By Spiro Zavos
January 8th 2010 @ 2:59am
Related coverage
Selecting the ‘real’ World Rugby XV of the decade
Springboks Bryan Habana looks to get a pass away as the Wallabies Matt Giteau tackles him to the ground during the Australia v South Africa Rugby test at Telstra Stadium, Sydney, Saturday, August 5, 2006. AAP Image/Dean Lewins
The most important consideration in selecting a rugby side, and this is the view of Alan Jones, who was an excellent selector, is to get the shape of the side right.
Rugby is a team game and the good selector tries to mix and match the talents of his players so that the entity of the team is much more powerful than the sum of the individual skills in the side.
Hopefully the players in my dream team will complement each other in the various skills they bring to the side.
Another essential consideration is that each player must be expert in the specific role his position requires him to play. My props, for instance, must be terrific scrummagers, lifters and maulers.
If they can also occasionally make charges like a maddened bull, then so much the better. But the scrumming, lifting and mauling expertise come first.
My template in selection a World Rugby XV of the decade is Rugby World magazine’s XV.
And this brings me to another aspect of selecting, which is the bias that comes from watching and having an interest in a particular competition.
Rugby World is a UK magazine.
Their bias lies with the players they see most often in the European competitions. My bias comes from living in Sydney and writing for the SMH and The Roar, mainly about Super Rugby and the Tri-Nations Tests.
So the Rugby World magazine XV includes 8 northern hemisphere players (the Argentinian Agustin Pichot is regarded as a northern hemisphere player in that most of his top level rugby was played in Europe).
My World XV includes nine southern hemisphere players and six northern hemisphere players.
Of the six northern hemisphere players in my team, three of them were stars of the mighty England pack which dominated and won the RWC in 2003. There is an Italian, an Irishman and a Welshman.
South Africa provides four players in my team; New Zealand three; and Australia two.
These distributions, in my opinion, reflect quite accurately the fortunes of the various national sides over the decade. South Africa and England won the World Cups, and New Zealand were consistently the number one ranked side in the world in this period.
A final consideration for me is that the form of the players must have been outstanding for a couple of seasons.
Now for the envelope and the winning names.
The French call the front row the ‘orchestra stalls’ because this is base from where the rugby music is really made.
World Rugby magazine has selected Carl Hayman, John Smit and Gethin Jenkins. The first two names get my vote, too. But Jason Leonard, who appeared in four World Cups, three Lions tours and is the most-capped prop of all time, replaces Jenkins.
Rugby World magazine’s second row of Martin Johnson and Victor Matfield picks itself, as far as I am concerned.
As does Rugby World magazine’s backrow of Sergio Parisse, Richie McCaw and Richard Hill. This has not been a vintage era for number eights, and Parisse has been the best of an ordinary lot.
Rugby World magazine selects Augustin Pichot and Daniel Carter as its halves. There is an element of the sympathy vote with Pichot. He was a tough, resilient, game and inspirational player.
But his skills came nowhere near those of Fourie du Preez (my player of the decade, ahead of Brian O’Driscoll).
In my view du Preez is one of the all-time great halfs, right up there Gareth Edwards, Chris Laidlaw, Ken Catchpole and Des Conner.
The same compliment can be paid to Daniel Carter, who has no equal in the history of rugby for his all-round attacking and defensive skills. If there was no Carter, then Stephen Larkham, another rugby genius, would have been my first five-eighths.
Rugby World magazine has Matt Giteau at inside centre and Brian O’Driscoll at outside centre. I would move O’Drsicoll into inside centre and bring in Stirling Mortlock at outside centre.
At his prime Mortlock, was a big, powerful dominating presence (as he revealed in the semi-final of the 2003 RWC against New Zealand) in the outside corridors of the field.
Giteau, in my view, is an over-rated player who rarely if ever dominates Tests against strong opponents. Mortlock was feared by the All Blacks and the Springboks as the most dangerous Wallaby on the field when playing against them.
Playing off O’Driscoll, Mortlock would be too tough to stop for even the strongest of defenders.
Rugby World’s magazine back three consists of Mils Muliaina, Jason Robinson and Shane Williams. I retain Shane Williams in my team. Bryan Habana comes in for Robinson, and Chris Latham comes in for Muliaina.
