By Luke Phillips
November 30th 2009 @ 6:41am
Related coverage
McCaw honoured by IRB accolade
New Zealand captain Richie McCaw said he was honoured after picking up the IRB Player of the Year award for a second time.
The International Rugby Board admitted the race for the award had been the “most closely contested” since its inception in 2001.
The nomination of McCaw had also left many observers scratching their heads since the All Blacks skipper had missed large chunks of the season and his side were beaten to the Tri-Nations title by world champions South Africa.
He fought off stiff competition from the likes of Brian O’Driscoll, who led Ireland to a first Grand Slam in 51 years and won the European Cup with Leinster, and Fourie du Preez, the doughty South African scrum-half who won the Super 14 with the Bulls and was instrumental in his country’s series defeat of the British and Irish Lions and Tri-Nations triumph.
Despite that, McCaw has rebounded from injury to cement his place as world rugby’s top openside flanker, a skillful ball handler who is immensely physical and not afraid of pushing his own body or the interpretation of the breakdown laws to the absolute limit.
“On behalf of the All Blacks players and management, we congratulate Richie on receiving this award,” All Blacks coach Graham Henry said.
“He is the leader of our team, shows a huge amount of character and commitment both on and off the field and is truly deserving of this honour.
“Richie was outstanding (against France) and to be named world player of the year is a special achievement.”
McCaw, who became the third most capped All Black of all time when he won his 80th cap leading his side to a 39-12 rout of France here on Friday, was awarded his first IRB accolade in 2006.
“It is a huge honour,” he said. “I am extremely proud. I am just happy to be part of a team doing well.
“I am happy to do my bit, but it is a great honour. I’ve said it before, you can’t do it without a bunch of mates. It has been a trying year at times, but it is great to be part of a winning team.”
“In team sport it’s hard to pick one guy out (but) to be singled out is a special honour.
“You can’t pick up awards like that without a team that’s special.
“I’m proud to be part of that but your mates alongside you that deserve some credit as well.”
Jock Hobbs, chairman of the New Zealand Rugby Union, said: “This award is a truly fitting recognition for Richie who this year has again shown himself to be a world-class player.
“He is an inspiration to other players as well as rugby fans in New Zealand and around the world.”
The IRB said that McCaw had received the award “despite the end of New Zealand’s four-year reign as Tri Nations champions”.
“The flanker led by example, producing a series of outstanding individual performances while driving his team to a clean sweep of November test victories.”
IRB Chairman Bernard Lapasset admitted it had not been easy to sort the nominees, who also included Ireland No 8 Jamie Heaslip, Springbok Francois Steyn, England’s Tom Croft and Australia fly-half Matt Giteau.
“There is no doubt that this was a particularly closely-fought year with each of the shortlisted players producing outstanding performances,” Lapasset said.
“Richie is an inspirational figure, a fine leader and one of the greats of the Game in recent years, and a deserving recipient of the IRB Player of the Year Award for the second time.”
The IRB also named Tri-Nations champions South Africa as Team of the Year and Ireland’s Declan Kidney the IRB Coach of the Year at Croke Park following his Six Nations-winning side’s 15-10 win over the Springboks.
Super 14 Tipping now live on The Roar. Join now.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
© 2008 AFP
(98)
Temba said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:35am | Report comment
Don’t know how the IRB selects these “player of the year” McCaw had a terrible S14 and 3N if you want to talk flanks then Brusso owned him in every match they played. Just in case I sound south African I think Brian O’Driscoll deserved it more than McCaw.
ohtani's jacket said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:56am | Report comment
McCaw wasn’t owned by Brussow and he didn’t have a terrible Tri-Nations. Not that he was an oustanding candidate for player of the year but these aren’t the world’s most prestigious awards.
Ora said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:43am | Report comment
Brussow certainly did not own McCaw in every match at all, that is over the top and blatant sour grapes. Whilst Brussow is an exceptional player he is not in the same class as McCaw and did not outplay him at all. In case I sound like a New Zealander hmm maybe because I am. I’d much rather have seen Corey jane get it just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons hell actually that kid with the freakish boot from the republic would do.
Ora said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:46am | Report comment
Lets put this into perspective a little.
Brussow played a few good games in a strong team.
McCaw played exceptionally in a struggling team.
However Mccaw then went on to have a very strong NH tour what did Brussow achieve on this tour?
Sadly for you Temba the IRB awards are not given out for matches soley played during the Tri-Nations.
Angus said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:26am | Report comment
On the contrary McCaw did not have exceptional Tri Nations , he was pretty ordinary.
Brussouw was ok but not that great.
IRB award will start to lose it importance when you get results like this
For Player of the year you would think that you would have had good games right through the year . McCaw went missing in both away games in SA.
Fourie DuPreez was more deserving this year than McCaw.
This is not the first year there was controversy Last Year McCaw missed out to after a magnificent year. The Award is becoming a Joke.
Ora said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
The awards are a joke but to say Brussow owned Mccaw is totally ridiculous and it does not add anything to his post.
Ireland should have won team of the year as I believe they went undefeated did they not?
