RugbyRebels

I nearly forgot! We need a skipper.

The shortlist here is every player from the Greatest XV as elected who was captain after 1996.

Read is still finding his feet as captain, I think, so he's in third place. It's pretty hard to seperate McCaw and Fitzy though, and it's fitting that it comes down to our two RWC-winning captains. Both infuriated the opposition whille keeping the refs onside. Both never had their place in the team or as captain seriously questioned.

Given the records and achievements of both I've struggled to think a fair way to decide how to vote on an objective basis. Fitzy had the better record against South Africa but at that time they were struggling with their return to the civilized world. Ritchie has a better Bledisloe record but Aussie are not the force they were. The difference in men around them, and in the men against them, means overall success percentages are probably not helpful. To my mind, one measurable sign of great captaincy is winning the close ones. So I've looked at tests decided by 3 or fewer points. As captain, Fitzy won 5/10 of those matches and drew 1; McCaw won 10 from 17 with 2 draws. So head says McCaw, heart says Fitzy. Gotta go with the head, though.

Lizard wrote:I nearly forgot! We need a skipper.

The shortlist here is every player from the Greatest XV as elected who was captain after 1996.

Read is still finding his feet as captain, I think, so he's in third place. It's pretty hard to seperate McCaw and Fitzy though, and it's fitting that it comes down to our two RWC-winning captains. Both infuriated the opposition whille keeping the refs onside. Both never had their place in the team or as captain seriously questioned.

Given the records and achievements of both I've struggled to think a fair way to decide how to vote on an objective basis. Fitzy had the better record against South Africa but at that time they were struggling with their return to the civilized world. Ritchie has a better Bledisloe record but Aussie are not the force they were. The difference in men around them, and in the men against them, means overall success percentages are probably not helpful. To my mind, one measurable sign of great captaincy is winning the close ones. So I've looked at tests decided by 3 or fewer points. As captain, Fitzy won 5/10 of those matches and drew 1; McCaw won 10 from 17 with 2 draws. So head says McCaw, heart says Fitzy. Gotta go with the head, though.

Did he? I'm genuinely surprised by that.

Fitzy captained 12 tests against the Boks for 9 wins, 2 losses and 1 draw - an overall success rate of 79%. McCaw's figures are captained 20, won 15, lost 5 - 75%.

It's worth noting that Fitzy had been an All Black for 6 years before the Boks were readmitted to world rugby. They took a few seasons to catch up. Fitzpatrick's two losses were the RWC1995 final and the dead rubber in the 1996 series win.

Tana Umaga - 19-2, including Lions whitewash and Grand Slam.

rowan wrote:Tana Umaga - 19-2, including Lions whitewash and Grand Slam.

Can't have a captain who isn't even in the team!

And he was 18-3 actually. He lost 2 of 4 v SA and 1 against Australia.

Can't I nominate him if I'd also have him in my personal pro era All Blacks XV?

rowan wrote:Can't I nominate him if I'd also have him in my personal pro era All Blacks XV?

It's that sort of thinking that gave us Reuben Thorne.

You can nominate him as "other" if you like.

Lizard wrote:

rowan wrote:Can't I nominate him if I'd also have him in my personal pro era All Blacks XV?

It's that sort of thinking that gave us Reuben Thorne.

You can nominate him as "other" if you like.

Thanks. Already did

I have to go with Fitzpatrick because I am a philistine and voted for Zinzan Brooke at 8 and Kronfeld at openside.