So the Zavos World Rugby XV is: Carl Hayman, John Smit, Jason Leonard. Martin Johnson, Victor Matfield, Richie McCaw, Richard Hill, Sergio Parisse, Fourie du Preez, Daniel Carter, Shane Williams, Brian O’Driscoll, Stirling Mortlock, Bryan Habana, Chris Latham.
My captain is John Smit.
His captaincy of the Springboks in the 2007 RWC and against the British and Irish Lions (where he was smuggled back on to the field, illegally perhaps, to save one of the Tests) was inspirational and thoughtful.
Sir Clive Woodward is my coach.
As World Cups these days defines coaches and players, Woodward and Jake White are the obvious candidates. Take nothing away from White, but the quality of play in the 2007 RWC was well below that, in the finals, of the 2003 RWC.
Woodward, too, produced the greatest England side in over 130 years of Test rugby.
That side won something like 12 consecutive Tests against the best southern hemisphere sides, an achievement that might never be equalled. Woodward introduced tactics like the pass-kick and coaching techniques that are now staple parts of rugby play.
Finally, his 2003 England side was one of the great national teams in the history of rugby.
My World XV is in great hands, with Woodward pulling the coaching strings.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
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...
(97)
Mr cheese said | January 8th 2010 @ 1:42am | Report comment
I think you’re having a giraffe with your inclusion of Sir Clive as coach.
He would bore everyobdy to tears with his corporate-speak. It’s like being lectured by Bono on the economies of sub-Saharan Africa.
Anyways, I think that Parisse is more than a little over-rated. My friend Jethro is a better no. 8 than big Parisse.
You’re also a little wide of the mark in choosing Habana ahead of Robinson. Billy Whizz has ball bearings in his ankles.
Jason Robinson really is as sweet as a nut.
Apart from that, your selections are of no little merit. Je suis d’accord, M Zavos.
Tight Head Prop said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:58pm | Report comment
Spiro not a bad world XV but I think my team would pip them!
Firstly I would put Carl Hayman as Tighthead after all that’s where he plays.
So my team would be:
1: Ben Robinson Although Jason Leonard is a legend in prop circles especially to play 100+ internationals after breaking his neck, but for me Ben Robinson has showed in the last few years he is the real deal and skills to boot.
If not Ben it would have to Tony Woodcock or Os Du Randt
2: Keith Wood
3: Carl Hayman
4: Martin Johnson
5: I went for a relative unknown here named John Eales. Although he only played a measly 86 games for his country I think he may nearly be good enough to be captain as well. What do you think Spiro?
6: George Smith would be my option for Blind Side. Yes I know he’s an open side but with the obvious selection at 7 you have to have George in the team.
7: Richie McCaw.
8: Schalk Burger
9: Justin Marshal
10: Dan Carter
11: Jason Robinson
12: Tim Horan (just scrapes in I think)
13: Stirling Mortlock
14: Brian Habana
15: Plenty to pick from here. Toss up for me between Matt Bourke and Christian Cullen. Sorry but I would put a couple of others ahead of Latham.
Sin-ick said | January 11th 2010 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
Tim Horan was one of Australias finest, but picking him in team of the decade??
Come on mate, he only played one game in 2000.
Don’t get me wrong, he would be in anyones team of the 90’s, but not in the team of the last decade.
ohtani's jacket said | January 8th 2010 @ 2:23am | Report comment
Well, Spiro, it’s pretty similar to the other lists bandied about.
The flaw with these kinds of lists, IMO, is that there isn’t enough thought put into them. Take Jason Leonard, for example. Was he really the best scrummager, lifter and mauler last decade or does he just appeal to you because of the list of accomplishments you mentioned? How was he in the loose and in the tight? Was he strong ball carrier? A solid tackler? What was his work at the breakdown like?
He only played 39 Tests last decade and 13 of those were as a sub. That strikes me as somewhat problematic.
You start off saying you’re trying to pick the best players in each position or provide some sort of overall balance and then you end up heavily favouring the stronger sides. This is what I mean by a lack of thought. The easy way to make these sort of lists is to say that England won the World Cup in 2003 so I’ve got to have some of their players and so on.
