Giteau only Wallaby in Rugby Team of Decade
By AFP, 7 Jan 2010 AFP is a Roar Pro
148 Have your say
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship news
- 2011 Wallabies squad news
Australian Matt Giteau is the sole Wallaby named in Rugby World magazine’s team of the decade. The 27-year-old was named in the centres for the team, which is skippered by England’s 2003 World Cup winning captain Martin Johnson.
The English magazine named Ireland skipper Brian O’Driscoll as the overall player of the decade, ahead of All Blacks captain Richie McCaw – the only player to win the IRB award twice.
Giteau being the only Wallaby in the magazine’s team of the decade means Australia have the same number of representatives as minnows Italy, one, and three less players named than Argentina.
New Zealand has four players named, world champions South Africa three and England four including Johnson and star five-eighth Jonny Wilkinson.
Rugby World’s team of the decade (15-1): Mils Muliaina (NZL), Jason Robinson (ENG), Brian O’Driscoll (IRL), Matt Giteau (AUS), Shane Williams (WAL), Dan Carter (NZL), Agustin Pichot (ARG), Sergio Parisse (ITA), Richie McCaw (NZL), Richard Hill (ENG), Martin Johnson (ENG capt), Victor Matfield (RSA), Carl Hayman (NZL), John Smit (RSA), Gethin Jenkins (WAL). Res: Rodrigo Roncero (ARG), Mario Ledesma (ARG), Sylvain Marconnet (FRA), Juan-Martin Fernandez Lobbe (ARG), Fourie Du Preez (RSA), Jonny Wilkinson (ENG), Yannick Jauzion (FRA), Juan Martin Hernandez (ARG)
© AAP 2012Enjoy 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)
- France turns to Parra and Trinh-Duc
- Rebels look to lift for formidable Blues in rugby trial
- Mr Fix-It Lucas wants to nail down No.10
- Force roost loses ‘Mother Hen’ Sharpe
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A (2)
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW (7)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (202)
- 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)
kingplaymaker said | January 7th 2010 @ 3:52am | Report comment
He is the only Wallaby indeed but this is a truly bizarre team: at least half the players shouldn’t be there.
Jerry said | January 7th 2010 @ 6:19am | Report comment
Yeah, there’s too much wrong with that side to even bother.
Jerry said | January 7th 2010 @ 6:25am | Report comment
Apparently BOD has been named player of the decade too – I’m not sure I could justify him over McCaw to be honest. Neither have got the ultimate prize of course, but I’d argue McCaw has better BOD’s achievements in winning trophies both at International and Club/Provincial level. And I’d argue he’s dominated a higher level of play in terms of internationals (in that the TN is a more difficult comp than the 6N). j
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 6:33am | Report comment
I wouldn’t feel entirely comfortbale comparing the two, Jerry. For example, McCaw has spent the past five years playing behind the best pack in the world (by and large), whereas O’Driscoll ha spent a lot of his time playing behind a beaten pack, which obviously would have made his job that much harder. Also, it’s probably easier to dominate games from 7 than it is at 13. Irrespective of the weather you’re always on the ball.
IMO both have shined on the greatest stages, regardless of achievements. O’Driscoll did it in 2001 on the Lions tour, and he did it in 2009 during the Lions tour. That’s pretty impressive as far as I’m concerned. However, as aforementioned, IMO both have shined, and both have been very consistent. I’m not sure how I’d separate the two. They certainly are THE players of the decade.
Jerry said | January 7th 2010 @ 6:35am | Report comment
Yeah, there is that. Though McCaw was also a standout when the AB pack was de-powered in 01-03.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 6:38am | Report comment
True, newcomer award in 02 and all that. Personally I think they should share it.
kingplaymaker said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:31am | Report comment
He probably shouldn’t even be in the Ireland team at the moment.
He does hold the title of most overrated player in the history of the sport however.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Pardon? Who is ‘He’?
Punk Tilleus said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Oh I think mr kingplaymaker has made what is known in the trade as a WUM statement – Wind Up Merchant. One who posts purposely incendiary, provocative – and often nonsensical statements just to generate heated responses from others.
The best advice in these situations is to ignore the WUM statement.
kingplaymaker said | January 7th 2010 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
Puck Tilleus WUM is an english term which sadly has a far less neutral and respectable meaning than the one you give.
