Great players - they're innate

You can't in an aeon coach potential, talent and performance into a great player - they are either born with it or they're not. A touch of coaching might help but the great player rises above the game plan and just makes the difference.

I've not seen it in an English player maybe since Dickie Jeeps (but I was a boy then and still reading comics).

I've seen a very few in my life. Jonah was a force of nature which was cruelly curtailed by renal biology. Barry John another who retired too early so that he's not displaced Gareth as the greatest rugby player ever.

I can't think of any other truly great player who just rises way above his peers and his coaches.

Greatness is a truly underrated epithet.

I haven't been watching Rugby quite as long, but I would add two more names - perhaps - to that list. Both capable of turning a game on its head, both of whom rose "above the game plan and just made the difference" for their respective countries.

The first, like John, retired WAY to early (although rumours persist he was forced out by his own board): Mark Ella.

The second built two careers (the second after serious injury) in different positions and was the best in the world by a country mile at both: Michael Jones.

Completley agree that greatness, as well as world-class, gets overused.
Playing now, I think these guys will go down as 'great' players:

Brian O'Driscoll, Shane Williams, Daniel Carter, Richie McCaw.

As defined as players that can step at key moments and grab the game by the cojones. Lots of younger players might get there but those four are the ones that I can think have done it consistently over the last decade.

I thinks its also a relevant thing. For instance i wouldnt put barry john in the same class of greatness as michael jones or colin meads or lomu. Again it comes back to the hemisphere thing. John and edwards at best were involved in mostly losses or tight wins against. The 3N countries whereas the mentioned contributed to teams that won. Usually convincingly and regularly.
Understandable its not their fault they played in weaker teams but neither is it the SH players.
And if greatness is measured by the relative merits of edwards and john logic suggests many abs are at least at their level.
Some just prefer not to measure things that way. And thats fair enough too. I just feel the term greatness is a relative term and needs context. But not all the time mind you.
Everyone has their faves.

Jones played 8 too-was the world's best in three positions. That's why I think he's the best ever. Remember he didn't play in 95 either. I won't assume he would have made a difference cause he probably would've eaten the chicken too

Cullen I think was a freak with his running. Best I've ever seen. You can't teach that at all.

ML - excuse my ignorance but what were Michael Jones' two positions?
Greatness is also a relative thing - for Scotland, I would put Andy Irvine and Gary Armstrong up there as great players but were they world-wide game influencers? Sadly not. But I still liked them.
Also different positions lend themselves more to "greatness" e.g. stand-off where you are very much in the public eye the whole time. Other positions tend to go more unnoticed but I think I will say that, in years to come, Martin Johnson will be looked upon as a great (captain and player for both the Lions and England)

Taylorman wrote:....................And if greatness is measured by the relative merits of edwards and john logic suggests many abs are at least at their level.
............

And yet their displays down under in 71 are still remembered and held in the highest regard by their SH contempories, such that Edwards is internationally nominated as the "greatest ever" player (as meaningless as that term is) and it was the New Zealanders themselves who called Barry John "King".

InjuredYetAgain wrote:ML - excuse my ignorance but what were Michael Jones' two positions?

Jones was a 7, then a 6. In either position, he had no peer. As also mentioned above he was a fine 8 as well - but I wouldn't say he was the BEST 8 of his day, merely a good International standard!

Yes ML, they were held in their greatest regard- SH know greatness when they see it. But remove the emotive context in which the comments are made, sit down and do some analysis about what makes a player great in terms of those things that normally goes with greatness in sport- winning being the primary one- then the results might be different.

The Lions tour of 71 was the ONLY win here. It was won by the least possible margin for a 4 test series 2.5 to 1.5and even that was gained by JPR dropping a goal to secure a draw in the 4th test, securing a series win.

Other series the Lions have been whitewashed regularly 4-0 by the AB's by convincing scorelines- thrashings some of them

Why in the two instances does one team contain the greatest player yet the other doesnt? the fact that they mange to get up an narrowly beat the AB's puts them into the greatness stratosphere yet when they get done the Abs are not...its....something else.

The reason...context.

I'm not taking it away from John or any others and don't want to appear conceited. I just think the term needs to be used more responsibly on occasion, and either way I explain it, people will think I'm tryng to remove their 'heroes of the game'.

Not trying to do that either as I know how important that is.


