NH club rugby
-
@pot-hale said in NH club rugby:
News emerging today that 2-3 more SA teams will join PRO14 in two years time with at least three in place for 2020/21 season. Natal-based Sharks to lead the way with Lions and Stormers to follow.
If it reaches 18 teams then it’s possible that three conferences would be created with IRFU, WRU and SARU teams anchoring each one.
SARU would probably join the 3 Celtic shareholders in Celtic Rugby DAC who own the PRO Rugby competition.
Not sure how I'd feel about this.
The Saffa teams are just starting to get interesting again.
Yet, a Trans- Ta$man or South Pacific based comp would be good (for me) if NZ more teams (7, split the Blues into South of the Harbour and North of the Harbour, split provincial Hurricanes from Wellington).
But, Australian teams are so poor at the moment. I would resolve this by not restricing All Black selection from Australian teams allowing some transfer of talent to Australia, until they rebuild their depth & interest ....
God knows what it would mean to Jaguares and Sunwolves. Without the Saffas I don't think the Jaguares remain viable. Unless ......
I'm not a huge fan of the comp crossing the hemisphere into Japan, although I feel if the Saffas go then rump-SANZAR would probably actually go further down this route and bring in North America. Whereas I would actually prefer a smaller same season, sameish timezone South pacific comp. Less travel, better viewing times, more local relevance.
7 NZ teams
4 Aus
1 Pacific
12 teams in totalor
6 NZ teams
5 Aus
1 Pacificor
7 NZ teams
5 Aus
0 PacificA Pacific team, based in Suva, with a mandate to employ most of their players from those committed to the 3 PI nations would be great I think, but would require either outside private ownership or outside subsidisation.
-
@rapido said in NH club rugby:
Yet, a Trans- Ta$man or South Pacific based comp would be good (for me) if NZ more teams (7, split the Blues into South of the Harbour and North of the Harbour, split provincial Hurricanes from Wellington)
Central Vikings?
NZRU doesn't seem to want more pro sides. However it could be an opportunity to link the franchises back to their NPC unions more. 14 NPC sides, 2 NPC sides per franchise.
-
@duluth said in NH club rugby:
@rapido said in NH club rugby:
Yet, a Trans- Ta$man or South Pacific based comp would be good (for me) if NZ more teams (7, split the Blues into South of the Harbour and North of the Harbour, split provincial Hurricanes from Wellington)
Central Vikings?
NZRU doesn't seem to want more pro sides. However it could be an opportunity to link the franchises back to their NPC unions more. 14 NPC sides, 2 NPC sides per franchise.
Yeah, that would fit quite well. Only difficult one (geographically) would be probably Wellington plus one other of the 3 Canes NPC teams. Would probably link Wellington and Hawkes Bay.
Just ignoring the ridiculous Tarankai switcheroo to the Chiefs.
Poor old Manawatu can be lumbered with that cursed union .....
NZRU doesn't seem to want more pro sides
Yeah, they don't seem to.
If it retracts, they won't have much choice.
If it just switches to Pacific + Americas Super Comp then they will want to remain at 5.I do think the NZRU have been guilty of ignoring paying crowds when doing their financials.
I think they underestimate having say 7 x 18,000 ave crowds rather than 5 X x,000.
Having all games in timezone for overall TV Rights value for the NZ and Aus market.
Having enough NZ games each weekend that one or two are played in an afternoon slot rather than every pro game being at 7:30 so capturing the kids and families market (and ensuring there's actually still a market in 20 years time ....). AT the moment we even sometimes get a situation in SR that there is only 1 NZ game in a weekend (NZ derby on a Friday night, 1 team on a bye, 2 other teams playing overseas - meaning 7:30 sat night is vacant etc)
At the moment their market is quite narrow.
- TV = Adults or adults with older kids, with sky, probably with either 2 TVs or a rugby interested spouse.
- Attendance = Adults, after work drinks crowd, Families with older kids. Only those 'travelling' from immediate surroundings due to late finishes.
