RugbyRebels

I was pleased to see Priestland doing a decent job on Sunday, but according to Gareth Thomas on BBC a moment ago, we now have two world class 10s in Priestland and Biggar.

I could easily live without him and Phil "you know" Davies presenting.

I prefer Biggar to Priestland, but Priestland is a good thinking 10, but in and out on confidence

Mental issues aside he has the skill set to be world class, possibly more so than Biggar. Problem is the mental issues are significant and, I think, will forever hold him back from achieving what his pure ability suggests he may be capable of.

On form he is very good. He is not a world class player as he lack consistency for starters

The phrase "world class" is now offically meaningless.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The phrase "world class" is now offically meaningless.

It's always been meaningless because it's entirely subjective and has no defined criteria.

No he isn't. Plenty of potential and he has had his moments for Wales. But, as so many others have pointed out, he is a confidence player. A truly world class player can deliver to a good level even when off form. Priesltand's off form level is terrible.

Hooky wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The phrase "world class" is now offically meaningless.

It's always been meaningless because it's entirely subjective and has no defined criteria.

Quite. At its most generous, I'd take it to be the best of the north squad versus the best of the south squad. If a player could make that 22 then he had a decent case to be world class. Priestland was never in that category.

A more strict approach would suggest the next XV in wore world. He was no where near that category, even at his best.

the only definition that makes sense for me is that the player is at least in the conversation to represent Earth against some frozen Martian virus/bacteria. That means top 3 or so on the planet. There can be a serious debate as to whether Priestland is in the top 3 in Wales.

The World Class Gareth Thomas refers to, of course, is the colloquial one, which in Bridgend and surrounding areas, means "quite good", or at least "not completely shit". It's similar to "amazing" when applied to the slightly better than ordinary. For me, World Class signifies the potential to step into any national side and make a fist of it - hence the "class" bit. It doesn't signify being the best. There are many internationals who could do this, equally there are many that couldn't. One of the reasons English has words like "best" is so we are able to differentiate between those who are at the pinnacle of the game and those who are merely world class. Obviously any judgement as to who is the best and who is just world class is entirely subjective, but informed opinion does carry some weight with me, more especially someone who was actually in the world class at one time and so actually knows what it takes, rather than guessing.

Gareth Thomas is not much of a pundit

He's improving, but he has a major disability, being thick.

"World Class" means not looking out of place in the Rugby Galactic Cup
"International Class" means not looking out of place in the Rugby World Cap
"Top Club Class" means not looking out of place in the EPRCC
"Good Pro" means not looking out of place in the Pro12 / Prem / T14 /S15


These days in the media, "World Class" means "good enough to get a few caps in an injury crisis"

Would anyone on here be happy with Priestland at FH for the Lions v NZ in 2017? No I didn't think so

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:the only definition that makes sense for me is that the player is at least in the conversation to represent Earth against some frozen Martian virus/bacteria. That means top 3 or so on the planet. There can be a serious debate as to whether Priestland is in the top 3 in Wales.

As you don't speak for the rest of the planet, others are entitled to their own interpretation.

I keep using this line, but it sums up the situation for me, and did even when Biggar was getting one cap a year stuck behind the U20s pack against The Virgin Islands:

Dan Biggar is half the player Rhys Priestland could be. But he's twice the player Rhys Priestland actually IS.

Bob wrote:Would anyone on here be happy with Priestland at FH for the Lions v NZ in 2017? No I didn't think so

Good for the LOLs

I don't want to rag on Priest after last week because I genuinely thought he did okay. But with Biggar on the pitch, we'd have won. Two missed drop-goals, one crucial knock-on and a needless line-out given away is not a brilliant performance. If that was Biggar you'd call it a bad day at the office. For Priestland, it's a relief.

I'd keep him in the XXIII because he's decent fullback cover, and we haven't really got an obvious alternative. Maybe one day he'll prove me wrong for a second time. I hope so.