Saying Brian O’Driscoll is an average player is hardly an incendiary statement: it’s simply the truth.
Here’s an experiment for you-this six nations watch what happens whenever BOD gets the ball. You’ll find he makes very little ground and is almost immediately taken down. Again, and again, and again.
It’s been going on for years, in fact his whole career.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 8th 2010 @ 11:20pm | Report comment
‘Saying Brian O’Driscoll is an average player is hardly an incendiary statement: it’s simply the truth.’
pothale said | January 9th 2010 @ 1:48am | Report comment
kingplaymaker –
Actually, WUM is also an acronym used regularly on blogs to describe wind-up merchants. That’s what you’re attempting to do with your comments. But failing.
Sam said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:26am | Report comment
I agree McCaw should get it simply because has been the most consistent player at all levels over the past decade. Hardly ever seen a “quiet” game from him. I get the feeling that if it were not for the last 12 months O’Driscoll would not have even been shortlisted.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:31am | Report comment
What did O’Driscoll do in the last 12 months that he didn’t do previously?
Sam said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:36am | Report comment
Win a Six-Nations Grand Slam and Heineken Cup.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:38am | Report comment
When has O’Driscoll had a bad season this decade? If O’Driscoll is a winner due to his recent successes, but McCaw should have won due to his consistencies then the implication is that O’Driscoll has had patches of poor form. When? I don’t remember any?
Sam said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:51am | Report comment
I wouldn’t say patches of poor form, but poor games yes. By the poor form argument he is no different to players such as Mortlock or Umaga? Neither of them had patches of poor form, although both have had quiet games for sure. Both won plenty of trophies and captained their countries as well.
Punk Tilleus said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:57am | Report comment
McCaw has not been the most consistent player at all levels over the past decade.
Not during 2000-2003 – plenty other players ahead of him.
He was good between 2004 and 2008. Dipped in 2009 and to most people’s astonishment, including NZ media writers was given the IRB player of year award above de Preez and O’Driscoll.
He’s one of the players of the decade – no more.
Stu said | January 7th 2010 @ 6:35am | Report comment
This is a bizzare team – No Habana, No Jerry Collins, No Larkham, No Umaga, No Latham, No Jean De Villiers – maybe it is based on guiness premiership performances!
Jerry said | January 7th 2010 @ 6:51am | Report comment
Habana – yes,
Collins – No, I’d have Hill or Juan Smith over him
Larkham – arguable, but not cut and dried over Carter,
Umaga – not quite, BOD operated at the high level at 13 for much more of the decade
Latham – mmmaybe, but Mils has been consistently good for most of the decade whereas Latham was equally capable of being shit as being great. His peaks were higher than Mils, but he didn’t peak anywhere near as often.
JDV – I’d have him over Giteau, but Jauzion over both of them.
And there’s a ludicrous number of Argies in that team. I
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:14am | Report comment
I’d have Greenwood over JDV and Jauzion, but Giteau over all of them. He was an exceptional 12, IMO.
Jerry said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Oh yeah, I forgot about Greenwood. He was class. Had a really good try scoring strike rate for an inside centre, too.
steve said | January 7th 2010 @ 6:49am | Report comment
Agustin Pichot over Du Preez, Greegan, Marshall, do I watch the same game as ever one else
Jerry said | January 7th 2010 @ 6:51am | Report comment
Gregan and Marshall had their best years in the 90′s though. I agree that leaving out Du Preez is daft though.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 6:54am | Report comment
Has Du Preez done enough? i don’t think he has going on what I saw against Mike Phillips (who is no great technical scrum half) during the Lions series. The 00s didn’t see any truly excellent scrum halves, with Galthie, Troncon, Gregan, Dawson, Gregan, Marshall, Kelleher and Joost all much of a muchness.
Rusty said | January 12th 2010 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
you are talking of one series where agreed by his standards he was quiet. I havent seen Philips single handedly tear a team apart like Fourie has done for the Boks and Bulls. I also dont believe that any other 9 in the last decade has as many strings to their bow as Fourie who not only has razor sharp service but a brilliant kicking and running game. A more complete scrumhalf is hard to recall
Jerry said | January 7th 2010 @ 7:01am | Report comment
Just to really ramp up the absurdity – check out the O2 player of the Century top 10.
