing well and even improving in Leinster. Some of the comments in the article poster by T'man are lamenting the loss to NZ rugby that Lowe is so he is clearly a fairly valued player in his home country.

Geez you spout rubbish. Who's down playing?. He wasnt good enough to be an AB, thats not downplaying thats just what happened. I wasnt a fan and didnt care when he left other than the general drift is annoying, but hey, if you dont have em, give us a ring.. But he's certainly good enough for any top NH side, as hes showing.

Takes time to acclimatize to a different style, different hemisphere, different priorities. And he has.

Still not good enough to be an AB because his attacking abilities as good as they are arent top three in NZ. Never were, never will be. Lamenting? Geez, many better players to 'lament' about that Lowe. Piutau and Nacewa far ahead of Lowe in the class stakes.

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Seems James Lowe is the toast of the Leinster side at the moment. He was never that in NZ. He was fringe AB material at best, one of many good Super rugby wingers...now hes presumably one of the best wingers in the NH tournament? so no, don't really agree that you need 14 other AB's around you to look good.

If you've got it, you've got it. Lowe learnt his stuff from the NZ environment and within about a year has adapted his abilities to perform at the top of the NH club scene.

In Brief: - Lowe is/was a good player.  Leinster don't pick dud players (even if they come from the SH, and plenty of other European sides Have picked dud SH players)

True, not as many dud NH players theyve selected though.

But funny how when they go well its because of the new environment but when theyre duds its because they were duds in the first place. Cant possibly be that the new environment makes them duds now can it? Irony is that is more likely.

Assuming theyre brought in because theyre better than local produce the lower grade rugby could make some players lazy. They no longer have aims of being an- say in NZ- AB now, a huge demotivation.