Roger Rational said | January 8th 2010 @ 3:45am | Report comment
Jason Leonard? He was a bit-part player for about three years of the decade – I have no idea how that qualifies him for a “XV of the Decade”.
But the rest of the team is spot on and shows an admirable absence of national bias. Sir Clive is a great pick. The Sir Clive bashers (see Mr Cheese above) remind me of the Tony Blair bashers – they carry on like a scorned girlfriend who forgets the years of bliss (and great sex) and remembers only the day you dumped her.
Oh, but Johnson would have to be Captain. Smit’s a bluffer who’s begun to believe his own hype. That type of verbal diarrohea might go down well with taciturn Afrikaners who can barely string a sentence together and who therefore laud to the skies anyone remotely articulate, but it wouldn’t work at all with Aussies, Irishmen and Englishmen. That said, Smit still deserves a spot for being a class hooker.
Lee said | January 8th 2010 @ 5:48am | Report comment
Big on the genralisations about Afrikaaners, having lived in SA, NZ and parts of the UK, the same comments can be made of sections of all of these countries…I mean afterall aren’t all Aussies just descendents of convicts who try desperatley to prove they are more than that? Aren’t all Kiwis suffering from “small nation syndrome” and therefore try to prove that their contribution on the world stage is greater than their small population should suggest? Aren’t all Englishmen trying to cling to the might of old Britannia and the position in the world that they held back then, while the rest of the UK is trying to distance themselves as far from the English as possible while still lapping up the the benefits of being connected to them? Of course the French suffer from an arrogance that comes from low self-esteem due to being invaded and requiring other nations to help them in 2 world wars? I mean if you want to make sweeping generalisations, why not insult as many people as possible?
Anyway good list Spiro, I think for the first time I nearly completely agree with you BUT for Jason Leonard – OS Du Randt might get my vote but I suspect that could be national bias.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 8th 2010 @ 5:54am | Report comment
‘Big on the genralisations about Afrikaaners, having lived in SA, NZ and parts of the UK, the same comments can be made of sections of all of these countries…’
Agreed.
Roger Rational said | January 8th 2010 @ 8:13am | Report comment
When I say “barely string a sentence together”, I mean it literally. Listen to Victor Matfield or Morne Steyn: they struggle to speak English (as you’d expect given it’s not their natural language). Part of Smit’s kudos in SA derives from the fact that he speaks English so fluently and always sounds so plausible.
In other words, he’s a South African version of Lawrence Dallaglio. And like Dallaglio – imo, anyway – he’s a bit of a blarney merchant who gets taken more seriously than he ought to be.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 8th 2010 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Are you South African?
Lee said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:03am | Report comment
I would argue that it is because Smit is not a natural Afrikaans speaker but has managed to learn the language and unite the team in ways that other captains have not i.e. not only breaking racila barriers(in the most racially diverse springbok team in history) bbut also the barriers between Afrikaaners and English speaking South Africans.
When the Boks were in NZ last year for the Tri Nations – I ended up in the queue of McDonalds with Victor Matfield at Auckland Airport and chatted to him, he seemed to speak English fine then…I must admit I have never been aware of Afrikaaners lauding south africans who don’t speak afrikaans well but speak English very well – they normally have a different reaction.
Jay said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:12am | Report comment
What is Smits background, Im assuming German, but he was born there and I assume English was his first language.
The team environment at the Boks looks great at the momeny and Smit has done a wonderful job. Pre-match shots of the players praying together is so inspiring to watch. Also, Matfield has some Maori blood and is not a pure Afrikaans. Not a surprise that he can speak english!
Re your comments about the Afrikaaners, most of the rugby and cricket players have attended boarding schools or english speaking school and are highly educated. Its only really the Afrikaan farmers (realy Boers of Trasnvaal) who may not be able to speak English. Its an intriguing language, best described as old-form Dutch and quite similar to Flanders spoken in Belgium.
Warren said | January 8th 2010 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Strewth Gents, enough of this already. Having spent most of my life living in SA and having a dollop of Afrikaaner coursing through my veins, I may be able to voice a more balanced and educated view than some of the above posts (and yes, I can, and do speak English quite well…).
