RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Have we ever had an IC who would get in a World XV? Carling, Greenwood etc. were pretty decent but . . .

Pretty sure Greenwood would have got into a world XXII.

He’d get in to mine.

He'd be in my XV of players I enjoyed watching back when he played, but actually better than the likes of Umaga and Mauger, that I'm not convinced about

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
Pretty sure Greenwood would have got into a world XXII.

He’d get in to mine.

He'd be in my XV of players I enjoyed watching back when he played, but actually better than the likes of Umaga and Mauger, that I'm not convinced about

But that’s why these world xv discussions are pointless. He’d be in the top 3 12s if his age.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
Pretty sure Greenwood would have got into a world XXII.

He’d get in to mine.

He'd be in my XV of players I enjoyed watching back when he played, but actually better than the likes of Umaga and Mauger, that I'm not convinced about

Better decision maker than Mauger and less error prone, wholly different player to Umaga, and depends how you want to play.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: He’d get in to mine.

He'd be in my XV of players I enjoyed watching back when he played, but actually better than the likes of Umaga and Mauger, that I'm not convinced about

But that’s why these world xv discussions are pointless. He’d be in the top 3 12s if his age.

It wasn't really a world XV discussion. Besides, ruling out pointless discussions.................

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Have we ever had an IC who would get in a World XV? Carling, Greenwood etc. were pretty decent but . . .

Greenwood world class. Carling should have been, but never developed fully as a player. imo Catt was too in his relative rare outings there. Jeff Butterfield was world class at 12 and 13 according to my f-in-law who played with him.

Carling was great until the 1990 5 Nations. Once we lost to the Scots and the game plan became more restricted he went inside himself and became very little more than a bosh 1 12 (which he admittedly wasn't bad at).

Greenwood was genuine world class, him and Guscott (although very different players) are the best English centres I've ever seen.

Tom Moore wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Have we ever had an IC who would get in a World XV? Carling, Greenwood etc. were pretty decent but . . .

Greenwood world class. Carling should have been, but never developed fully as a player. imo Catt was too in his relative rare outings there. Jeff Butterfield was world class at 12 and 13 according to my f-in-law who played with him.

Carling was great until the 1990 5 Nations. Once we lost to the Scots and the game plan became more restricted he went inside himself and became very little more than a bosh 1 12 (which he admittedly wasn't bad at).

Greenwood was genuine world class, him and Guscott (although very different players) are the best English centres I've ever seen.

Agreed. It is still strange that in a period of, say, 35 years from 1985 onwards, we are all talking about a very few decent English ICs.

Tom Moore wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Have we ever had an IC who would get in a World XV? Carling, Greenwood etc. were pretty decent but . . .

Greenwood world class. Carling should have been, but never developed fully as a player. imo Catt was too in his relative rare outings there. Jeff Butterfield was world class at 12 and 13 according to my f-in-law who played with him.

Carling was great until the 1990 5 Nations. Once we lost to the Scots and the game plan became more restricted he went inside himself and became very little more than a bosh 1 12 (which he admittedly wasn't bad at).

Greenwood was genuine world class, him and Guscott (although very different players) are the best English centres I've ever seen.

Pretty much, though I'd trace Carling's lack of development to the moment he was appointed captain.

Oakboy wrote:

Tom Moore wrote:

Banquo wrote: Greenwood world class. Carling should have been, but never developed fully as a player. imo Catt was too in his relative rare outings there. Jeff Butterfield was world class at 12 and 13 according to my f-in-law who played with him.

Carling was great until the 1990 5 Nations. Once we lost to the Scots and the game plan became more restricted he went inside himself and became very little more than a bosh 1 12 (which he admittedly wasn't bad at).

Greenwood was genuine world class, him and Guscott (although very different players) are the best English centres I've ever seen.

Agreed. It is still strange that in a period of, say, 35 years from 1985 onwards, we are all talking about a very few decent English ICs.

What about other nations? I honestly can't think of a huge list. It's a tough gig. All of them are, tbf.

How many "decent" wings have we had? How many "decent" 9s? How many "decent" flankers or #8s or FBs.

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Tom Moore wrote:
Carling was great until the 1990 5 Nations. Once we lost to the Scots and the game plan became more restricted he went inside himself and became very little more than a bosh 1 12 (which he admittedly wasn't bad at).

Greenwood was genuine world class, him and Guscott (although very different players) are the best English centres I've ever seen.

Agreed. It is still strange that in a period of, say, 35 years from 1985 onwards, we are all talking about a very few decent English ICs.

What about other nations? I honestly can't think of a huge list. It's a tough gig. All of them are, tbf.

How many "decent" wings have we had? How many "decent" 9s? How many "decent" flankers or #8s or FBs.

I think there are quite a few decent examples of all those other positions apart from 9 (if we are talking from, say, 1990 to the present day). 9 and 12 are the two that stand out, IMO. Our problems there strike me as worse than any of NZ, Australia, SA, France, Wales and Ireland.