So I'll just stop there.

Taylorman wrote:Yes ML, they were held in their greatest regard- SH know greatness when they see it. But remove the emotive context in which the comments are made, sit down and do some analysis about what makes a player great in terms of those things that normally goes with greatness in sport- winning being the primary one- then the results might be different.

The Lions tour of 71 was the ONLY win here. It was won by the least possible margin for a 4 test series 2.5 to 1.5and even that was gained by JPR dropping a goal to secure a draw in the 4th test, securing a series win.

Other series the Lions have been whitewashed regularly 4-0 by the AB's by convincing scorelines- thrashings some of them

Why in the two instances does one team contain the greatest player yet the other doesnt? the fact that they mange to get up an narrowly beat the AB's puts them into the greatness stratosphere yet when they get done the Abs are not...its....something else.

The reason...context.






I'm not taking it away from John or any others and don't want to appear conceited. I just think the term needs to be used more responsibly on occasion, and either way I explain it, people will think I'm tryng to remove their 'heroes of the game'.

Not trying to do that either as I know how important that is.


So I'll just stop there.

Why should a great player be judged on if the team he plays for is winning or not? Look at Sergio Parisse for example how many MOM does he get yet Italy still more often than not loose but does that mean he isnt a great player? not at all in my opinion.

Taylorman wrote:......... I just think the term needs to be used more responsibly on occasion.................

I agree entirely - most of the players I see labelled as "all-time greats" in threads such as this I would say are not worthy of that tag. Indeed looking at this thread, there are only a few I would say fall into the category of players that can take the game by the scruff of the neck and win a match with their own personal performance. Others - fantastic players though they were/are, did not dominate their sport individually in quite the same way. Some fail because they left the sport for one reason or another too early - before they fulfilled their true potential.

Modern Rugby too is played in such a way that individual players do not have the platform to show their greatness - it is a game of power and percentages now - not individual brilliance. A case in point is Dan Carter. He is a fantastic player. The best 10 in the world by some considerable distance. Perfectly trained to be the perfect modern 10. Is he a true great in my book? Probably not. In fact if all the pro-era players, I think possibly only John Eales and BOD would make my list as GREATS, but then I am an old curmudgeon, so what do I know? As you rightly say - its all just opinion!

Absolutely. Greatness is in the eye of the beholder. Again, Sergio Parisse doesnt get many MOM's against the AB's- but that doesnt mean hes not a great player either. But the other side to the coin is perhaps he gets them when lesser players let him do what he does.

Why does he not turn in MOM performances against the AB's? Simply because the AB's dont let him, or those around him, play to a level that would warrant it.

Again... comes back to context.

Great players or not; most of them are innate for the money these days

ML I dont put Carter up there either. Lately his running has been missing and hes just getting by I reckon with those around him.

McCaw probably dereves that tag now. He has 3 best of the year awards and has been nominated in I think 7.

No ones got near that either. Plus he has a winning test record that no other outside his team has.

But then he doesnt have a world cup? so where does that leave him.

Frankly I dont see Jones up there because he has a world cup. hes there for me as he was the most inspirational, talented and rigidly loyal player and role model for the game Ive ever seen then, before or since. he even stood out in a team of greats (what we would call greats- Foxy, JK, Fitzpatrick etc)

Yes he has a world cup but so what. It is the effect he had on my life and that of others as to why I put him there- cup or no cup.

No question Michael Jones is a great great.
Richie's not bad though

Draigoch wrote:Completley agree that greatness, as well as world-class, gets overused.
Playing now, I think these guys will go down as 'great' players:

Brian O'Driscoll, Shane Williams, Daniel Carter, Richie McCaw.

As defined as players that can step at key moments and grab the game by the cojones. Lots of younger players might get there but those four are the ones that I can think have done it consistently over the last decade.

Shane Williams ? Vastly overrated.

Not really Nottins. There's no doubting Shane is a game breaker. And he had a stunning season in 2008, easily the best winger of that season. He'll go down as a great.

Kind of agree with nottins but a bit harsh to say he's vastly overated. A game breaker who has scored some stunning tries and deserved the IRB award bit not consistent enough to be labelled a great imo. Definatley a top player and who will go down in history as one. Not in the great category like JPR etc......

I think it’s a little harsh to say that Shane Williams isn't a great.