The generalisations in the above posts verge on the ridiculous. South Africa has genetic origins from France, England, Holland, Malaysia and Africa and these cultures have been in a melting pot for centuries. To assume someone’s parentage or origin in South Africa is to court disaster or embarrassment.
In my case, for example, two of my forefathers fought against each other in the Boer War and I have no doubt there have been other contributions to my genetic make-up that have been (conveniently?) omitted. What does that make me? Given the above posts, you’d be surprised that I am able to speak at all, in any language…
The image of the raw, uneducated Afrikaner in the Neandertal mode is outdated. They might not be able to speak English as well as some, but then neither are most French or Argentinian players I’ve seen interviewed. So what?
Now all we need to do with the South African players when interviewed is to get them to stop referring to their God every time they notch up a victory…
Cheers, and Happy New Year to all.
netrug said | January 9th 2010 @ 4:45pm | Report comment
I travelled through South Africa with a Dutch couple. They could understand Afrikaans tellimg me that it just old fashioned Dutch. Seems to be the same if we met a group still speaking the English of Shakespeare’s tme.
MM said | January 9th 2010 @ 11:51pm | Report comment
Roger – I think Lee has rectified an unnecessary remark with overt clarity – shouldn’t one leave it now?
sharminator said | January 10th 2010 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
As a prop, I agree with the Jason Leonard comments. He did play a lot of tests in the 90’s … but he was only a bit player from 2000 or so on .. tending to come on as a replacement .. so he cant really be put in a team of the decade.
I think ben robinson has only really come to the fore this year …. internationally .. so he cant be in the list.
For me Hayman … and Marconnet … Vickery was up there for a while, able to dominate any team in the scrummaging stakes but then got injured and in the last few years has fallen away.
At hooker the stocks are a bit thin apart from John Smit … Mealamu, Jeremy Paul, Wood at the end of his career, the french hooker with the Polish name, they all had some great games but lacked consistancey and none really grabbed the position by the horns … like Smit.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 8th 2010 @ 4:12am | Report comment
Yes, Spiro’s side does show a lack of bias and general appreciation of skill and talent. However, as OJ and Mr Cheese (and Spiro) point out the selection is unavoidably subjective, hence the difference of opinion over Woodward. Regarding Woodward I’m firmly in the camp of Mr Cheese. Woodward was not a coach. He was the Director of the team. He organised sponsorship, selected coaches, and was largely involved in the admin and organisation of the side, as opposed to leading Team England in terms of coaching and tactics.
England won the WC under Woodward but they also got knocked out of the 1999 WC at the QF stage and lost various Grand Slams (Wales at Wembley, Ireland at ? and Scotland at Murrayfield). IMO, one Grand Slam is a poor return from that generation of excellence, especially when Wales and Ireland were far inferior than they are currently. Further, players like Leonard, Back, Dallaglio and Dawson have noted publicly that the team was largely player driven by Johnson and his cohorts.
Post-WC Woodward made a series of calamitous selectorial decisions that really undermined England’s future success. Essentially, therefore, Roger, what you are talking about is two years of excellence. That is all well and good, but as an England fan I happen to think that Woodward underachieved with what was arguably the greatest collection of English players ever assembled. You see, the average fan tends to remember the glory, like the win in NZ, specifically the 6 man scrum. What I recall is an excellent win but one that came against a callow NZ side (check the team sheets), with an appalling pack, and a goal kicker (Spencer) that missed where Wilkinson didn’t. Even England’s win against Australia the next week came with Nathan Grey playing 10 for Australia, and with Steve Kefu at 12. In short, what I am saying is that England were fortunate to win certain games. Does the average England fan recall how England only managed to beat the NZ 2nd and 3rd string by 3 (?) points at Twickenham? No, they just recall the win. Could you imagine the uproar in NZ if NZ struggled to beat England A?
And then we have the 2005 Lions tour. Words cannot sum up what a debacle that trip was. The less said the better.
P.S. Do you not think your analysis of Afrikaaners is borderline racist?
Punk Tilleus said | January 8th 2010 @ 6:55am | Report comment
It was tempting to post a response Clive Oddword, but the above post by Mr Wakefield makes any additional commentary nearly superfluous.
A man who celebrated himself as a legend in his own lifetime, if you managed to read his autobiography ‘Whinning!” all the way through.