I think, as usual, you lot are a bit down on your player base as your expectations are so high (although you go through phases of being massively up on individual players). Have Ireland or Wales really had many stand out 12s rather than just ones who are good internationals.

Wales went a bit JJ over Hook and Henson, two quality players they never really got enough out of, and if we're going back to the 90s they'd also have Gibbs to add to the list. Ireland have had D'Arcy and that's about it

I would say Jamie Roberts was outstanding for a long while. Poorly used sometimes by Wales, but I remember the Lions tour where he was the perfect foil to O'Driscoll.

Puja

Totally forgot about Roberts. Not sure he was on the same level as the others, but perhaps the most physical (and yes his skills were better than Wales allowed him to show)

Digby wrote:Totally forgot about Roberts. Not sure he was on the same level as the others, but perhaps the most physical (and yes his skills were better than Wales allowed him to show)

Dunno about that. He came to Quins with the hope of getting to show off his skills a bit more, and the less said about that the better. Absolute class in his prime as a pure gain-line 12 though.

Yeah, not sure Roberts had too many ‘skills’ that Wales didn’t utilise. At his best he was an effective but limited ball carrier, but his real expertise was in defence, where he was an absolute beast.

It's interesting to reflect on realising potential. Rugby is a difficult sport to be too dogmatic on that. Who was the best player relative to natural talent? JW or Johnno are right up there. Strangely, it is a factor in favour of Farrell. Relative to his skill-set, he's pretty effective, arguably.

At football the best player I ever saw (in terms of effectiveness and application relative to skill) was Kevin Keegan. Not for one second am I saying he was an 'all-time' great BUT his average level of performance over a period of time, RELATIVE to his skill-set, was absolutely outstanding.

In rugby, BOD was one of the best, together with Gareth Edwards. Over a career span, Richard Hill and Jason Leonard take some beating.

Oakboy wrote:It's interesting to reflect on realising potential. Rugby is a difficult sport to be too dogmatic on that. Who was the best player relative to natural talent? JW or Johnno are right up there. Strangely, it is a factor in favour of Farrell. Relative to his skill-set, he's pretty effective, arguably.

At football the best player I ever saw (in terms of effectiveness and application relative to skill) was Kevin Keegan. Not for one second am I saying he was an 'all-time' great BUT his average level of performance over a period of time, RELATIVE to his skill-set, was absolutely outstanding.

In rugby, BOD was one of the best, together with Gareth Edwards. Over a career span, Richard Hill and Jason Leonard take some beating.

Richie McCaw
Conrad Smith
Paul O'Connell

There would be others but that's 3 off the top of my head

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

Oakboy wrote:It's interesting to reflect on realising potential. Rugby is a difficult sport to be too dogmatic on that. Who was the best player relative to natural talent? JW or Johnno are right up there. Strangely, it is a factor in favour of Farrell. Relative to his skill-set, he's pretty effective, arguably.

At football the best player I ever saw (in terms of effectiveness and application relative to skill) was Kevin Keegan. Not for one second am I saying he was an 'all-time' great BUT his average level of performance over a period of time, RELATIVE to his skill-set, was absolutely outstanding.

In rugby, BOD was one of the best, together with Gareth Edwards. Over a career span, Richard Hill and Jason Leonard take some beating.

Richie McCaw
Conrad Smith
Paul O'Connell

There would be others but that's 3 off the top of my head

Good call. I suppose a 10 year minimum spell at the top would be a reasonable guideline and those three certainly qualify.

Although based on natural talent I recall Smith and McCaw being rapid once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away

Digby wrote:Although based on natural talent I recall Smith and McCaw being rapid once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away

No real denying they made the most of it, though...

I'd say Mike Brown has eked the absolute max out of his talents.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:Although based on natural talent I recall Smith and McCaw being rapid once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away

No real denying they made the most of it, though...

But they did they do that more than some others?

Will Greenwood had few of the athletic abilities Smith was gifted with and also turned himself into a centre of some renown

Speaking of natural abilities. Michael Jones (pre-ACL blowout) or McCaw?

morepork wrote:Speaking of natural abilities. Michael Jones (pre-ACL blowout) or McCaw?

I would argue Jones and Kronfeld had more natural ability than McCaw, what McCaw had was an insane sense of reading a game and fitness levels that were off the scale for rugby players.

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

morepork wrote:Speaking of natural abilities. Michael Jones (pre-ACL blowout) or McCaw?

I would argue Jones and Kronfeld had more natural ability than McCaw, what McCaw had was an insane sense of reading a game and fitness levels that were off the scale for rugby players.

That is true. Jones in his prime was a beast, fast, skillful, and hard. McCaw doesn't come close as an athlete, but is clearly mad with his fitness and very good at reading a game.