South Africa had a great Tri-Nations and Lions tour however they capitulated badly on the NH tour how an award can be given for such inconsistancy is beyond me, the same could be said in regardm to McCaw. You will notice I have never said McCaw deserved the award I havehowever insinuated he is a hell of a lot more deserving than Brussow!
Angus said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:06am | Report comment
My point was your statement “McCaw played exceptionally in a struggling team”
which I had issues with. I would agree with you on the selection of Ireland as the team of the year but there would be many well deserved arguements for South Africa, that you can write off to a difference of opinion. This itself does not make the Awards a joke. When you get McCaw who had several bad games and the
ensuing debate that he had lost his Mojo (I did not agree with this at the time).
He had just come back from injury but he still and a few bad games. Hence Tembas “Öwned by Brussouw” tag, which I have already said is rubbish.
Dean Pantio said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
“McCaw went missing in both away games in SA.” No he didn’t – the entire All Black pack went missing. I’ll agree with you that;
A) Du Preez can consider himself grossly unlucky this year, and
B) McCaw missing out last year to the midget Williams was a joke.
As for Brüssow, please. Playing for a team that came last in the S14 and for the Bok; managed one win in their NH tour?
Angus said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Did McCaw go missing Yes
Did he get press saying he had lost his Mojo Yes.
I am not a Brussow apoplogist but he has yet to go missing in a game.
The Cheetahs were an ordinary side but he still kept up his work rate and
got rewarded for his game. This is not a Brussow discusion but whether
McCaw deserves the Award, I am sorry he does not.
Ora said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Angus yes this wasn’t initially about Mccaw however when someone comes onto an open forum and states McCaw was owned by Brussow it dramaticallky changes the intentions of the post. This is what i have the issue with as do a few other posters. Thje fact remains matteer what you or I think he did get the award and we will just have to live with it. Like on the playing fielsd sometimes decisions just don’t go our way no matter how blatantly obvious the indiscretion may have been.
However I do believe you underestimate Richie and his influence greatly.
You say richie may not deserve the award well fair enough however Brussow doesn’t do enough to be even warrant nomination at present
Temba said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Man Ora you can harp on about stuff…
Let me put it to you this way. To me player of the year should be the best in his position, the best form of his career.
McCaw is a shadow of his former self and if we are talking about the number he wears on his back then I think Brusso did the job better and proved himself more.
Du Preez is the best 9 in the world without doubt, was McCaw the best in his? Maybe but it’s not as clear as Odriscol or FDP.
Its not captain of the year award if it was then Smit would win that. I don’t think for one second that McCaw deserves it now… 09… I am not saying he doesn’t deserve to make the hall of fame just plain and simple he was not the best in 09.
Ora said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Temba,
Because I don’t agree with you and give reasons I am harping on now am I?
Seriously mate it’s time to grow up and stop being so defensive because I do not agree with you.
And befoere you rudely go insinuating rubbish that I never said I would reccomend you go back to your original provocative post and chill out a bit.
Not once have I said McCaw deserved the award nor have I said it was a captains award either. that is an attempt by you to cover your tracks from making such a foolish and uneducated statement above.
I am not the only who thinks you were out of line stating Brussow owned McCaw.
So how about you keep this in check mate because you really are being rather rude.
I stand by my opinion I do not believe Brussow is anywhere near McCaws class yet!
I am also not sure McCaw deserved the award however Brussow certainly didn’t!
O’D yeah sure FDP close but no cigar
True Tah said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Dean
funnily enough the Cheetahs were able to knock off the Crusaders, and Brussow overshadowed McCaw in that game.
Du Preez should have got player of the year. Apart from the end of season tour, it was an excellent year for South African rugby, the Bulls winning the Super 14 in a canter, victory over the Lions, winning the Tri Nations, including three wins over NZ, including beating them on their home turf.
Temba said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Yes Ora I know hence my pick would rather have been O’Driscoll, who did way more then McCaw did. With Brussow I was only trying to expose that McCaw is not the best. The IRb don’t base these awards on just the end of year NH tour do they?
Perspective hey?
Ora said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
No Temba your pulling at straws now mate.
McCaw is a much better player than Brussow at present and thats rather obvious to most people. Brussow has the potential to go on to be a great player but he isn’t there yet.
And as for your little dig maybe you should read my comment again son before reacting.
“McCaw played exceptionally in a struggling team.
However Mccaw then went on to have a very strong NH tour ….”
I don’t think it takes a genius to work out that the first line in the quote I was refering to the 3N and the later the NH tours.
Time to breathe don’t you think?
Temba said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:16am | Report comment
OK I am not trying to be funny here Ora keep the attack mode switched off.
I mentioned Brussow not because I think he should have won the award, only to discredit McCaw as PLAYER OF THE YEAR.
I truly believe he is a legend but in 09 he there were many that stood higher then him.
By calling me “son” you are not promoting a discussion but an argument. I saw Brusso turn McCaw 3 times in 20 mins.
I also don’t think the Boks should have got team of the year after the armband saga. Ireland probably should have got that one too.
So relax mate.
Harry said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:28am | Report comment
Fair recognition for McCaw, one of the best players of all time; maintained they very high standards for five or six years as well. A truly great player.