This may not, probably won't, make up for the immediate loss of SA TV money. But there are other revenue sources that are sacrificed in NZ to meet the narrow confines of only 5 teams.
-
So SA blaming the time zones and travel schedules on their exodus of players, nothing at all to do with governance?
South African rugby is losing players en masse to the northern hemisphere game and it has been suggested that a stronger alignment with the PRO14 competition will help stem that flow.
-
@rapido said in NH club rugby:
@pot-hale said in NH club rugby:
News emerging today that 2-3 more SA teams will join PRO14 in two years time with at least three in place for 2020/21 season. Natal-based Sharks to lead the way with Lions and Stormers to follow.
If it reaches 18 teams then it’s possible that three conferences would be created with IRFU, WRU and SARU teams anchoring each one.
SARU would probably join the 3 Celtic shareholders in Celtic Rugby DAC who own the PRO Rugby competition.
Not sure how I'd feel about this.
The Saffa teams are just starting to get interesting again.
Yet, a Trans- Ta$man or South Pacific based comp would be good (for me) if NZ more teams (7, split the Blues into South of the Harbour and North of the Harbour, split provincial Hurricanes from Wellington).
But, Australian teams are so poor at the moment. I would resolve this by not restricing All Black selection from Australian teams allowing some transfer of talent to Australia, until they rebuild their depth & interest ....
God knows what it would mean to Jaguares and Sunwolves. Without the Saffas I don't think the Jaguares remain viable. Unless ......
I'm not a huge fan of the comp crossing the hemisphere into Japan, although I feel if the Saffas go then rump-SANZAR would probably actually go further down this route and bring in North America. Whereas I would actually prefer a smaller same season, sameish timezone South pacific comp. Less travel, better viewing times, more local relevance.
7 NZ teams
4 Aus
1 Pacific
12 teams in totalor
6 NZ teams
5 Aus
1 Pacificor
7 NZ teams
5 Aus
0 PacificA Pacific team, based in Suva, with a mandate to employ most of their players from those committed to the 3 PI nations would be great I think, but would require either outside private ownership or outside subsidisation.
Im sorry but that sounds god awful.
One of the few advantages have at the moment is that our franchises are relatively strong and each of our teams plays 8 games against those strong teams. Dividing those up further or going all in with the disaster that is Australian rugby either by playing them more or giving them players is going to kill rugby in NZ. I for one would be cancelling my sky subscription if any of those comps replaced super rugby.If it does happen that South africa leave and take their cash with them then i would be looking at having a NZ only comp with the 5 existing franchises. Take some games to the US/japan to try and bring in some money using high quality product rather than this constant push to dilute the quality in order to expand.
-
@pukunui said in NH club rugby:
@rapido said in NH club rugby:
@pot-hale said in NH club rugby:
News emerging today that 2-3 more SA teams will join PRO14 in two years time with at least three in place for 2020/21 season. Natal-based Sharks to lead the way with Lions and Stormers to follow.
If it reaches 18 teams then it’s possible that three conferences would be created with IRFU, WRU and SARU teams anchoring each one.
SARU would probably join the 3 Celtic shareholders in Celtic Rugby DAC who own the PRO Rugby competition.
Not sure how I'd feel about this.
The Saffa teams are just starting to get interesting again.
Yet, a Trans- Ta$man or South Pacific based comp would be good (for me) if NZ more teams (7, split the Blues into South of the Harbour and North of the Harbour, split provincial Hurricanes from Wellington).
But, Australian teams are so poor at the moment. I would resolve this by not restricing All Black selection from Australian teams allowing some transfer of talent to Australia, until they rebuild their depth & interest ....
God knows what it would mean to Jaguares and Sunwolves. Without the Saffas I don't think the Jaguares remain viable. Unless ......
I'm not a huge fan of the comp crossing the hemisphere into Japan, although I feel if the Saffas go then rump-SANZAR would probably actually go further down this route and bring in North America. Whereas I would actually prefer a smaller same season, sameish timezone South pacific comp. Less travel, better viewing times, more local relevance.