The 5/6 Nations for the period of SCW is revealing:
1997 – France win Grand Slam, England second place and Triple Crown. Woodward arrives to take over from Rowell.
1998 – France win Grand Slam, England second place and Triple Crown.
1999 – Scotland win the Championship on scoring points difference with England. No Triple Crown won.
2000 – England won the championship but no Triple Crown or Grand Slam having lost to Scotland in the final match. It was the only match Scotland won having being thrashed by Italy in their opening match.
2001 – England won Championship again – but only on scoring points difference with Ireland, who also lost out on a Grand Slam – to Scotland. No Triple Crown.
2002 France won the Grand Slam, beating England into second place. England win Triple Crown.
2003 – England finally win a Grand Slam decider in the final match with Ireland. England won the WC.
2004 – France won the Grand Slam, pipping Ireland for the title who won Triple Crown. England were third. SCW resigned in Sept 2004.
2005 – B&I Lions tour whitewash in New Zealand.
Roger Rational said | January 8th 2010 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Agreed that Woodward’s England should have won more than one Grand Slam, but your analysis lacks all balance. Remember that England could easily have won four Grand Slams in a row but for foot-and-mouth, Scottish sleet storms, and the Welsh getting very, very lucky at Wembley. Don’t want to hear about luck? Fair enough, but then don’t use it as a stick to beat Woodward with by claiming he got lucky against the southern hemisphere teams. The fact is that England achieved a period of genuine world dominance that might never be repeated by a northern hemisphere rugby team.
Also, I don’t think that Woodward has ever pretended to be a coach. Sir Alex Ferguson doesn’t take Man United’s coaching, but no one doubts that he’s one of the greatest football managers that ever lived.
P.S. I hope it’s not too much of a drag for you to have to read to the opinions of us “average fans”.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 8th 2010 @ 8:34am | Report comment
Nobody said they didn’t wan’t to hear about luck. You can’t accuse, and then conclude that people are guilty of what they have been accused of without listening to their response first. Nor can you suggest that an analysis lacks ‘all balance’ and then proceed to state that ‘England could have easily won four Grand Slams in a row’ (Rainy Murrayfield as unlucky?) without providing any real depth of argument. In any case, that England lost that famous GS match in Ireland only serves to highlight the selectorial inadequacies of Woodward. Anyhow, back to the topic, nobody has stated that England got lucky against the southern hemisphere teams, simply that they played two teams at a fortunate point in those teams’ transition. Please read the contributions thoroughly.
P.S. I can’t think why on earth you think you need to make such comments. Nobody else does. Such a comment is unnecessary.
Roger Rational said | January 8th 2010 @ 8:56am | Report comment
“In short, what I am saying is that England were fortunate to win certain games”.
“Nobody has stated that England got lucky”.
Riiiiight.
Fwiw, I agree about certain selections. I think Woodward left Jonno out at Murrayfield (even though he was fit again) and he should never have picked Balshaw in Dublin. “Moving target” was the phrase used by Eddie O’Sullivan. But equally, the luck factor – who could have predicted f-and-m? – worked against England big time. And England battered Wales at Wembley – it was only terrible decision-making by Dallaglio that cost them the game.
So I think you have to look at it in the round. England became the most professional, ambitious, dominating side in world rugby and Woodward had a heck of a lot to do with that. Not a great coach, not even always a great people person – but still a brilliant leader.
P.S. It’s fairly obvious that your constant references to the naivete of the “average fan” was directed at me. (You, presumably, are much more sagacious than the “average fan”?) If not then fair enough, but perhaps think about phrasing yourself less patronisingly in future. I’m not the first to remark on your condescending attitude on this site.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:05am | Report comment
I didn’t say that England were lucky. You have confirmed that. I certainly didn’t say they were lucky against the southern hemisphere.
The crux of this matter is that England achieved under Woodward. That is undeniable. Beyond that the debate rages. I haven’t at any point ignored what Woodward achieved but have stated that more could have been attained.