Should have been yellow-carded v the Frogs for “accidentially” getting in the way of a potential French scoring pass 8 metres from the tryline early in the test, while coming back from an offisde position. Yet in typical McCaw fashion (and I say this as a compliment) he wasn’t even penalised for it!
True Tah said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Harry you’re not the only one who picked that up, I thought McCaw was a pretty fit bloke and getting onside would not have been a problem for him.
Dean Pantio said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
I suggest you look at Law 11.3 and you might then understand why.
Harry said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Well I did look at 11.3 but it is the wrong law. A maul had been formed prior to this playso the relevant rule is 11.8
11.8 PUTTING ONSIDE A PLAYER RETIRING DURING A RUCK, MAUL,
SCRUM OR LINEOUT
When a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout forms, a player who is offside and is retiring as
required by Law remains offside even when the opposing team wins possession and the
ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended. The player is put onside by retiring behind the
applicable offside line. No other action of the offside player and no action of that player’s
team mates can put the offside player onside.
If the player remains offside the player can be put onside only by the action of the opposing
team. There are two such actions:
Opponent runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball has run 5 metres,
the offside player is put onside. An offside player is not put onside when an opponent
passes the ball. Even if the opponents pass the ball several times, their action does not put
the offside player onside.
Furthermore Rules 11.9 (deliberately loitering) applies.
I would strongly suggest that this unlawful action by the IRB player of the year that took place in the Opponents 22 and and impeded a potential try scoring pass was a deliberate action which warranted a yellow card.
Like I said, I think McCaw’s a great player, the best in the world, but he does get away with a heck of a lot on the rugby field.
Jerry said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:52am | Report comment
It wasn’t a ruck or a maul. It was a tackle. Therefore no offside.
It’s a debatable call as to whether a ruck was formed (I’ve not heard anyone argue it was a maul – it clearly wasn’t). Mils Muliaina was the only All Black who could have been said to be on his feet competing for the ball, but he merely laid a hand on a French player – you couldn’t really argue he was over the ball.
Harry said | November 30th 2009 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
Can’t reply to you last comment sorry but thanks for the You Tube file, New Zealand played some wonderful rugby.Well Jerry we are going to have to disagree on this as it looks mightly like a ruck to me. I repeat that its pretty obvious Mc Caw thinks so to as he veers across field to make sure he makes it as difficult as possible for the passer to take the ball, rather than go for the tackle or intercept.
Jerry said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:27pm | Report comment
Harry – I agree McCaw probably thought he was offside, but there’s no way that was a ruck.
The key question to ask is this – Was Mils Muliaina bound? If he wasn’t, there’s no ruck, cause there were no All Blacks on their feet over the ball at any time. I don’t think you can really argue that a touch with his fingertips is sufficient and that’s all he did.
Dean Pantio said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Maul? The maul is irrelevant. The play continued with the French player running with the ball in a break out. Following that and the subsequent tackle, McCaw, by the law of the game, was on side. The fact he was running back to help defend negates the ignorant suggestion that he was loitering. As such, as I stated previously, the play is determined by Law 11.3 – the ref got it correct. Take heart though, you’re not the first person on The Roar to demonstrate their ignorance and you won’t be the last.
Campbell Watts said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Correct Dean!
Nothing wrong with what McCaw did – look at the replays and you’ll see he’s not even looking at the ball when it gets passed.
Harry said | November 30th 2009 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
But Dean Jerry says, however qualified, that it was a ruck (yes it wasa ruck rather than a maul. My mistake). Sure looked like the ball on the ground and a contest for posession to me. But just to be crystal clear your saying it wasn’t?
If so, why didn’t the best player in the world take the low risk option and just go straight for the winger and tackle him, as I’m sure would have been the case had McCaw really thought he was legitimately onside. Similarly, he wouldn’t have taken such a meandering, loitering run across the field, he could have intercepted it and would certainly have kept his eyes on the ball. But of course McCaw didn’t do either of those things for the very good reason that he knew he was offside.
Jerry said | November 30th 2009 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
Harry, I didn’t say it was a ruck I said it was a debatable call.
A ruck requires a player of either side on their feet in physical contact around the ball. Here’s the McCaw incident at the 2:35 mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwL89swMm5s
Now, the only AB on his feet there is Mils, and I don’t think you could seriously argue that briefly touching the French player is competing for the ball. He’s making no attempt to push or play the ball, he’s looking at the halfback and the attacking backline. It’s not a ruck, it’s a tackle therefore no offside therefore no penalty.
Now, McCaw probably wasn’t sure that it wasn’t a ruck – if he had been he’d have tried to intercept it – and he may or may not have deliberately got in the way (though to me it looked like a pretty poor pass from the French guy – if he’d held the ball and run a step or two before passing he’d have given his man a clear run in) but the ref’s call was entirely correct.
Ora said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment
I am calling you son because your comment was very boyish and something my 8 year old son would say. So if you want to comment like a child I will treat you like a child in response. Do not come at me with some moralistic high ground.