7 NZ teams
4 Aus
1 Pacific
12 teams in totalor
6 NZ teams
5 Aus
1 Pacificor
7 NZ teams
5 Aus
0 PacificA Pacific team, based in Suva, with a mandate to employ most of their players from those committed to the 3 PI nations would be great I think, but would require either outside private ownership or outside subsidisation.
Im sorry but that sounds god awful.
One of the few advantages have at the moment is that our franchises are relatively strong and each of our teams plays 8 games against those strong teams. Dividing those up further or going all in with the disaster that is Australian rugby either by playing them more or giving them players is going to kill rugby in NZ. I for one would be cancelling my sky subscription if any of those comps replaced super rugby.If it does happen that South africa leave and take their cash with them then i would be looking at having a NZ only comp with the 5 existing franchises. Take some games to the US/japan to try and bring in some money using high quality product rather than this constant push to dilute the quality in order to expand.
Yeah cos that wouldn't get old.....and would bring in so much broadcasting money.....
-
Reports of South African exodus 'simply wrong': SANZAAR
SANZAAR CEO Andy Marinos has branded reports of a South African exodus as 'simply wrong' and expressed disappointment at reports of possible structures beyond 2020. A report out of Wales overnight said that South Africa's Sharks, Lions and Stormers were considering moving to the European competition in the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 seasons, joining the Cheetahs and the Kings. But SANZAAR, organisers of Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship said the report was unfounded and South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Argentina remained committed to future participation. SANZAAR CEO Andy Marinos rubbished those reports in a statement on Monday morning, and also expressed his frustration that the longer-term possibilities had been revealed in media reports. "SANZAAR - through its joint venture partners - Australia, Argentina, New Zealand and South Africa - is currently engaged in a detailed strategic planning process that will deliver a road-map for the organisation, Super Rugby and The Rugby Championship from 2018-2030," the statement read. "As part of this process the partners have fully committed to the strategy and future participation. "Any talk of a change to the stakeholder relationship and partners withdrawing, and so-called trans- Ta$man competitions is unsubstantiated speculation and simply wrong."The rest of the article is more a topic for the Super Rugby thread ...
-
@stargazer the amusing thing is, that the report speculates 3 more teams would move, names them, which leaves the Bulls to do what? hold the SA flag in Super rugby or try and muscle their way into the NH game too?
-
@kiwimurph said in NH club rugby:
@pukunui said in NH club rugby:
@rapido said in NH club rugby:
@pot-hale said in NH club rugby:
News emerging today that 2-3 more SA teams will join PRO14 in two years time with at least three in place for 2020/21 season. Natal-based Sharks to lead the way with Lions and Stormers to follow.
If it reaches 18 teams then it’s possible that three conferences would be created with IRFU, WRU and SARU teams anchoring each one.
SARU would probably join the 3 Celtic shareholders in Celtic Rugby DAC who own the PRO Rugby competition.
Not sure how I'd feel about this.
The Saffa teams are just starting to get interesting again.
Yet, a Trans- Ta$man or South Pacific based comp would be good (for me) if NZ more teams (7, split the Blues into South of the Harbour and North of the Harbour, split provincial Hurricanes from Wellington).
But, Australian teams are so poor at the moment. I would resolve this by not restricing All Black selection from Australian teams allowing some transfer of talent to Australia, until they rebuild their depth & interest ....
God knows what it would mean to Jaguares and Sunwolves. Without the Saffas I don't think the Jaguares remain viable. Unless ......
I'm not a huge fan of the comp crossing the hemisphere into Japan, although I feel if the Saffas go then rump-SANZAR would probably actually go further down this route and bring in North America. Whereas I would actually prefer a smaller same season, sameish timezone South pacific comp. Less travel, better viewing times, more local relevance.
