Giteau only Wallaby in Rugby Team of Decade
By AFP, 7 Jan 2010
- Tagged:
- Brian O'Driscoll, International Rugby, Martin Johnson, Matt Giteau, Richie McCaw, Rugby Union, wallabies
148 Have your say
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship 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 2012Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
January 7th 2010 @ 9:24am
Siva Samoa said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:24am | Report comment
im nopt really sure if giteau should be the 2/5 because he played his rugby all over the place. brian lima should be ahead of shane williams even a couple of other fijian wingers should get the nod.
January 7th 2010 @ 9:57am
Hoy said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:57am | Report comment
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)
Seems an odd team to me.
I know 10 years is a long time, but some of those players surely don’t beat others that were left out. No one can tell me Juan Matin Hernandez is better than Larkham. Everyone in Argentina might well say that Hernandez is the Maradonna of rugby, but he has so far only offered glowing moments, and not much inbetween. I can’t wait to see him play in the super 14 to see him play more regularly.
Again, I guess it comes down to how they pick the “Team of the Decade”. Is it favourites, best players, most successful etc? Internationals, or overall? Martin Johnson retired from internationals in January 2004, and from full time rugby in 2005. So the selection can’t be done on playing the most through the decade. Those that retired early in the decade should still be eligible.
I am not a fan of Shane Williams, but he is good, and has won player of the year before. I would say Smoking Joe at his peak, mid decade, was better. Looking at stats, Williams has 68 caps, with 48 tires. Rokocoko has 61 tests with 45 tries. The difference is almost negligible. In fact Joe has a better strike rate doesn’t he?
Pichot was good, Marshall was better I would say. If not Marshall, why not Gregan, and I am not a fan of Gregan, but he holds the record for most games, in a country that is consistently in the top 5 of nations. Doesn’t that say something for his case?
These teams are always open for debate, but I am a little surprised at the amount of Argies that have been thrown up.
January 8th 2010 @ 12:55am
ohtani's jacket said | January 8th 2010 @ 12:55am | Report comment
I guess the reason Rugby World chose so many Argentinians is because they play in Europe. Rodrigo Roncero, for example, is considered one of the great props of this generation but you can almost guarantee that few in the Southern Hemisphere have heard of him. In ten years time, if Argentina do join the Tri-Nations, I’m sure they’ll have a more accepted presence in such lists.
January 7th 2010 @ 10:03am
ballboy said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Of the Aussies who missed out and mentioned above – Larkham, Latham. Gregan, Larkham is the only one who I believe should feel harshly done by. At least put him on the bench as a back up 10 or 15. Latham’s defense and isoloation raise too many question marks and Gregan, while serving his country very well, was always made to look better than he was due to Larkham standing at 10.
Du Preez very unlucky and as good as Robinson was I would have Habana on the wing.
there does seem to be a lot of Argentinians in the side.
January 7th 2010 @ 10:06am
Sam Taulelei said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:06am | Report comment
I’m completely biased but I think the team of the decade submitted on the Roar is a better all round side although in hindsight I’d select Richard Hill over Schalk Burger. http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/12/17/international-rugby-team-of-the-decade/
January 7th 2010 @ 10:13am
Temba said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:13am | Report comment
I can setup about 4 teams that will walk over this team… it is seriously not built for the international market, perhaps they can put crusty the clown in at 9.
January 7th 2010 @ 10:20am
sheek said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:20am | Report comment
I’ve noticed when it comes to selecting these kind of all-time teams, especially in rugby & cricket, the Brits are inclined to live in a kind of parallel universe devoid of reality.
It may be tied up with a subconscious belief that Pax Britannia still rules most of the world.
January 7th 2010 @ 10:30am
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Would you be able to expand that, sheek? This Englishman is intrigued how this selection represents a subconscious belief that Pax Britannia (?) still rules most of the world.
January 7th 2010 @ 10:49am
Bay35Pablo said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:49am | Report comment
I think sheek means that 19th century dogma that if it’s the best in Brttain it must be the best in the world.
January 7th 2010 @ 11:01am
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 11:01am | Report comment
I think the interesting irony is that that sort of mentality is safely contained in Australia, or former colonies. Why would an English person want to highlight the excellence of a Welshman, Shane Williams? sheek might have a case were the team full of undeserving Englishmen, but it isn’t. It’s like Will Carling said, other nations are gleefully allowed to hate England, but England can’t hate back. There is no love lost across the UK, and the inclusion of a few Argentines and Shane Williams certainly does not hint at an antiquated attitude that GB rules the waves etc.
January 7th 2010 @ 3:17pm
Bay35Pablo said | January 7th 2010 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
WW, Not hate back? I have met plenty of Poms who seem, to regard “the colonies” with disdain and make their opinions clear. Then when you arc up they cry they were just taking the mickey and we can’t take it. Yet seem unable to take a joke directed at them.
There were also plenty of Poms expressing hatred for us “convict scum” at the 2003 World Cup final.
it is not about Englishmen, it is about only paying attention to the players in front of them. They only get to see NH comps, so those are the best players.