You made a rather fioolish comment short and simple really
If you don’t think McCaw deserved the award you should have said so, just like that.
here’s an example.
“I don’t believe McCaw deserved the award it should have gone to Brian O’Driscoll”
Saying he was owned my Brussow when clearly he wasn’t smacks of sour grapes to me. No matter what McCaw does it will never be good enough for some people.
So Brussow turned McCaw three times in 20 mins you say well good for him what about the other 220mins of rugby played between the two nations who had the upperhand there?
I can understand your own sentiment towards Brussow however I believe your wording in your first post was provocative and totally unsubstantiated.
As I tell my children think before you speak
Temba said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Right, thank you for the lesson. Hope you have a longer fuse with your little ones.
Ora said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Another brilliant comment from you Temba, do you always react this way when pulled up?
As for my kids thankfully they have a lot more common sense than some people here at the roar.
pothale said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
If the Awards are done on a calendar basis – Jan 2009 – Nov 2009, I am puzzled as to McCaw’s nomination, since the judges stated that the Awards include the 6 Nations, Lions series, June tests, Tri Nations and November tests. The nominations were made at the beginning of the November tests after first matches had been played.
Up to that point, NZ had split a test series with the French, beaten Italy unconvincingly, lost 3 on the trot to South Africa, beaten a less than stellar Aussie side, and a woeful England side.
At the same point, F de Preez and B O’Driscoll had achieved a lot more in their respective hemispheric competitions.
NZ completed a clean sweep of their NH tour again unconvincingly against Italy and then their superb match against France.
SA went downhill in their NH tour, and de Preez melted into the background.
O’Driscoll comes up with the equalising try for his team against Australia; he scored the turnaround try in the game against Fiji to get the game and scoreboard going in the right direction, and then led his team to victory over the Tri-Nations champions with a try-saving tackle in the last minute that practically knocked him out. Consistent, leading performance from a player for his team that went undefeated throughout the year, as well as winnning the Grand Slam. (club/league performances are not counted by the judges.)
At the very least, this should have been a joint award.
ohtani's jacket said | November 30th 2009 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
McCaw didn’t play in the June Tests nor did he play against Italy in Milan. He played in 10 Tests and the entire argument comes down to the two Tests in South Africa and possibly the third against the Boks in Hamilton.
There’s no way that McCaw can measure up to du Preez or O’Driscoll’s accomplishments since he never had the opportunity to face the Lions or to contest a Grand Slam. New Zealand haven’t gone 61 years without a clean sweep of the Tri-Nations and beat all of the Six Nations sides on a regular basis. The award ought to come down to individual play.
Sylvester said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:54pm | Report comment
“Up to that point, NZ had split a test series with the French, beaten Italy unconvincingly, lost 3 on the trot to South Africa, beaten a less than stellar Aussie side, and a woeful England side.”
Surely, the individual player can’t be solely judged by the team’s performance? He’s only one person and could have been one of the only stars in those games. If that’s the case, surely Parisse is never a chance to win while Italy struggles?
I’m not saying McCaw definitely deserved the award, but using this an argument to say he didn’t seems flawed.
He did actually play very well in many of those games, despite Brussow, with the aid of a dominant pack, appearing to have the wood over him.
It’s also more than just the breakdown performance, look at how much other work McCaw gets through in a match. Last pass in their tries against Wales and England count for anything?
pothale said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:07pm | Report comment
Oj/Sylvester – I’d be the first to acknowledge McCaw’s standing in the game. I was merely pointing out that de Preez and BOD both had exceptional years too.
And I did say that a joint award could have been the outcome – it’s not that unusual a decision in these things.
However, it’s relatively minor in the scheme of things, so hey ho.
Temba said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
I don’t think anyone here will dispute that McCaw is one of the best players in the history of the game but I don’t think anyone can with confidence say that this was his best year, not to mention better then the rest of the world. He is not nearly in the forms he was 2-3 years ago.
O’driscol or Du Preez should have taken it with Ireland grabbing team of the year. SA had a bad end to the season but those blokes looked so tired, many of them played too many games for one season. I am not surprised SA got team of the year but id join it with Ireland.
Ora said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Sputh Africa played two tests less than the All Blacks and if we are going to talk Super 14 you could also say the Kiwis played 1 if not two extra matches there also Bulls aside for obvious reasons. I don’t buy this tired stuff especially when you consider the amount of games played by the northerners. It seems whenever South Africa don’t do well it’s because the games don’t mean anything, they are tired the ref was biased or the whole world is against them.
Ireland deserved the team of the year outright in my opinion followed closely by France then South Africa. To get this award you don’t have to be the best team but show the most consistancy or improvements such as in Frances case. South Africas achievements were good but they were hardly anything great now were they. Thery were pushed hard in the Lions series and the Brits and Irish could count themselves unlucky with a few calls there. Two wins over the ABs in SA is nothing to get too excited about either home advantage over a team struggling with a large injury toll has to be taken into consideration. The win in Hamilton was impressive I will give them that much but one has to take into account whilst winning three zip they never posted huge scores. Ireland were undefeated all year that surely is impressive and they came up against some very good opposition. One could say the Irish are still gaining their feet since it is somewhat early in their season if we are to allow the Soutgh Africans to use this excuse they are tired.
there are mitigating factors etc whenever you look at a match no matter who is playing. However I do believe the France All Black match would have to be the game of the year, running rugby at its best and it brought excitement back to the field. even though the French were soundly spanked they added to the spectacle and they took risks that nearly paid off. If the french were allowed to play they way they did against any other nation I’d tip the score to be similar to the 39-12 defeat however the score would be tipped in the Frenchies favour.