I didn’t direct the average fan reference at you because I have no idea of your nationality. In another thread you referred to the NZ leader, and above you have made specific comments about SA hence I questioned your nationality. Consider the context of the comments. If you think my tone is patronising then I don’t know what to say. The article has engineered a torrent of relaxed and casual debate, with not a single crossed word directed at anybody bar the questioning of your assessment of Afrikaners. This isn’t the place to argue. Everybody is chilled here – join in.
Roger Rational said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:18am | Report comment
“This isn’t the place to argue. Maybe you need to chill a bit?”
Comedy quote of the year there from KO/WW – who has surely had more arguments on this site than any other poster in history. But fair enough about the average fan thing. As for Woodward, I agree – the debate rages. I’d love to see him come back into rugby just to see how he’d get on. I think the bar has been raised since his England days.
pothale said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:01am | Report comment
“Remember that England could easily have won four Grand Slams in a row but for foot-and-mouth, etc?”
Woulda, coulda, shoulda, surely?
Ireland could easily have won three of four Grand Slams in the 2000s – but for foot and mouth, a last minute try from France, a pounding from England in 2003, another last minute try from France or a missed tackle in Italy, etc, etc. But they didn’t.
Unfortunate? Unlucky? Or as one England player groaned after they lost the Grand Sam to Ireland and Keith Wood’s try – ‘they wanted it more than we did.”
What balance is required in assessing a coach’s career? The ‘nearly made it but fors’ versus the actual achievements?
Roger Rational said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Fair point, but I think England were an obviously dominant side in that period in a way that Ireland weren’t. I compare it to Leeds in the 70s versus Everton in the 80s. Both enjoyed a couple of league titles apiece, but Leeds dominated their age whereas Everton didn’t remotely dominate theirs.
Totally agree about the difficulty of assessing a coach’s career. Even Woodward’s own players from that time seem to disagree about him, so I don’t see how we average fans can hope to judge. Still, it’s an interesting debate. No one gets the fur flying quite like Sir Clive.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:26am | Report comment
‘Sir Clive is a great pick. The Sir Clive bashers (see Mr Cheese above) remind me of the Tony Blair bashers – they carry on like a scorned girlfriend who forgets the years of bliss (and great sex) and remembers only the day you dumped her.’
You were pretty quick to staple your flag to the mast and growl at any opposition, Roger. You are chilling out. Excellent.
Btw, which players disagreed about Woodward? What was the disagreement about?
Roger Rational said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Oh, don’t get me wrong. I’m a big fan of Woodward’s but I acknowledge – as must anyone – that I can’t really know the “truth”. After all, I didn’t get to watch his selection meetings or sit in on his team meetings.
Regarding the disagreements, I mean that players like Shaw have had very harsh words to say about Woodward. They complain that he was quite cowardly about sitting down face-to-face with players. Apparently he used to call players at 5 am in the morning because he knew they’d have their phones switched off. But other players, e.g. Dallaglio, speak very highly of him and argue that you need a man with that type of vision at the top of the organisation.
Btw, have you heard about the Sackey-Shaw disagreement? Pretty worrying stuff for England and Wasps. These autobiographies really are more trouble than they’re worth.
Sam Taulelei said | January 8th 2010 @ 6:50am | Report comment
Pretty close to the team I posted on the Roar before Christmas Spiro. Every best of selection has an element of bias and there are always certain players that have an unequalled status in the game where there is universal acceptance and others that are favoured more based on where you live. In terms of balance a midfield of O’Driscoll and Mortlock doesn’t appeal to me as a good fit, they’re too similar and as usual in these exercises players are selected out of position just to have them included.
Compared to the 1990’s the positions at 12 and 8 stand out in that there haven’t been any players last decade that dominated all opposition unlike Tim Horan and Zinzan Brooke.
I couldn’t think of a worse coach for a composite side than Clive Woodward especially when you look at the 2005 Lions side, my vote for coach would be Sir Ian McGeechan or Nick Mallett.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 8th 2010 @ 7:01am | Report comment
Graham Henry is my man, Sam. No love for your bossman?
Brett McKay said | January 8th 2010 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Exactly who I was thinkng off too, Wavell (KO, is that really you??)
Henry’s demeanor and personality (and i use the word loosely) aside, his record in the Naughties is pretty solid. Sure, it’s missing the cherry on top, but still, you can’t overlook success (he says, forgetting that Kiwis do it annually)..
