NZ Rugby Almanack selections pit the best against the best
Roar Pro
By sheek, 17 Apr 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Pro
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
The NZ Rugby Almanack recently selected its best All Blacks 22 and best Opposition 22 from the period 1984-2008.
The teams are as follows:
All Blacks:
15-C.Cullen, 14-J.Kirwan, 13-F.Bunce, 12-W.Taylor, 11-J.Wilson, 10-D.Carter, 9-J.Marshall, 8-W.Shelford, 7-R.McCaw, 6-M.Jones, 5-I.Jones, 4-G.Whetton, 3-O.Brown, 2-S.Fitzpatrick, 1-C.Hayman. Bench: 22-D.Howlett, 21-A.Merhtens, 20-G.Bachop, 19-Z.Brooke, 18-A.Williams, 17-S.McDowell, 16-A.Dalton.Opposition:
15-M.Burke(AUS), 14-P.Saint-Andre(FRA), 13-P.Sella(FRA), 12-T.Horan(AUS), 11-D.Campese(AUS), 10-J.Davies(WAL), 9-N.Farr-Jones(AUS), 8-T.Kefu(AUS), 7-L.Cabannes(FRA), 6-S.Poidevin(AUS), 5-J.Eales(AUS), 4-M.Andrews(SAF), 3-J.Leonard(ENG), 2-P.Kearns(AUS), 1-T.Rodriguez(AUS). Bench: 22-A.Slack(AUS), 21-S.Larkham(AUS), 20-G.Gregan(AUS), 19-?????, 18-M.Johnson(ENG), 17-O.du Randt(SAF), 16-J.Smit(SAF).
I actually like both selections, with my disagreements being rather minor.
There’s no Jonah Lomu, but how could you argue with Kirwan and Wilson, both of whom had a greater work rate?
Some might prefer Walter Little to Taylor, but I’m happy with the latter.
In the forwards, there’s nothing wrong at all with Buck, but Zinzan Brooke would have to be the most outrageously skilled and gifted eightman to play the game.
But he could also blow hot and cold.
With the Opposition team, the omission of both Danie Gerber and Hugo Porta in the backs is a surprise. But Kiwis didn’t see much of either during the period in question.
I don’t have any problems with Mark Ella missing out to Davies, simply because Ella’s last year coincided with the first year of this period.
So he was only seen in 1984, and one year perhaps is insufficient to warrant selection.
I’m also happy with the forwards, although I’m inclined to think Leonard is a tad overrated. Johnson was perhaps unlucky to miss the starting XV, while Keith Wood was also worthy of selection.
But by and all, I think the NZ Rugby Almanack has done a good job (although the Saffies might disagree).
What do other Roarers think?
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
Jerry said | April 17th 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
The reason I’d argue against both Wilson and Kirwan being included is that they were both right wings – it’s not the same position and it’s disingenuous to select Wilson at 11 when he barely played there (if at all).
I believe the selections for the opposition were limited to encounters against NZ, hence why Keith Wood would not factor.
Knives Out said | April 17th 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Jerry, Keith Wood has featured against NZ on at least 3 separate occasions.
Also, you missed the chance to critique Hayman’s selection at loosehead. Obviously my NZ rugby knowledge is not as detailed as yours, but my all time favourite All Black looseheads are Dowd, and the replacement, McDowell. Dowd’s work in the loose was exceptional for a big man.
Sheek, I would have to say that Jason Leonard is drastically underrated. His achievements stand alone in the game. I agree about Johnson but would suggest his ommission is far more than ‘unlucky’. IMO he was far, far superior to Andrews. I happened to catch a short programme about him on ESPN the other day and I had forgotten his all round abilities.He truly was a great player.
sheek said | April 17th 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Jerry,
You’re quite right about both Kirwan & Wilson being right-wingers. Assuming Lomu came in on the left, who would you pick out of Kirwan or Wilson? Very tough call call, but I would go with Wilson, I think.
With the Opposition, both St.Andre & Campo were mostly right-wingers also. Campo made his debut on the left, & played there occasionally, but was mostly on the right.
People assume Campo was a left-winger because he demanded the number 11 jersey (his debut number) after Brendan Moon retired. But he continued to play right wing despite wearing number 11 jersey.