Temba said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Ora says ” To get this award you don’t have to be the best team but show the most consistency or improvements such as in Frances case”
If you apply this logic to player of the year then McCaw should not even be nominated. SA gathered all the silverware in 09 and they beat the best of the north earlier in the year.
pothale said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
” SA gathered all the silverware in 09 and they beat the best of the north earlier in the year.”
SA won the Tri-Nations, beat a scratch team from the best of the north 2-1, and then lost to the best of the north at the end of the year – would probably be more accurate, Temba.
Ora said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
And still they are not Number One in the world funny that!
shocked! said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:55am | Report comment
france not even close to years best team, what ahve they won?!
kevkom said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
Camparing McCaw to Brussow means you are merely comparing their fetching capabilities – as good as Brussow is, MCaw offers much more aggression in the tight and add in his captaincy and there is no comparison.
However Du Preez can count himslef unlucky after such a superb year.
Jerry said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
You also can’t ignore McCaw’s passing and ball carrying game which, despite Temba’s assertion, actually markedly improved in the last 2-3 years. His support and passing touches for the tries in Japan and Twickenham were sublime – in both cases he made the try with great touch passes to a player in space.
Temba said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Jerry I am not disputing that McCaw is a fine player but if what you say is true then John Smit should be winning because I saw him kick a perfectly places grubber from a backline move earlier this year!
I really do believe McCaw is awesome but was he the best in 09?
Jerry said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Probably not, no. BOD probably was, if you take the full year into account.
I was actually weighing in on the Broussow v McCaw debate, which is a no contest IMO. Broussow looked good at fetching against McCaw when his pack was going forward, but even then I wouldn’t necessarily say he outplayed him. But when you take into account the rest of McCaw’s game, Broussow is a mere pup.
Temba said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Brusso has a long way to go before becoming a complete player like McCaw but yes in fetching and work rate he was a good find for the saffas.
Dean Pantio said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
That’s miles away from stating McCaw got owned.
Campbell Watts said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
Temba, settle pettle!
Next you’ll be wearing an armband saying
“Justice 4 Brusso”
Temba said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Ora that’s funny, you are calling me rude… it’s a bit rich but never mind, then we agree McCaw was not best player in 09.
The times McCaw faced Brusso he was left wanting in all three games. Hence he got owned, even the NZ press agreed. I also never said Brusso should win it so go back and read some yourself.
Ora said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
You did start by saying Brussow owned McCaw,
Don’t bother replying because I have no time for such childish games.
James said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Brussow owned McCaw!! fair and simple
Rin said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
What a crock…McCaw…please he didnt have a good Tri nations this year and didnt even play in any of the warm up games against the Europeans in their SH tours and although i agree with comments that he wasnt totally outplayed by Brussow I do believe Brussow got the upper hand on him in most games….cant count super 14 as not internationals, but then again he was ordinary this year in that too…only started performing in NH tours…
For my money it was Du Preez and BOD for it with DuPreez stealing it in a winning side..
Campbell Watts said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
“DuPreez stealing it in a winning side..”
SA won 1 out of 2 in the NH tour
Ireland went UNDEFEATED this year
BOD stealing it in a winning side is surely what you meant to type!
Rin said | November 30th 2009 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
Umm no, cause as it is correctly identified, this NH tour is not supposed to be considered in the awards, it goes towards next years awards. wow Ireland beat italy, scots, a crap england side, average welsh side and topsy turvy french side…please, 6 nations is a joke compared to the rugby in tri nations and lions tour.
pothale said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:49pm | Report comment
I checked Rin – this year’s Autumn Internationals were counted in the awards, as are the June tests which would be the equivalent for the NH teams – France and Italy.
Beating 5 teams on a once-off basis is not as easy as you might think. With Tri-Nations you get to have home and away, plus win and losing bonus points. No such luxury in the 6 Nations. You win, you keep going. You lose once and you’re done (for the Grand Slam). England were much better earlier this year, as was evidenced by their games against Ireland, France and Wales. They finished second, and scored most tries. Credit where it’s due. Equally, SA went up against a very off-form Australian and New Zealand side, so it wasn’t the toughest or most intense 3N this year either. We can all find faults. The Lions is a scratch side, and SA won the series 2-1 on the strength of a last-minute penalty.
“6 Nations is a joke compared to the rugby in … Lions tour”
It is? How?
Ben J said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:54pm | Report comment
Undefeated for Ireland is a great accomplishment but they did not play 6 games against the world’s 2 best teams on a consistent basis. A late November ambush at home against a Springboks side who had the season from hell was nothing but expected.