January 7th 2010 @ 11:07pm
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 11:07pm | Report comment
‘Convict scum’? Obviously I there are idiots everywhere but going on my own experiences having played for around 5 different rugby academies/clubs, nearly everyone I played with couldn’t give a hoot about whom England played. All they wanted was a win. In contrast I have noted that the SH simply HAS to beat England. I think it’s a SH thing, and what you say about the mickey taking I think the exact is true of Australia – whinging poms and all that ironic guff. Regardless, just a difference of opinion. Who cares?
I also disagree about the team representing a bias toward European competitions. Why bother? The two best teams of the decade are represented equally, and 7 of the starters are non-Argentine SH players. I see the obsession with Argentina as part of rugby’s nostalgia/romanticism. That the Argentines have played in the HC hardly validates the excellence of European rugby. The team is wrong, IMO, but if it were overtly biased toward European/UK rugby then I’m sure there would be far more contentious starters.
Just for the record, 9 players (two starters) play in the Top 14. There is no binding European relationship. The players play in a French league and French rugby is hard to view in the UK. The Top 14 is as foreign to the UK as the S14 is.
January 7th 2010 @ 10:51am
soapit said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:51am | Report comment
put robinson back to fullback and put habana or sivivatu on the wing.
these lists always give you a few bonus points if ur form a small rugby nation (argentina/italy) it looks bad if all the players come from 3 or 4 countries as they like to make it look like rugby is a true world game.
January 7th 2010 @ 11:04am
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 11:04am | Report comment
‘these lists always give you a few bonus points if ur form a small rugby nation (argentina/italy) it looks bad if all the players come from 3 or 4 countries as they like to make it look like rugby is a true world game.’
Agreed.
January 7th 2010 @ 10:56am
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:56am | Report comment
Sam, I don’t think either Mortlock or Umaga compare with O’Driscoll. Just wiki the name. His achievements are ridiculous. In real terms I don’t recall O’Driscoll having bad games, dropping balls missing tackles etc. He has probably been the most consistent European player of the professional era. I’m sure he has had the odd singular bad game but then so has McCaw, recall the 3N last season when he looked off the pace briefly, for example. What does it for me is that in 2001 O’Driscoll was THE player on the Lions tour in 2001, and he was again last summer in SA. To maintain that performance across such a period is staggering. Only McCaw can match it, so as aforesaid, I can’t separate the two.
January 7th 2010 @ 11:07am
Sam said | January 7th 2010 @ 11:07am | Report comment
That said McCaw plays 7. He is getting smashed up every game. To play so well for such a long period of time at that position is crazy. Even Michael Jones (still considered by many the best 7 ever) didn’t play as well for as long – he eventually had to switch to 6. McCaw has won everything bar a World Cup. He has several Tri-Nations titles, many Bledisloe Cups, mutliple Super 14 titles, NPC titles and Ranfurly Shield victories for Canterbury. Plus two Home-Nations Grand Slams, and a comprehensive Lions series win. His winning percentage at Test levels is in the mid-80′s. He has also beaten every major Test nation both at home and away. Being the Lions player of two losing tours isn’t going to convince me anyone should be player of the decade. One gets the feeling that if McCaw had achieved all this, and played the way he does for a team north of the equator he would have been voted winner by a landslide. I’m not saying O’Driscoll isn’t a great player, but the greatest of the decade is over the top.
January 7th 2010 @ 11:16pm
Wavell Wakefield said | January 7th 2010 @ 11:16pm | Report comment
I’m confused by what you’re attempting to say, Sam. If you’re talking about O’Driscoll then he hasn’t captained two losing Lions tours, and captaining a Lions tour is irrelevant when you are talking about performance, which you are. I have already stated that it is a pointless exercise to compare an openside with a centre but if you choose to do so then you have to recognise that since 05 McCaw has been playing behind the best pack in the world, and with the best fly half.
You also keep talking about a winning percentage as if Ireland’s generally erratic record has anything to do with the ability of a single player. It doesn’t. If O’Driscoll had been a SH player then he would be a God. The man was the best centre in 01 and was in 09. As many games as McCaw has won for NZ, O’Driscoll has done the same for Ireland. He’s the highest scoring centre of all time, as three tour Lions tourist (who else has done that recently?), three times 6N player of the year, most tries in the 6N, three times IRB PotY nominee etc. He has been the best back in world rugby across a ten year period.
N.B. Olivier Magne, George Smith, David Wallace, Neil Back, Mauro Bergamasco and Martyn Williams all played a decade of 7. Simply playing ten years in a tough position shouldn’t naturally raise the claims of a player to greatness.
January 12th 2010 @ 2:44pm
Dean Pantio said | January 12th 2010 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
Correction to your statement “He has been the best back in world rugby across a ten year period” would be he has been the best back ever for Ireland and the best centre in European rugby in the last decade.