I am Welsh, and I am biased.

But I think he has stood out on the international stage for a long time now.

Plus he’s won world player of the year.

And he’s done all that in what has been pretty ordinary Welsh-setup.

Greatness can not be coached, however without the right coaching greatness may not be achieved.

For example there are some players who had the potential to be absolute greats of the game (and I will not mention names) but due to coaches not getting the best out of the players, and allowing the players to get overconfident/arrogent the players have not made the heights they should have.

Intersting thought though is that sometimes the best servants to club and country (IMO the true greats) do not get appreciated during their playing days and are only really appreciated once they have retired.

Greatness or just plain LEGEND?

Legends:

JPR

Barry John

Gareth Edwards

Sir Pinetree (who I long to meet he is my all time hero along with JPR & Gareth)

Lomu (even theough he was cut down with illness we all know what he was capable of and deserves the Legend).

Whineray. I have met him and spent a few evenings in his company in Doubtless Bay where he has a mate or two. When you see guys in their 70's in awe of a man you know you are in the presence of a Legend.

Victor Yates... An AB who was short lived as he went over to league in the early 60's. He is a legend in France after 2 tests over there. Again I met this man many many times in the Herekino Tavern, such a small place in the Far North you would miss it. A huge fit giant of a man who unfortunately died a few years ago.

Greats:

Shane

Sid Going

Fox


Well ya see what I mean lol

I don't agree that Shane is a great, though at his absolute peak he was a very good player.

Yeah good enough to be IRB player of the year.

Excuse me I will go with the experts.

welshjohn
if you are going to talk about legends from Ngapuhi country then you have to include Peter jones.....

As a Weslh man then I could obvioulsy reel off a lot of names from 70's but thought I would look at players who I consider great and who I have been luckily enough to watch.

Some have great skill vision etc others are great leaders who can change a game with their efforts such as crucial line out or huge tackle etc.

England - Duckham, Guscott, Jonno, Deano

France - Sella, Blanco, JP Reeves, Castigniede (sp)

Ireland - Gibson, WIllie John, Wood, BOD

Scotland - Renwick, Calder, Jeffrey, Broon from Troon,

Australia - Ella bros, Gould, Eales, Campese

New Zealand - Lomu, Cullen, Carter, Kirwan, Bunce, Jones, Brooke, Shelford etc etc

South Africa - Pienaar, Botha, Du Plesis, Montgomery, Berger

welshjohn369 wrote:Yeah good enough to be IRB player of the year.

Excuse me I will go with the experts.

Every year a player will win IRB player of the year. At the most that means he was the best player that year. It does not assure that person of "greatness".

May be if you won it three times it would suggest you were great.

Probably one test would be how many oppostion fans rate the player.
Actually I think non NZer's rate Lomu higher than NZ fans. There was often debate about his position especially when Umaga was playing really well at wing at the same time as Wilson.

Shane is one of the greats it's as simple as but I do not regard him as Legend, I do not expect everyone to agree with this.

As for Ngapuhi are David Holwell must be a legend without ever being an AB. I would say Ian Kamo Jones would be in the great catagory with the Going brothers......oh and Gus Collins

Welshjohn
What about Kamos great grandfather Bunny Finlayson..oh and Glen taylor.... all hard men who never gave into anything........

I have heard Kamo talk about his G Grandfather at both Kamo and Hikurangi club houses when these two clubs play and he can get up for the game.

Can you profess to have seen 'Bunny' play Laurie? I guess you have not and are going on books and word of voice. I am sure you are right though.

Welshjohn
I must confess to having been brought up as a kid in dargaville,No Ididnt see Bunny Finlayson play but he was a legend in the north,and all that family were pretty famous around the Kamo club.At times North Auckland can be a small place...

nottins wrote:

Draigoch wrote:Completley agree that greatness, as well as world-class, gets overused.
Playing now, I think these guys will go down as 'great' players:

Brian O'Driscoll, Shane Williams, Daniel Carter, Richie McCaw.

As defined as players that can step at key moments and grab the game by the cojones. Lots of younger players might get there but those four are the ones that I can think have done it consistently over the last decade.

Shane Williams ? Vastly overrated.

You make him sound almost as overrated as Will Greenwood.

To scared to use your real name eh WLG?? Everyone gets a fresh start mate.....