7 NZ teams
4 Aus
1 Pacific
12 teams in totalor
6 NZ teams
5 Aus
1 Pacificor
7 NZ teams
5 Aus
0 PacificA Pacific team, based in Suva, with a mandate to employ most of their players from those committed to the 3 PI nations would be great I think, but would require either outside private ownership or outside subsidisation.
Im sorry but that sounds god awful.
One of the few advantages have at the moment is that our franchises are relatively strong and each of our teams plays 8 games against those strong teams. Dividing those up further or going all in with the disaster that is Australian rugby either by playing them more or giving them players is going to kill rugby in NZ. I for one would be cancelling my sky subscription if any of those comps replaced super rugby.If it does happen that South africa leave and take their cash with them then i would be looking at having a NZ only comp with the 5 existing franchises. Take some games to the US/japan to try and bring in some money using high quality product rather than this constant push to dilute the quality in order to expand.
Yeah cos that wouldn't get old.....and would bring in so much broadcasting money.....
Yeah cause more matches against the rebels and reds is really going to get the cash flowing in.
Such a high quality product. -
@taniwharugby said in NH club rugby:
@stargazer the amusing thing is, that the report speculates 3 more teams would move, names them, which leaves the Bulls to do what? hold the SA flag in Super rugby or try and muscle their way into the NH game too?
Exactly where would they fit in the NH calendar? Probably need a conference system to be able to account for all the teams.
-
Worth recalling what Jurie Roux said last year when linkup with PRO14 was announced:
“*The first two years of competing in that [Pro14] league will be tough,' he continued. 'We’re not blind to that. We’re going there with open eyes. But we’re glad that there’s faith in us and that after two years we would have proved ourselves from a sustainability point of view and more importantly from a performance point of view.’
Roux was cagey when asked if the move to Europe would compromise an existing agreement with Sanzaar. The Super Rugby competition may be losing relevance, but the Rugby Championship is still one of the strongest tournaments in the world.
‘We’re still in an agreement with Sanzaar for the next three years. It would be a career-limiting move to make any comment about that now. I’ll give you a diplomatic answer, though. We are committed to Sanzaar until the end of 2020.
‘We are going into a negotiation period. We believe we are strong because we play Australia and New Zealand sides all the time. That relationship has been to the great benefit of SA Rugby for more than 20 years. They’re our partners. We don’t foresee not playing those teams in the future.
‘What we do have is the opportunity to expand in terms of our competitions and horizons. We’re trying to take that. We might hit out with a different structure in future. But not playing in the south in any shape or form… it’s unthinkable, because purely from a financial sustainability point of view, you will suffer.’
The Cheetahs and the Kings won’t be eligible for the European Cup or European Challenge tournaments in the near future. That may change down the line, and a change may encourage other South African teams to join the Pro14.
‘I think in future it would make a lot of sense,’ Pro14 CEO Martin Anayi said. ‘Competition and how well the South African teams do in our league will go a long way towards furthering the argument for Europe*.'
And in another interview in the Telegraph:
*SARU's ambition is to have eight professional franchises in South Africa, two more than the current total, with four of those playing in Super Rugby and another four in Europe.
"I can promise you that if we had more teams to move [into Europe] at this stage then we would do so. There is a massive interest," Roux explained.
"We envisage two more franchises in South African rugby in the near future with the opportunity to play in the north.
"There are only about three or four potential teams who could really [turn professional], based on the criteria of economic feasibility and sustainability, plus whether they have the support base and quality of players."*
-
@pot-hale
The big question is where the players and money is coming from for more SA teams to play in Europe. By all accounts SARU is not making more money having 2 teams in the Pro 14. The cost of having these 2 teams are clearly not less than last year. -
@rebound said in NH club rugby:
@pot-hale
The big question is where the players and money is coming from for more SA teams to play in Europe. By all accounts SARU is not making more money having 2 teams in the Pro 14. The cost of having these 2 teams are clearly not less than last year.Fair question. The Celtic Rugby DAC Participation Agreement with SARU seems to have come with a TV deal from SuperSport that provided £500k annually to each of the existing PRO12 teams. On a 6-year deal with a mid-term review point. (Hard learnings from bringing in the Italians who still owe money to other PRO12 unions). Presumably the plan is to slowly grow the comp, attract more TV and specific sponsorship (airline deal to cover travel costs for example), and for all five unions to benefit from upside in growth and revenues as shareholders in Celtic Rugby DAC which owns the comp.