“O2 PLAYER OF THE CENTURY
The World Rugby Museum is pleased to announce that Martin Johnson is the winner of the Twickenham o2 Player of the Century poll (1910-2009). The inspirational former England captain polled over 10% of the 31,000 votes cast.
The top ten were as follows:
1. Martin Johnson 3262
2. Gareth Edwards 2325
3. Jason Robinson 1996
4. Lawrence Dallaglio 1826
5. Richard Hill 1807
6. Jonah Lomu 1799
7. David Duckham 1661
8. Rory Underwood 1654
9. Neil Back 1649
10. Serge Blanco 1629″
Neil Back was a very effective nuggety 7, but the only way he deserves to be on that list over Michael Jones is if the criteria specified “Only covers matches played on a Sunday”. Likewise, Rory Underwood over the likes of John Kirwan or David Campese. Obviously any poll like this is gonna skew towards the country of origin, but to claim that England produced 7 of the best 10 players of the century and 6 of them in the same era is a good argument that democracy doesn’t work.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 7:27am | Report comment
30,000 votes is a pretty poor count, Jerry. I voted, but I’m pretty sure not many rugby fans (let alone English rugby fans) were aware there was even a vote. I only found out because I happened to go on the RFU website to look for a present for my brother from the online store. Anyway, what do you expect? I’m massively surprised that Wilkinson didn’t make the top ten going by the demograph that I’m presuming voted.
Incidentally, while we’re on the topic, I happened to be perusing the Ieaun Evans book the other week and noted that he felt that he and Underwood were massively superior to Tuigamala and Kirwan on the 1993 Lions tour.
Jerry said | January 7th 2010 @ 7:38am | Report comment
I didn’t expect anything, but the results are so poor I had to comment.
I’d say Evans is probably right. Kirwan was well past his best by 93 and Inga was by no means a complete player. I remember Evans skinning someone in the match v the NZ Maori at Athletic Park – he only had about 1 metre of space to work in and he produced a lovely in and away. And of course, Kirwan got completely burnt off by Underwood in the 2nd test. At their peaks though, there’s no question for me that Kirwan was better than all of them. His form in that 87-90 team was sublime and his play in the 87 World Cup was irresistable.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:05am | Report comment
I actually meant to form a question with my initial statement, Jerry, i.e. were they? But you answered anyway, so thanks. I’m 25 so have only watched the four on old VHSs, and thus was interested in somebody who’d seen them all. From what I’ve seen Evans was a special player, although I should point out that I’ve seen far more of him than the others. There was something about him – I can’t quite put my finger on it, he seems a throwback. I’d love to have seen how Evans would have gone in a world class side given that he played in some of the worst Wales sides ever.
Shahsan said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:49am | Report comment
Speaking about that year or actually that tour alone, they probably were. But overall? No way
Sam said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Incidentally, if the English demographic that surely cast most of those votes knew much about English rugby’s history Wavell Wakefield would have been in the top 10 – better captain than Johnson I think.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:34am | Report comment
I don’t know, we can’t really qualify whether Wakefield was a better captain than Johnson given that Johnson won everything a player can as a captain. There is no doubt that Wakefield should have been in the top ten, however. Unfortunately you get oafish rugby fans everywhere, but you know who Wakefield is, so that’s good enough I suppose, Sam. If you know then other people know… and so on.
Sam said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:40am | Report comment
It is hard to compare, but considering England was still recovering from the formation of Rugby League, and the devastation of the First World War, I think Wakefield was better. He was basically a captain, player, coach, and manager in that England team. He introduced a huge number of tactics and strategies that English teams had not used before then as well. A World Cup is great, but just because David Kirk lifted one doesn’t mean he was the All Blacks greatest captain. I think considering the problems in the game in England before Wakefield was captain what he achieved was incredible.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:52am | Report comment
I’m not simply talking about the World Cup. I think all non-English (not that I’m presuming anything about your nationaliy) rugby union fans like to think that all English rugby fans think so fondly of Johnson and his compatriots because they won a World Cup. Not so. Johnson is so well thought of because he was a stunningly good lock, one of the very best players ever. I have only come to appreciate what he did since he retired.
Anyhow, back to his captaincy skills, Johnson won the Zurich Premiership, two Heineken Cups, a Lions series, a Grand Slam and a Six Nations (or two), not only that but it’s said by players like Dallaglio and Leonard that he basically ran the England team under Woodward. I’m well aware of Wakefield’s tactical innovations but IMO there is no comparison between an amateur innovator and what Johnson did in the professional era. The context is starkly different, thus we will have to agree to disagree.