Maybe Spiro should appoint a Henry-style triumvirate of Sir Clive, Henry and Wacky de Villiers, just to provide an endless stream of press material on tour…
Sam Taulelei said | January 8th 2010 @ 7:11am | Report comment
Graham Henry is a fantastic coach and analyst but I don’t think his very Kiwi demeanour and attitude will translate well across all nationalities, his fallout with certain players on the 2001 Lions tour and the loss of respect from his own Welsh players following that tour is only bettered by Sir Clive’s poorer people management skills on the 2005 tour.
Looking at the harmony that existed on the 1997 and 2009 Lions tour speaks volumes of Sir Ian’s coaching and interpersonal skills and if this side were to ever take the field you have to manage a careers worth of egos, temperaments and strong opinions.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 8th 2010 @ 7:20am | Report comment
I see your point but I was considering Henry on record alone, and his work with NZ has been pretty extraordinary. Also, I’m not a huge fan of Mallett or McGeechan. Italy has regressed under Mallett, and McGeechan had years of poor results with Northampton Saints and Scotland (1993 Lions tour too) to undermine his record. McGeechan may have helped the 09 Lions tour to bond but he also derailed what could have been an awesomely successful tour. Admittedly Henry’s man management didn’t go down too well but I think the issue was compounded by the other grumpy personalities on tour: Robinson and Larder. Donal Leinehan was particularly useless as well.
Bay35Pablo said | January 8th 2010 @ 7:48am | Report comment
WW, “England won the WC under Woodward but they also got knocked out of the 1999 WC at the QF stage .. ”
Herein lies the problem of this review, how do you deal with events in the late 1990s colouring our views? Does a player (or coach) who played 10 awesome years in the 1990s, and “only” 2 awesome years in 200 and 2001 get pipped by someone who played 5 awesome years in the mid 2000s.
Many players were still playing in 2000, that we would all agree were players of the 1990s, and that we would regard as some of the best players that played during the 2000s, but is that the same criteria?
Therein lies much of the debate on this team.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 8th 2010 @ 7:54am | Report comment
I’m aware of that, B35P. I mentioned the 1999 WC simply to provide a wider context for the Woodward debate because it is the one counter balance to ‘England won the WC!’, and it’s also significant if one were to consider discounting a current coach because they didn’t win a WC in the 00s.
I do agree about the problem of the ‘Team of the Decade’ criteria. It is a flawed process, but as all rugby fans are in essence train spotters, so I’m sure the debate is enjoyed. John Eales played until 2001, Keith Wood played until 2003, as did Johnson… and on and on… Everyone has their favourites, and it’s all harmless. I enter the debate armed with the conclusion that there will never be final agreements. Who would you have in your team?
Bay35Pablo said | January 8th 2010 @ 5:19pm | Report comment
WW, I haven’t watched enough NH rugby to be able to properly consider their players.
sharminator said | January 10th 2010 @ 8:44pm | Report comment
Excellent point bay … thats where I have a problem with people like the inclusion of Jason Leonard, Martin Johnson and Ealesy.
Johnson and Ealsey would be a perfect complement to each other .. the enforcer and the sublime skills … but one retired from internationals in 2001 .. the other in 2003 …
Keith Wood was an amazing hooker … he did things that hookers havn’t done since … like regathering the ball in his 22 and kicking long touch finders .. but he retired in 2003 as well …
Woodward was coach of England’s Tour From Hell and their capitulation at RWC 99 .. so on the 90’s performance I wouldnt include him.
Hoy said | January 8th 2010 @ 8:43am | Report comment
I didn’t think you were allowed to move players just to slot them in? O’Driscoll is hardly the premier 12 of the decade if he has player there how many times in the decade? I don’t care how good he is at 13, doesn’t mean he is the best 12 this decade.
By that token, could you slot both Larkham at 10 and Carter at 12 where he began his career? I would say Carter played 12 more than O’Driscoll this decade.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 8th 2010 @ 8:47am | Report comment
For the record, Hoy, I believe that O’Driscoll played a few games at 12. Following an injury to O’Driscoll Gordon D’Arcy was moved to 13 and he proved so effective there that upon O’Driscoll’s return he was moved to 12 and D’Arcy was kept at 13. I don’t think the move lasted long, and so you’re probably spot on to suggest that Carter has played more games at 12.
sheek said | January 8th 2010 @ 8:44am | Report comment
WW,
I didn’t explain myself well yesterday, suggesting Englishmen shouldn’t be in charge of selecting any all-time teams, or even periodical teams.