-
@gt12 said in NH club rugby:
@pot-hale said in NH club rugby:
That is why the likes of Jonathan Davies, Juan Martin Hernandez and John Rutherford, plus one or two others, would lie above Carter in my all-time list in terms of individual greatness. Davies, for example, spent most of his career playing for Wales while waiting in vain for a decent morsel of possession which he could run on to.
This where I stopped reading this ridiculous pile of horse shit.
Outside of this, I'm not sure he says anything that should be viewed as too controversial. Everybody knows that he has a chip about kiwis so there are a couple of the usual shots, but in reality I'm not sure his article is far off the truth.
Carters greatest achievements were test 2 lions 2005 and knockout phase of the 2015 world cup, that can't be denied. He oozed class for the most part in between, but these were certainly his highlights. Would have been as succesful consistently getting rubbish ball behind a backwards pack? Would the likes of Davies, Hernandez, Rutherford (no idea who this guy is) been as highly lauded if playing for the Crusaders and All Blacks?
Fair questions, if you ask me.
-
@majorrage said in NH club rugby:
@gt12 said in NH club rugby:
@pot-hale said in NH club rugby:
That is why the likes of Jonathan Davies, Juan Martin Hernandez and John Rutherford, plus one or two others, would lie above Carter in my all-time list in terms of individual greatness. Davies, for example, spent most of his career playing for Wales while waiting in vain for a decent morsel of possession which he could run on to.
This where I stopped reading this ridiculous pile of horse shit.
Outside of this, I'm not sure he says anything that should be viewed as too controversial. Everybody knows that he has a chip about kiwis so there are a couple of the usual shots, but in reality I'm not sure his article is far off the truth.
Carters greatest achievements were test 2 lions 2005 and knockout phase of the 2015 world cup, that can't be denied. He oozed class for the most part in between, but these were certainly his highlights. Would have been as succesful consistently getting rubbish ball behind a backwards pack? Would the likes of Davies, Hernandez, Rutherford (no idea who this guy is) been as highly lauded if playing for the Crusaders and All Blacks?
> Fair questions, if you ask me.
What?
You assume that they would be good enough to be selected for the Crusaders, and the All Blacks, and then selected for more than 10 years, during which time they headed greats (Mehrts, Spencer) with nary a whisper, then saw off a number of good (Donald, Slade, Sops, Barrett, Hill) and world class (Evans, McAlister, Cruden) first fives.
He sure as shit wouldn't have been rejected by Llanelli or needed to fuck off to League, and wouldn't have spent his best years playing as a fullback, and probably would have lead the Lions to victory above the All Blacks, rather than hardly even getting selected! I doubt any of the names that Walrus mentioned would have been consistent enough over 10 years, to be the 1st or 2nd name on the All Black team sheet over that time.
I'd pick him ahead of Barrett now, if I had the chance.
Don't get me wrong, those other players are good, even greats. But, they never even dominated rugby in any way close to the way in which Carter has. So what if he has buttoned off since retiring and going to earn some coin up north?
He is deservedly the best 10 in the modern era (and IMO the second best player ever) because he was at the center of a decade of All Black dominance. Without him, I seriously doubt we would have ever become the team we are now. It's worth remembering that our period of incredible dominance started with him and McCaw arriving at the same time.
So, fuck the Walrus, and that question.
-
@gt12 said in NH club rugby:
@majorrage said in NH club rugby:
@gt12 said in NH club rugby:
@pot-hale said in NH club rugby:
That is why the likes of Jonathan Davies, Juan Martin Hernandez and John Rutherford, plus one or two others, would lie above Carter in my all-time list in terms of individual greatness. Davies, for example, spent most of his career playing for Wales while waiting in vain for a decent morsel of possession which he could run on to.