Sam said | January 7th 2010 @ 11:14am | Report comment
I think the English view of Johnson is summed up by his appointment as coach (I refuse to call it manager) of the English team without any top-level coaching experience. I don’t know of many other countries where this would have happened. There is a level of sentimentality in all sports in all countries, but the English do seem to let it get out of control. It would be like Australia appointing John Eales coach. To their credit the Australians would never make that mistake. I think that is one reason the Australians are generally such sporting over-achievers, and the English such under-achievers – they don’t let emotion control their decisions.
Fragglerocker said | January 11th 2010 @ 5:06pm | Report comment
People will always show bias toward who the are used to watching. Was Welsh great Barry ‘The King’ John the best flyhalf ever? Quite possibly, but I’ve never watched a full game in which he played. My bias would pick Larkham or Carter, as I’ve seen them play and can form a judgement about them.
How may Super Rugby games do I watch a year? – Almost all of them. How many European club rugby games have I seen in my life? – About 10.
Bay35Pablo said | January 7th 2010 @ 7:53am | Report comment
April fools joke a bit early?
jools-usa said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Stu,
It’s more than bizare – it has to be an English publication.
Like to see the win/loss worldwide Test record of all teams that have a player in this
selection. NZ would be miles ahead with “you know who” way down the list witheir 3 players.
Jools-USA
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:09am | Report comment
What has a win/loss ratio have to do with anything, Jools? Also, if the team were picked with bias why would there be more SH players than NH players? Btw, are you not a fan of Johnson, Hill or Robinson? Who is ‘you know who’?
Jerry said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:44am | Report comment
The highest proportion of SH players come from Argentinian players who ply their trade in the NH club game, though. I’d say winning percentage should be one of the factors looked at – in that teams that dominate at international level generally do so by having a core of dominant players.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:48am | Report comment
I don’t agree with the winning theory. Ireland have never beaten NZ but that doesn’t mean that O’Driscoll isn’t better than Conrad Smith, it simply means that the NZ team is better than Ireland. I don’t agree with Pichot or Hernandez, but why not throw Van der Linde into the debate if we’re talking about the significance of accolades. At the beginning of the season there was endless talk about how many world class players SA had but that talk evaporated over time. I just think it’s a very naive way to consider the best players. Players should be judged on their own merits, IMO, as far as that is possible. In simple terms the best two teams this decade have been England and NZ, both of whom receive three starters. That seems reasonably fair in broad terms – although I do hasten to add that I don’t agree with the team.
Btw, the Argentina players are mostly on the bench.
Jerry said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:59am | Report comment
It’s not the only consideration, but when one team dominated the winning percentage so thoroughly, you might expect that might be due to them having better players.
To be honest though, I probably wouldn’t include many more All Blacks in my team. Possibly Howlett or Roko and at a pinch I might argue that Aaron Mauger deserves to be there more than Giteau (though as I said upthread, I’d have Jauzion as my 12).
And winning percentage – or lack of it, can count against players. If Argentina really did have 5 of the best players of the decade they would have had more consistent results than they did, lack of depth in other positions or not. You can argue that a guy like Parisse can’t be expected to drag 14 other players around the field, but if you’ve got a solid core of world class players – as this selection claims the Pumas did for the majority of the decade – there’s no excuse for losing nearly 60% of their matches.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Regarding NZ I’d prefer Woodcock above Jenkins, but then I’d also prefer Marconnet over Jenkins. Beyond that I’d consider Rokocoko or Howlett to contest the wing spots with either Dominici, Robinson or Habana. Generally I think Hayman, McCaw and Carter are the genuine NZ top dogs.
Anyhow, back to the winning percentage – I think that sometimes a winning percentage masks journeymen, hence the two best teams this decade, England and NZ, have been equally represented. I think that Pichot and Hernandez are stunningly overrated, but Roncero and Fernandez Lobbe (also his brother) are world class talents. I don’t agree that having a handful of world class players is a natural adjunct of success because Argentina has a context that is starkly different to all of the top nations in the world.