Ben J said | December 1st 2009 @ 12:24am | Report comment
I think that you might agree that we are talking about THE 3 extra games of the season here… Not entirely insignificant was it. You make it sound like preseason warmup games KO.
Ora said | December 1st 2009 @ 6:03am | Report comment
NZ 14 Tests
SA 12 Tests
On All Out Rugby last night I see even the South African Hosts were calling it excuses and quite simply South Africa wasn’t up to it. Their praise of the New Zealand demolition of France was unexpected but it’s good to know that those in the know can admit that their team was rubbish come end of year and they even acknowledged the injury toll the Kiwis carried into the 3N. The same said for the Lions tour they acknowledged that the rub of the green wen’t their way more times than not.
It’s disappointing that some South African roarers do not have the same humility
ohtani's jacket said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:20pm | Report comment
Never happens to us.
Ziontrain said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:44am | Report comment
Sour grapes boys maybe Giteau should have got it eh…fact is McCaw should have won it last year by a country mile and he didnt even get a nomination so one cant help but think the IRB are making up for it now.
Ziontrain said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
As for McCaw getting owned by Brussow…I have only heard that now from a couple of Saffa posters not anywhere else
Temba said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
and in the kiwi press…
Brusso was picked to do a job and not only did he do well but he out fetched the best fetcher in the world when he was put up against him.
In that sense and in that role and at the times they met, he got owned by Brusso. Should of explained this better for my sensitive Kiwi brethren….
No one is claiming Brusso as a player and in career and captaining and wha wha wha was owned by brusso. I do remember the look on richy’s face when Brusso started taking the baby candy off him at will.
Dean Pantio said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
“No one is claiming Brusso as a player and in career and captaining and wha wha wha was owned by brusso.”
Probably not for the following reasons:
a) No one knows of a good open side called Brusso, and
b) Hard to own yourself on a field…
Sam said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment
It’s not a team award – it’s an individual award – just because a team did well didn’t mean the exceptional individual played in it. As for people that go on about Super 14 form – the judges only used international matches to make their decision.
The awarded points to the top three players in each match, and the reason McCaw won it is because he is so consistent – plain and simple. I thought his games against Wales and France in the NH tour were amazing, and he never a poor Bledisloe Cup match. The only other matches he will be judged for are the three Springboks games, and although he didn’t play exceptionally in the republic, he played well in Hamilton. People need to consider how this award is judged, they give points to the top players in each match – they don’t weight the points based on the opposition or by how well their team did – there is nothing stopping a player getting top points when on a losing team against poor opposition for example!
Campbell Watts said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
Nice post Sam – someone with an opinion who actually knows the facts!
Thanks for the well-needed dose of reality – some people are getting a tad carried away here!
shocked! said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
This is an absolute DISGRACE!
Richie McCaw was destroyed by a rookie in Heinrich Brussouw in 4 consecutive test losses to the springboks, whose victories were constructed by the crucial Fourie Du Preez who was not only a vital part of the 3N victory but also the Super 14, Currie Cup and the Lions Series. As well as this, McCaw was up against the talismanic Brian O’driscoll, who in this last year became the most successful Irish captain ever, leading his side to 6n grand slam glory amaongst an undefeated calendar year which i don’t believe any irish side has ever done and lead his side Leinster to an Historic Heineken Cup triumph. McCaw was injured for big chunks of the season, was decidedly outplayed by a number of opponents up until the november tour through the S14 and 3N and as a captain has not achieved much this year either. An average year from an otherwise brilliant player part of 2 average teams who didn’t win anything of note (let’s be honest, the bledisloe was a serious no-contest), but he is nonetheless non-deserving of this honour.
The IRB should line up their panel and test them for recreational drugs, because they couldn’t have made this decision unless they were seriously high! They should be hanging their heads in shame, two fanstastic significantly more deserving players were robbed of a fantastic accolade and a huge honour that could and should have gone one of two ways and neither of them ended up at McCaw.
Jerry said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
Shocked – you should probably get your facts straight. It was 3 losses to the Boks, not 4 and Currie Cup, S14, Heineken Cup etc are completely irrelevant.
shocked! said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:56pm | Report comment
just as irrevlevant is the pointing out that the all blacks lost 3 games…they still lost EVERY ONE of those games against the boks….I was merely pointing out the stark comparison in the achievements and influence of BOD and FDP….FDP was directly involved in (and largely responsible for) the dismantling of the AB’s…BOD has been outstanding for a hugely successful Irish outfit
Ora said | December 1st 2009 @ 6:06am | Report comment
The Boks lost to France where as New Zealand hulmiliated them, New Zealand lost 3-0 yes to SA yet are still Number One in the world come end of year what does that tell you Shocked?
shocked! said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:02am | Report comment
that they’re the most successful team in the world in major tournaments and actually win silverware because they don’t choke like the All Blacks.
Sam said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Why do so many people on here (nearly exclusively the ones unhappy with McCaw getting the award) unaware that the international player of the year is awarded based on international matches – not domestic ones. People seem to be judging McCaw by his own standards, the fact is that even not at 100% he is still the best 7 in the world. Brussouw doesn’t have the all-round game and was struggling to get selected by the springboks ahead of Burger. As for BOD, it’s apples and oranges comparing a centre and an openside flanker so why bother.