This where I stopped reading this ridiculous pile of horse shit.
Outside of this, I'm not sure he says anything that should be viewed as too controversial. Everybody knows that he has a chip about kiwis so there are a couple of the usual shots, but in reality I'm not sure his article is far off the truth.
Carters greatest achievements were test 2 lions 2005 and knockout phase of the 2015 world cup, that can't be denied. He oozed class for the most part in between, but these were certainly his highlights. Would have been as succesful consistently getting rubbish ball behind a backwards pack? Would the likes of Davies, Hernandez, Rutherford (no idea who this guy is) been as highly lauded if playing for the Crusaders and All Blacks?
> Fair questions, if you ask me.
What?
You assume that they would be good enough to be selected for the Crusaders, and the All Blacks, and then selected for more than 10 years, during which time they headed greats (Mehrts, Spencer) with nary a whisper, then saw off a number of good (Donald, Slade, Sops, Barrett, Hill) and world class (Evans, McAlister, Cruden) first fives.
He sure as shit wouldn't have been rejected by Llanelli or needed to fuck off to League, and wouldn't have spent his best years playing as a fullback, and probably would have lead the Lions to victory above the All Blacks, rather than hardly even getting selected! I doubt any of the names that Walrus mentioned would have been consistent enough over 10 years, to be the 1st or 2nd name on the All Black team sheet over that time.
I'd pick him ahead of Barrett now, if I had the chance.
Don't get me wrong, those other players are good, even greats. But, they never even dominated rugby in any way close to the way in which Carter has. So what if he has buttoned off since retiring and going to earn some coin up north?
He is deservedly the best 10 in the modern era (and IMO the second best player ever) because he was at the center of a decade of All Black dominance. Without him, I seriously doubt we would have ever become the team we are now. It's worth remembering that our period of incredible dominance started with him and McCaw arriving at the same time.
So, fuck the Walrus, and that question.
Speak with anyone who played with or against Davies in either code and you'll see that he had both the skill and the durability to have leapfrogged all but one or two on your list
-
@mikethesnow said in NH club rugby:
@gt12 said in NH club rugby:
@majorrage said in NH club rugby:
@gt12 said in NH club rugby:
@pot-hale said in NH club rugby:
That is why the likes of Jonathan Davies, Juan Martin Hernandez and John Rutherford, plus one or two others, would lie above Carter in my all-time list in terms of individual greatness. Davies, for example, spent most of his career playing for Wales while waiting in vain for a decent morsel of possession which he could run on to.
This where I stopped reading this ridiculous pile of horse shit.
Outside of this, I'm not sure he says anything that should be viewed as too controversial. Everybody knows that he has a chip about kiwis so there are a couple of the usual shots, but in reality I'm not sure his article is far off the truth.
Carters greatest achievements were test 2 lions 2005 and knockout phase of the 2015 world cup, that can't be denied. He oozed class for the most part in between, but these were certainly his highlights. Would have been as succesful consistently getting rubbish ball behind a backwards pack? Would the likes of Davies, Hernandez, Rutherford (no idea who this guy is) been as highly lauded if playing for the Crusaders and All Blacks?
> Fair questions, if you ask me.
What?
You assume that they would be good enough to be selected for the Crusaders, and the All Blacks, and then selected for more than 10 years, during which time they headed greats (Mehrts, Spencer) with nary a whisper, then saw off a number of good (Donald, Slade, Sops, Barrett, Hill) and world class (Evans, McAlister, Cruden) first fives.
He sure as shit wouldn't have been rejected by Llanelli or needed to fuck off to League, and wouldn't have spent his best years playing as a fullback, and probably would have lead the Lions to victory above the All Blacks, rather than hardly even getting selected! I doubt any of the names that Walrus mentioned would have been consistent enough over 10 years, to be the 1st or 2nd name on the All Black team sheet over that time.