For example, if Argentina and Australia both have close to 5 world class players (for arguments sake) then how do you account for Australia’s season? You can always account for Argentina’s poor record because they never have squad time like the NH and SH teams, and the only period that they did (prior to the 07 WC) they finished 3rd. Imagine if you removed the entire Irish team and gave them back five top players and a collection of part-timers and journeymen, gave them no time together and told them to win a game. I’m no apologist for Argentine rugby, I simply think they are always swimming upstream, but also that shouldn’t mean their genuine talents are overlooked on the world stage, and this decade Argentina has had some top, top players: Mauricio Reggiardo, Igancio Fernandez Lobbe, Martin Durand, Felipe Contepomi etc.
sharminator said | January 10th 2010 @ 7:11pm | Report comment
I agree completely with the comments about the number of Argentinian players in the team. It is ridiculous.
South Africa, New Zealand and Australia dominated the decade in the top 4 of the international rankings.
Argentina did well at the 2007 RWC … but they had a relatively easy draw, of the hard teams they only played France, Ireland and Scotland, and havnt beaten a NZ, Aus or SA in the decade.
Pichot I think can be mentioned in teams of the decade, he did carry his team to a different level, as can be seen by the fall in Puma results since the 2007 RWC.
Hernandez starred for Argentina in the 2007 world cup, but before then he wasnt even a certaintly to be in the team. I lived in Argentina at the time, Hernandez was competing for the fullback jersey with corletto, and everyone was surprised when Hernandez was give the no. 10 jersey ahead of Contemponi who was shifted out to the centres. Since 2007 he has had some good games, especially for Stade Francais, but also a lot of injuries.
Ledesma did manange to hold Juan Smit out of the starting lineup at Clermont … and Roncero is a quality prop … but Im not sure if I would put them in any team of the decade. Their individual performances, and those of the teams they have played in, simply dont warrant it.
Fernandez-Lobbe even less so .. 2 seasons at Sale, and 1 at Toulon … he is not exactly the dominant force or a standout.
The funny thing is, having lived in Argentina, most argies would say that Pichot and Contemponi were their 2 top players of the decade, contemponi having proved himself at Leinster as well as with the Pumas.
and what about the leaving out of Habana? Player of the 2007 RWC, with a few Super 14 titles to boot … I’ve never understood the whole Shane Williams thing .. holding him up like a god in the UK.
Overall, a joke of a team, not reflecting the realities of rugby from 2000-2009
kingplaymaker said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Jonah Lomu, Christian Cullen and Tana Umaga were all playing in this decade, and Rokocoko had his best years too. Shane Williams is laughable in comparison.
Jerry said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Lomu and Cullen only played a couple of years though.
Sam said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:32am | Report comment
So did Martin Johnson.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:41am | Report comment
The key difference being that Johnson played some exceptional rugby this decade. I’m not sure Lomu and Cullen did.
Sam said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:57am | Report comment
So did John Eales. No one seems to mention him though.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Yes, that’s right, and as it happens I sent an email to the Rugby World magazine questioning the boundaries of how one gauges ‘The Player of the Decade’. I imagine Eales hasn’t been mentioned simply because Johnson played a season of test rugby longer, or because people prefer Matfield. Personally I would include him over Matfield.
kingplaymaker said | January 7th 2010 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
Lomu or Cullen’s worst day was finer than Shane Williams’ best.
What about Umaga: does Shane Williams compare to him?
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:55pm | Report comment
As far as I am aware Tana Umaga started playing centre around 2000, therefore any comparison with Shane Williams is redundant.
Punk Tilleus said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Who is Shane Williams laughable in comparison to?
kingplaymaker said | January 7th 2010 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Punk Tilleus: in comparison to Lomu, Cullen, Umaga.
Shahsan said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:21am | Report comment
This is obvious, but Rugby World is a magazine aimed essentailly at the UK market, hence the bias towards Argentine players, BOD, Shane Williams etc,all of whom were highly visible in the UK esp Guinness and Heineken. A poll by NZ’s Rugby News or any magazine of any of the other nations would have a similar bias towards players who shone at Tri Nations and Super 12/14 level.
Roger Rational said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Precisely. Only teenagers (and some Roarers) believe that they alone are free of bias.
Punk Tilleus said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:56am | Report comment
Only some Roarers believe that they alone are free of bias?
And the rest of them believe that they alone are full of bias?
I know which group I’d believe.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:59am | Report comment
What is obvious, shahsan?