Campbell Watts said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Too true!
Must McCaw be playing better than he has ever played before to win this award?? No!!
Even at 80% of his best-ever form he’s still better than any other 7’s getting around.
He only needs to be playing better than the rest of those nominated! END OF STORY.
Rin said | November 30th 2009 @ 2:18pm | Report comment
True he isnt an all round player he needs to become like McCaw and commit numrrous infringements and get away with them!! The only area McCaw is better them him at the moment is ball carrying, Brussow is a better fetcher and as the count shows had the highest number of tackes in internationals this year…
Colin N said | December 1st 2009 @ 1:28am | Report comment
“The only area McCaw is better them him at the moment is ball carrying, Brussow is a better fetcher and as the count shows had the highest number of tackes in internationals this year…”
I would say McCaw is better in most facets than Brussow. Brussow is better at turning over the ball (just), but McCaw is a better ball carrier, link man and is better at clearing out the rucks.
Colin N said | December 1st 2009 @ 1:30am | Report comment
Oh, and he’s also a very good captain.
shocked! said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:57pm | Report comment
best #7 is not the argument buddy, it’s best player in the world and he aint
Colin N said | December 1st 2009 @ 1:26am | Report comment
So who would you say is?
rush said | November 30th 2009 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
Campbell temba said earlier that he thinks SA should not have won team of the year due to the armband saga… plus that old horse has been ridden to death. Maybe its time for you settle?
ohtani's jacket said | November 30th 2009 @ 2:53pm | Report comment
du Preez was rubbish in the Tri-Nations just like the rest of the South African backs. If you were gonna give it to a South Africa it would have to be a forward, and if they’d actually bothered to show up on the end of year tour maybe one of them would’ve won it. As it were, McCaw had an outstanding tour. I’m not sure why he was nominated, but he was better than any of the other nominees in the end of year Tests.
I would’ve thought that our rugby savvy South African friends would realise that Brussow vs. McCaw wasn’t a straight up match-up. It’s not one-on-one fetching. McCaw didn’t play with a proper backrow until Wellington and since then we haven’t lost. Funny that.
shocked! said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:02pm | Report comment
are you blind???? du preez was the core construct around which the springboks’ tactical basis was built around and he kicked passed tackled ran and scored tries better than anyone else could have dreamed in the tri nations…. rugby press around the world have been raving about du preez’s performances all year and the boks were decidedly missing direction without him on the pitch. He ran the show completely and is pretty much the tactical brain on the field for the boks…do yourself and everyone else a favour and go back and watch the matches and watch the guy absolutely carve the game into the shape he wants it…he was absolutely brilliant 3N and Lions series and was easily the Boks only firing player in the autumn series
ohtani's jacket said | December 1st 2009 @ 7:17am | Report comment
du Preez was rubbish. Go watch the Super 14 final and compare it to how poorly du Preez and the rest of the South African backs play.
shocked! said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:05am | Report comment
Jean De Villiers was the form back of the 3N mate, check his linebreaks stats over anyone else and Du Preez was the reason the boks were always int he right part of the field and how they pulled off their game plan.
shocked! said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:06am | Report comment
bar the away games on JDV, that’s when they weren’t moving the ball bast 12 and when FDP was critical
ohtani's jacket said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:26pm | Report comment
Get out of here.
The only time the South African backs played well was in Perth. I thought du Preez kicked passed tackled ran and scored tries better than anyone else could have dreamed. Maybe if I do a few lines, he’ll look like Joost van der Westhuizen.
shocked! said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
look none of the boks were good in autumn but it’s besides the point anyway, seeing as this autumn’s performances weren’t in the final count for the award…and explain to me how du preez was not the most important player in the bok team in the lions series….i’d be amazed to hear how you manage that especially considering how ridiculously important his contribution to the execution of their game plan was
pothale said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Shocked –
The Autumn Internationals just completed were counted in the Awards – that’s the whole point – it was the calendar year of 2009.
The game plan in the first test was to monster the Lions in the scrum – achieved by the front row – du preez just put the ball in. Boks kicked.
du prez disappeared in the second half as the subs were made, and Boks just prevented Lions coming back and winning the match.
He and Phillips were evens at best in the second test. This was won on a penalty kick in last minute.
Third test – did he play? I didn’t notice – the Lions were having too much fun.
FdP played well in the 3N matches no doubt.
Photon said | November 30th 2009 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
Ohtani
The award is based on last years year end tour to the begining of November. This end of year tour is irrelevant. The Boks where unbeaten last year at the end of year tour. That’s why the Boks are team of the year, over that duration of time they lost in Brisbane and the third Lions test. But, congrats to Richie, hard luck to Fourie,that’s life I suppose. Oh and one lat thing, everyone going on about how Richie has been great for years, that’s irrelevant, IT’S PLAYER OF THE YEAR, not player of the decade.
Jerry said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
They’ve changed the criteria – it covers the calendar year, so the Boks tour this year is considered too. For that reason, I’d have expected O’Driscoll to take it over Du Preez.