I'd pick him ahead of Barrett now, if I had the chance.
Don't get me wrong, those other players are good, even greats. But, they never even dominated rugby in any way close to the way in which Carter has. So what if he has buttoned off since retiring and going to earn some coin up north?
He is deservedly the best 10 in the modern era (and IMO the second best player ever) because he was at the center of a decade of All Black dominance. Without him, I seriously doubt we would have ever become the team we are now. It's worth remembering that our period of incredible dominance started with him and McCaw arriving at the same time.
So, fuck the Walrus, and that question.
Speak with anyone who played with or against Davies in either code and you'll see that he had both the skill and the durability to have leapfrogged all but one or two on your list
I'm not suggesting that he isn't a great player. I saw him play, and I've watched the old stuff when he started out. I'm not suggesting he isn't great.
But, he's no Dan Carter. That's my point.
The Walrus seems to think that he has never earned it, but he moved to Christchurch boys after he made the Sth Island secondary schools team from Ellesmere College - which is the equivalent of fucking nowhere. He's that good. He'd be that good playing for whoever. He didn't make the All Blacks because he was fucking lucky.
That's the missing point here, he is the causative factor for many of the teams being as good as they are.
-
Blimey, I thought I might start some reaction here, but didn't quite expect the fly off the handle that I've got here ...
@gt12 said in NH club rugby:
You assume that they would be good enough to be selected for the Crusaders, and the All Blacks, and then selected for more than 10 years, during which time they headed greats (Mehrts, Spencer) with nary a whisper, then saw off a number of good (Donald, Slade, Sops, Barrett, Hill) and world class (Evans, McAlister, Cruden) first fives.
How much of Davies, JMH and Rutherford have you seen and did you watch? I don't know the latter at all so can't comment, but Davies was a hell of a player across two codes, many people will talk about him as one of the most gifted they had seen. Of your list of first-5's I'd only put Cruden, Barret & Evans as truly top tier and worth talking about holding off. Mehrts & Spencer were both well approaching use-by when Carter joined the scene, and I'm fairly confident that JMH could well have been selected at this point in time.
He sure as shit wouldn't have been rejected by Llanelli or needed to fuck off to League, and wouldn't have spent his best years playing as a fullback, and probably would have lead the Lions to victory above the All Blacks, rather than hardly even getting selected! I doubt any of the names that Walrus mentioned would have been consistent enough over 10 years, to be the 1st or 2nd name on the All Black team sheet over that time.
You are comparing professional to amateur here - league was professional back then, union wasn't. Thats why Davies moved. Your talk of consistency over 10 years is a fair point, but very few best of lists talk about this. Cullen is mentioned in loads of best-of lists as an example, but he really only had 3 years at the very top. Compare that to Muliaina who was a 10 year plus AB, consistently selected, but he's unlikely to make any best of lists.
I'd pick him ahead of Barrett now, if I had the chance.
Watched must Racing? I wouldn't. He's switched off now and this would be silly.
Don't get me wrong, those other players are good, even greats. But, they never even dominated rugby in any way close to the way in which Carter has. So what if he has buttoned off since retiring and going to earn some coin up north?
This isn't Walrus, or my argument.
He is deservedly the best 10 in the modern era (and IMO the second best player ever) because he was at the center of a decade of All Black dominance. Without him, I seriously doubt we would have ever become the team we are now. It's worth remembering that our period of incredible dominance started with him and McCaw arriving at the same time.
I'd say our greatest period of pure dominance, the 2012-2015 period was more about the team than any one player. Cruden played a lot of this too.
So, fuck the Walrus, and that question.
Agree to the former, but not the latter.
-
I’ve watched enough to know that Carter is better. It’s that simple.
I’m not arguing that they weren’t good, or even great, just simply that Carter is significantly better.
You’ve rightly pointed out the difference between the Amateur and professional eras, but it’s not me me who put those together - that was the Walrus and you.