I would pick Campo ahead of St.Andre on the right wing, & bring in Serge Blanco on the left, who could also play wing besides fullback. Had totally forgotten about Blanco. Crikey, I would consider him ahead of Burke at fullback also.
sheek said | April 17th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
KO,
Agree Dowd was an excellent player. However, McDowell was even more mobile from my memory. Very little to choose from between Hayman, McDowell or Dowd. Aren’t the Kiwis lucky with their props?
Johnson & Andrews are entirely different players. Johnson was a grafter, Andrews more like Eales. Assuming Eales is the first lock chosen, & being a fan of ying/yang complimentary players, I would also choose Johnson to partner Eales.
Maybe the NZ Almanack started feeling guilty at this point, because they hadn’t chosen enough Saffies!
Knives Out said | April 17th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Hayman can’t play loosehead though, Sheek. I tend to agree with Jerry’s suggestion that to play players out of position is slightly disingenuous. You’re right about McDowell, he was very good player, very much a modern prop. Slimmer than Dowd but muscular. And now NZ have Woodcock, another mobile, tough world class prop.
The reason I said that I had forgotten how good Johnson was is best illustrated by your ‘gratfer’ comment. Despite my years watching him my mind had turned him into a de facto maul monster, whereas the ESPN programme made me recall just how many attacks with ball in hand that Johnson started. He was a big ball carrier for England and from his years as an amateur American Football player he had these lovely soft hands and would deliver little pop passes out of contact. He ran really clever angles too. I can’t believe how I’d managed to forget. In contrast I always saw Andrews as a manufactuared ball player. His stint as an eightman was a limited success at best so I tend to perceive him as the typical Springbok locking donkey – which I don’t mean to be negative. I also recall him being completely out-athleticised (had to make up a word there) by Johnson and Davidson on the ’97 Lions tour. Obviously my mind might be playing the same tricks it did with my perception of Johnson, but that’s how I see Andrews. If the Almanack wanted a Saffer I’m sure they could have squeezed in Andre Venter.
sheek said | April 17th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
KO,
Accept what you say about Leonard. He was a fine prop, for sure. The thing about guys like Leonard & Gregan playing over 100 tests, is that they had the opportunity to do so.
It doesn’t necessarily mean they were the best ever in their positions, of course. The thing about Leonard is that he always gave 100%, but I don’t think he struck fear into opposition teams. That’s the difference. Leonard was hard & consistently good, without perhaps giving England an edge through the fear factor of his physical presence.
Knives Out said | April 17th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Sheek, I don’t agree about Leonard. If you watch him in his early years up to 1997 he was a fierce, fierce man – spiteful even. There is this image of him from his latter years as a roly, poly jolly Englishman but nobody ever messed with him even then. The praise he has received from so many top front rowers: Keith Wood, Craig Dowd, Pascal Ondarts, Jeff Probyn etc, is enough for me. He didn’t stay in the England side because there was nobody else, as is proved by the appearences from Graham Rowntree, Trevor Woodman, Phil Vickery and Julian White. He stayed there because he was one tough mother. Three consecutive Lions tours says it all.
sheek said | April 17th 2009 @ 10:06am | Report comment
KO,
When I originally saw Brown chosen at loosehead, I thought this was a mistake, & they meant Hayman was the loosehead. Of course, Hayman is the tight-head, & Woodcock the loosehead. I don’t pay as close attention these days as say 10 years ago.
Well, that’s crazy selecting, picking two tight-heads! Okay, they swapped M.Jones to blindside flanker, but he showed he could play that possie equally well to openside. Also, I don’t recall Brown ever playing loose-head.
So if I were picking the ABs 1984-2008, Brown would be tight-head, & McDowell loose-head, with Dowd the back-up. Noting that Macca & Dowd played both sides of the scrum. Throw in Hayman, Woodcock, Loe, etc, etc…..gee, the Kiwis are spoilt for choices.
Knives Out said | April 17th 2009 @ 10:13am | Report comment
They were spoilt for choice until Carl Hoeft and David Hewett turned up… (cough cough) People forget how well Hansen/Henry has done in turning the NZ pack into such a feared scrummaging unit. After the Dowd and Brown years the NZ front row was a rather fallow field. Talking of McDowell, we can’t forget Drake. Despite his smallish collection of caps he was very well respected in the front row community. Loe, talented and powerful as he was, was just a nasty, nasty bastard.
number3 said | April 17th 2009 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Generally I have no issues except for one
How Somon Poidevin could selected over George Smith is beyond me. Simon was inspirational, tough but one dimensional. George, well I could debate that he is as good as McCaw.