Stash said | November 30th 2009 @ 4:32pm | Report comment
Brusso had a classy start to his international career… don’t know about this “owning McCaw” dialogue… thats all a bit Keo really (SA blog for those that don’t know).
McCaw is a better player all round than Brusso – of course Brusso has x amount of years to change opinion of course (though I doubt he will, unless he ends up as SA skipper and SA manage year after year of dominance without imploding – as they have done this year).
McCaw is a fantastic ambassador for rugby – continuously plays out of his skin – often manages miracles at the breakdown (all of my SA friends call him the biggest cheat in world rugby – which I believe is the biggest compliment a SA fan can begrudgingly give). Runs the ball well – instrumental in running rugby tries and is an inspirational captain that leads by example.
I can see why he was a nominee – (i struggle to see why Gits was there).
Fourie – I thought he was excellent in patches though SA fans wanted his head at the beginning of the season – and well the Boks fizzled out and were downright awful in the final games of the year. Based on the last month of rugby SA were lucky to be team of the year, and well Richie probably deserved if you included this month.
…and all is in order in the rugby universe…
shocked! said | November 30th 2009 @ 10:04pm | Report comment
player of the YEAR not the last 2 months
Stash said | November 30th 2009 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
Well heres the guys that chose McCaw as the player of the year – WILL GREENWOOD, Gavin Hastings, Raphaël Ibanez, Francois Pienaar, Agustin Pichot, Scott Quinnell, Tana Umaga, Paul Wallace and convenor John Eales.
Hmmm…. well these guys have a pretty good idea of what constitutes a good rugby player…
rugbyguy said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:01pm | Report comment
Richie was absent from some of the springbok games i think??
he is probably the best player in the world, top 3 at least but i dont think he did much out of the ordinary
i would have thought it would go to someone who had an exceptional season, du preez had a good year
a lions series win, tri nations win including 3-0 against the All blacks in which he was dominant and influencial.
I suppose the fact that south africa had a pathetic end of year tour put the judges off, it is player of the year not player of most of the year, if you play rubbish for two months then what do you expect?
ps O’driscol is rather over rated in my opinion, he is very good but player of the year? to be fair i missed most of ireland games but still Player of the year ?? come on??
how about BAkkies he and matfeild won more all black line outs this year than the all blacks did?
pothale said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:13am | Report comment
rugbyguy: “O’driscol is rather over rated in my opinion, he is very good but player of the year? to be fair i missed most of ireland games but still Player of the year ?? come on??”
You think he’s over-rated. But you say he is very good player. But you missed most of Ireland’s games. And yet you query why he was nomiinated.
How can you even have an opinion about him if you didn’t see most of the games in which he played and on which he was judged?
Nelson said | December 1st 2009 @ 1:52am | Report comment
it’d be interesting to see the vote my guess its that it was split 3 or 4 ways and with mccaw perhaps winning by a vote.
no disrespect to him as he is arguably the best 7 of all time but not the best interntional player of the last year. of the nominees i would have surely thought BOD deserved it. but the nominations themselves were questionable with francois steyn getting a run and matfield not?
Mungehead said | December 1st 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Personally I see the award as a partial apology for McCaw not even being nominated last year. It doesn’t help that the nominations are made even before the season ends… anyway, it’s clear that this award is very subjective. I think the winners of the last few years have all been players of note who deserved recognition, and that McCaw is a very fine player who had a pretty good 2009. Still, some entertaining arguing going on here.
I think NZ had a good case for being awarded team of the year and/or Henry being named coach of the year. The fact that they got off to a slow start actually strengthens their case in my eyes. But you can’t win them all, and I don’t have a problem with SA being named team of the year, in light of their strong Tri-Nations performance, or Ireland gleaning coach of the year after Ireland’s marked improvement. Just my 2c.
Sam said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
You are kidding right? Embarrassing? Those former players are as qualified as anyone, and John Eales is perfect to oversee the whole thing. Coaches and players see the game from a different perspective to spectators – they probably get just a little too emotional. I think the Australian players voting Matt Giteau player of the year probably reinforces that they aren’t always the best judges of these things. People can disagree on who they thought was best and that is fine, but that those group of people aren’t qualified to judge player of the year is just not true.
Ziontrain said | December 1st 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Yeah as said McCaw should definately won last year so justice has been done. Maybe BOD will win it next year now…
Danny said | December 2nd 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Richie won, Brussow was ordinary in the second half of the season. Eminent panel watched 49 TESTS (yes not S14 or Currie Cup) scored players 1, 2 and 3 and Richie sneaked home. Brownlow style.
Suck it up critics – prizegiving has finished.
Fact is like any sport the true greats aren’t the ones who get top the top but the ones who STAY at the top. No. 1 ranking needs protecting 100% of the time. Don’t send a supposed “devlopment squad” out to protect your ranking, unless you believe they actually can.
And don’t whinge about losing your ranking and not getting the prizes (eg POTY) when you lose.
Dingbat said | December 2nd 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
In my opinion McCaw should not have got the award. BOD or FdP deserved it more. If I had to choose, I’d give it to BOD.