I wonder how many would select Davies ahead of his contemporaries? some good players then - no Lions tour when he was at his best, sadly, but would you pick him above Lynagh, Fox, Andrews? Given what the game was then?
Rutherford couldn’t even break into the Lions team in 1983 (he played inside center), despite being a great player. Even he explained why (I can dig up the interview). Don’t get me wrong, he was super exciting, and helped win a Grand Slam, but couldn’t even get selected for the premier tram of his generation.
And Hernandez played most of his best rugby at 15. Amazing player, vet Barret-esque.
These guys were awesome, but they are simply just not as good as Dan Carter. He’s the most complete 10 of the modern era (and all time IMO) and shouldn’t be judged by his activities since retiring.
-
@gt12 said in NH club rugby:
@mikethesnow said in NH club rugby:
@gt12 said in NH club rugby:
@majorrage said in NH club rugby:
@gt12 said in NH club rugby:
@pot-hale said in NH club rugby:
That is why the likes of Jonathan Davies, Juan Martin Hernandez and John Rutherford, plus one or two others, would lie above Carter in my all-time list in terms of individual greatness. Davies, for example, spent most of his career playing for Wales while waiting in vain for a decent morsel of possession which he could run on to.
This where I stopped reading this ridiculous pile of horse shit.
Outside of this, I'm not sure he says anything that should be viewed as too controversial. Everybody knows that he has a chip about kiwis so there are a couple of the usual shots, but in reality I'm not sure his article is far off the truth.
Carters greatest achievements were test 2 lions 2005 and knockout phase of the 2015 world cup, that can't be denied. He oozed class for the most part in between, but these were certainly his highlights. Would have been as succesful consistently getting rubbish ball behind a backwards pack? Would the likes of Davies, Hernandez, Rutherford (no idea who this guy is) been as highly lauded if playing for the Crusaders and All Blacks?
> Fair questions, if you ask me.
What?
You assume that they would be good enough to be selected for the Crusaders, and the All Blacks, and then selected for more than 10 years, during which time they headed greats (Mehrts, Spencer) with nary a whisper, then saw off a number of good (Donald, Slade, Sops, Barrett, Hill) and world class (Evans, McAlister, Cruden) first fives.
He sure as shit wouldn't have been rejected by Llanelli or needed to fuck off to League, and wouldn't have spent his best years playing as a fullback, and probably would have lead the Lions to victory above the All Blacks, rather than hardly even getting selected! I doubt any of the names that Walrus mentioned would have been consistent enough over 10 years, to be the 1st or 2nd name on the All Black team sheet over that time.
I'd pick him ahead of Barrett now, if I had the chance.
Don't get me wrong, those other players are good, even greats. But, they never even dominated rugby in any way close to the way in which Carter has. So what if he has buttoned off since retiring and going to earn some coin up north?
He is deservedly the best 10 in the modern era (and IMO the second best player ever) because he was at the center of a decade of All Black dominance. Without him, I seriously doubt we would have ever become the team we are now. It's worth remembering that our period of incredible dominance started with him and McCaw arriving at the same time.
So, fuck the Walrus, and that question.
Speak with anyone who played with or against Davies in either code and you'll see that he had both the skill and the durability to have leapfrogged all but one or two on your list
I'm not suggesting that he isn't a great player. I saw him play, and I've watched the old stuff when he started out. I'm not suggesting he isn't great.
But, he's no Dan Carter. That's my point.
The Walrus seems to think that he has never earned it, but he moved to Christchurch boys after he made the Sth Island secondary schools team from Ellesmere College - which is the equivalent of fucking nowhere. He's that good. He'd be that good playing for whoever. He didn't make the All Blacks because he was fucking lucky.
That's the missing point here, he is the causative factor for many of the teams being as good as they are.
The key words that slipped by you were 'leapfrogged all but one or two on your list'.
I'd have Carter at No. 1 too, but Davies could have and would have run him close IMHO.
And yes I'd have Davies ahead of Lynagh, Fox and Rob Andrew (if that is who you were referencing)