January 7th 2010 @ 11:39am
Sam Taulelei said | January 7th 2010 @ 11:39am | Report comment
I don’t disagree with you Sam on your points about McCaw and it is a testament to his superb conditioning and marvellous recovery powers that he hasn’t sustained any career threatening joint injuries that Michael Jones suffered. Michael’s switch to blindside for Auckland, the Blues and the All Blacks in the mid 1990′s was for several reasons but a drop in form wasn’t one of them despite the strong competition from Josh Kronfeld. NZ is still looking for a successor to McCaw and to date there isn’t anyone on the horizon that looms as a natural challenger.
January 7th 2010 @ 3:26pm
Siva Samoa said | January 7th 2010 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
Micheal Jones played in a period where he had strong competition for his place from just about every openside in each province in NZ including those playing second division. There were no professional club competitions in Europe so 99.9% of all NZ players were playing in the NPC.
He also had strong opposition within his Auckland team to hold on to this place. He had Zinzan Brooke, Mark Brooke Cowden, Danny Kaleopa, Mark Carter, Jack Kirifi, Daniel Manu who were all internationals.
Richie McCaw really didn’t have any opposition from his Canterbury team or any other openside from other provinces. Most top openside were either in Japan or in Europe.
January 7th 2010 @ 3:51pm
ohtani's jacket said | January 7th 2010 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
That’s true, but Carter and McCaw have continued to dominate at all levels of NZ rugby forcing a lot of guys offshore in the process. I reckon NZ are in for a rough time when those two retire.
January 7th 2010 @ 4:43pm
reds fan said | January 7th 2010 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
will be similar to when Warne and McGrath retired. big holes to fill.
January 7th 2010 @ 4:46pm
Sam Taulelei said | January 7th 2010 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
Yeah times were very different prior to 1995 in NZ and the standard of the NPC where Auckland were such a dominant side for so long meant that if you were a loose forward playing for Auckland you were more often than not fast tracked into the All Blacks eg Mark Carter and Liam Barry for North Harbour.
Michael did face strong competition from openside flankers in NZ eg. Duane Monkley, Mike Brewer, Paul Henderson and Dirk Williams and then Josh Kronfeld outside of Auckland and Brooke-Cowden only played one season in 1986 when Jones was introduced as a no.8 for Auckland before he swiched to league in 1987 when Jones was the NZ wonderboy.
Only Marty Holah really challenged McCaw for the no.7 jersey in the All Blacks and Johnny Leo’o for Canterbury. I share the same concern as OJ, the lack of a quality successor to McCaw will really level the playing field, I’m encouraged with the promising talent available in NZ for the no.10 jersey to succeed Carter.
January 8th 2010 @ 1:02am
Siva Samoa said | January 8th 2010 @ 1:02am | Report comment
just to add to that . if cory jane go on to become one of new zealand best ever wingers. imagine corry jane been the best winger because he came against all the best wingers in nz. like playing doug howlett one week and then come up against rico gear the next and rocokoko, hosea kear, paku, anesi, ralph, sitivatu, reihana and alll top nz wingers playing ovseas.
that is what micheal jones, zinzan brooke and wayne shelford had to go against in their days. i often say this to my nephews playing top level rugby in nz at the moment that they are lucky to be playing half of nz not all new zealanders.
January 7th 2010 @ 11:13am
Dan said | January 7th 2010 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Wow! England have a heck of a lot of representatives for only two years of solid performances… someone suggested that players needed to be consistent over most of the decade to make it into these teams, but with the likes of Wilkinson (who spent almost all of his time injured). I mean if that’s how you judge it then John Eals should have a spot too. Oh, and Shane Williams is NOT a better winger than Habana…
January 8th 2010 @ 12:10am
Wavell Wakefield said | January 8th 2010 @ 12:10am | Report comment
Johnson played test rugby until 2003, Hill until 2005 and Robinson until 2007. If there has been a better 4 lock than Johnson, and a better 6 flank than Hill this decade then I must have missed them. Btw, when were these two years of ‘solid’ performances, Dan?
January 10th 2010 @ 6:16pm
sharminator said | January 10th 2010 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
I cannot for the life of me work out how Johnson is in the team of the decade for 2000 to 2009. He was a rock for England, a key figure as captain, but England were only able to compete with the southern hemisphere in 2002 and 2003.
In 2001 as leader of the Lions he wasnt particularly visible and he lost the lineout that would have given the Lions a chance to win the series at the Sydney Test.
As a leader, Johnson was enormous, but in terms of second rowers who would be selected in any team on the planet, in terms of overall skills, in terms of players who could change a game I would rank Chris Jack, John Eales, Victor Matfield and Bakkies Botha above him.
January 7th 2010 @ 11:22am
Bill said | January 7th 2010 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Who was player of the 1990s player of the decade?
Tim Horan?
January 7th 2010 @ 12:40pm
Hoy said | January 7th 2010 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Without doubt, my favourite player of all time.
January 7th 2010 @ 1:04pm
Jerry said | January 7th 2010 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
I guess it would have to be Eales or Horan given they won 2 World Cups. Fitzpatrick would be a worthy candidate too.
January 7th 2010 @ 3:56pm
ohtani's jacket said | January 7th 2010 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
Depends on how you look at it. Probably Lomu from a media standpoint and someone like Eales from a purist standpoint.