Sourdust wrote:I don't want to rag on Priest after last week because I genuinely thought he did okay. But with Biggar on the pitch, we'd have won. Two missed drop-goals, one crucial knock-on and a needless line-out given away is not a brilliant performance. If that was Biggar you'd call it a bad day at the office. For Priestland, it's a relief.

I'd keep him in the XXIII because he's decent fullback cover, and we haven't really got an obvious alternative. Maybe one day he'll prove me wrong for a second time. I hope so.

Near enough my thoughts on Priestland, and I started the thread as a criticism, not of Priestland, but of Gareth Thomas comment on him being world class, which is ridiculous in my opinion.

I'm not sure I'd rate any of our 10s as world class, though Biggar is the closest, for me, by a distance.

I like Gareth Thomas as a pundit. Whilst he is not the best speaker around, he does make soon interesting and insightful points at times. He also doesn't seem to have any pretensions.

Sourdust wrote:I don't want to rag on Priest after last week because I genuinely thought he did okay. But with Biggar on the pitch, we'd have won. Two missed drop-goals, one crucial knock-on and a needless line-out given away is not a brilliant performance. If that was Biggar you'd call it a bad day at the office. For Priestland, it's a relief.

I'd keep him in the XXIII because he's decent fullback cover, and we haven't really got an obvious alternative. Maybe one day he'll prove me wrong for a second time. I hope so.

I'm not a fan of Priestland, but I don't agree about this. Biggar missed a straightforward kick just before coming off, and this is off the back of a run of poor kicking form in the Pro12. Priestland amazed me by nailing 4 kicks out of 4, some of them difficult, especially the last one. I'm not sure the Biggar could have done this in his current form. I agree that Priestland also made some bad mistakes, but on balance I don't think he did worse than Biggar would have. If Biggar was in World Cup form I would totally agree with you though...

As for whether Priestland can continue this form.... well lets say I'm happy the shirt's still Biggar's for now.

Gog wrote:I like Gareth Thomas as a pundit. Whilst he is not the best speaker around, he does make soon interesting and insightful points at times. He also doesn't seem to have any pretensions.

I like him but I'm not sure he's articulate enough to communicate his technical expertise in the same way Wilkinson, Flatman, Kay or even Healey can. Whenever I hear him it seems to be passion this and effort that.

I don't rate BOD much as a pundit either.

Tre wrote:

Gog wrote:I like Gareth Thomas as a pundit. Whilst he is not the best speaker around, he does make soon interesting and insightful points at times. He also doesn't seem to have any pretensions.

I like him but I'm not sure he's articulate enough to communicate his technical expertise in the same way Wilkinson, Flatman, Kay or even Healey can. Whenever I hear him it seems to be passion this and effort that.

I don't rate BOD much as a pundit either.

As I said, he doesn't speak brilliantly, but to me, his comments and thoughts are more interesting. He also comes across as passionate. I would much rather have that than an excellent speaker who is boring or uninformative. I am sure he will improve in time too.

Gog wrote:

Tre wrote:

Gog wrote:I like Gareth Thomas as a pundit. Whilst he is not the best speaker around, he does make soon interesting and insightful points at times. He also doesn't seem to have any pretensions.

I like him but I'm not sure he's articulate enough to communicate his technical expertise in the same way Wilkinson, Flatman, Kay or even Healey can. Whenever I hear him it seems to be passion this and effort that.

I don't rate BOD much as a pundit either.

As I said, he doesn't speak brilliantly, but to me, his comments and thoughts are more interesting. He also comes across as passionate. I would much rather have that than an excellent speaker who is boring or uninformative. I am sure he will improve in time too.

I don't think he's that informative, but as you say he's newish to it

cadofyddol wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:the only definition that makes sense for me is that the player is at least in the conversation to represent Earth against some frozen Martian virus/bacteria. That means top 3 or so on the planet. There can be a serious debate as to whether Priestland is in the top 3 in Wales.

As you don't speak for the rest of the planet, others are entitled to their own interpretation.

Despite saying "for me" I was totally speaking for the entire planet. Rumbled.