I’m on hols, am distracted, & may have had too much sun n surf. but Spiro hit the nail on the head – perhaps Rugby World Magazine’s fault is a bias towards familiarity.
It’s a fault we all possess most of the time, & some of us possess all the time. For example, a common fault is picking players we’ve seen, & ignoring players before our time because it requires too much effort to do the research.
This doesn’t excuse RWM, that prides itself on being a serious rugby voicepiece & observer of the game. The problem with their decade world XV is a bias towards players who appear regularly in the northern hemsiphere.
With the resources available to them, they should have made an effort to appreciate southern hemisphere players more. Then they may have chosen a more meaningful XV, & closer to the mark.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 8th 2010 @ 8:57am | Report comment
No problems, sheek. You don’t need to explain anything. I understand and appreciate your point of view. My one objection is that, IMO, the Argentine selections are more to do with the romantic perspective that the media use to depict Argentina, as opposed to a determination to support HC rugby. I don’t agree with the team either, but I think in broad terms the main players have been selected, and the best two teams this decade have been equally represented.
On a different note I can confidently state that the editor, Paul Morgan, is a very decent man, and a true fan of the world game. As it happens I am not renewing my subscription to the magazine simply because I am so bored of the articles from Stephen Jones and Stuart Barnes. Beyond that there is nothing cynical and pro-Europe pervading the publication. Regarding the TotD the funny thing is that the selection is a two page spread near the front of the magazine. In other words it is only an aside to the main articles. There is no real analysis or any detail and yet it has caused such debate.
Enjoy your holiday. What I’d give for some sun. I’m snowed in at the moment.
sheek said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:31am | Report comment
WW,
I’ve no doubt Paul Morgan is a decent man. Some years ago he published a book, ‘The History Of Rugby’, I think it was. It was an excellent book with regards to further developing my knowledge of rugby in general.
The book attempted to select an all-time XV, plus bench. Of the 27 “selectors”, only Joel Stransky was from the southern hemisphere. There were no Frenchman on the panel.
The team selected was quite worthy, indeed all the nominations were. But it was also obvious to see the bias towards the northern hemispehere, & especially British & Irish players.
The point is, if you’re going to do this kind of exercise, you have to broaden the net, & have representatives from all the stakeholders. Otherwise, you will be guilty of unintentionally & subconsciously favouring those you’re familiar & comfortable with.
Agreed there is a romantic notion towards Argentine rugby. We want them to become a regular rugby power, but let’s stick to the facts.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:54am | Report comment
One thing that is important, sheek, is that nobody seems to know how the process was managed, who the judges were etc. There’s a lot of guess work going on about a tiny piece from a monthly magazine. A Roarer made a significant point on another article that the TotD was being used to express the geographical variety of the sport. Therefore despite what I have said about the TotD being a bit of a nothing, just a page filler, perhaps Morgan is aware of the deeper significance. Maybe.. maybe not. These teams are everywhere at the moment, so perhaps the magazine editors really did just throw together a few names? Perhaps they were looking to be controversial on purpose? Personally I think that if such a team is being collated that effort should go into it, and the team should garner more than two pages near the editors letter.
sharminator said | January 10th 2010 @ 8:52pm | Report comment
I think that’s the point Wavell … its possible to really have any team of known internationals .. if you justify it .. but some of the selections seem a bit surprising … and perhaps some further explanation or discussion would have been a good idea.
I think most people would include Habana in some form … at least on the bench … and the over representation of Argentinians seems a bit strange.
Again someone from the Southern Hemisphere would probably over represent Southerners .. as that is who they watch more …
Dan said | January 8th 2010 @ 8:57am | Report comment
Sprio,
While I admire you putting in the Southern Hemisphere view, your selections simply aren’t different enough from the UK Mag’s to justify your speak of picking a better all round team…
Also, I have to agree with the others in stating that picking Clive Woodward is a bit of a joke. You assume the criteria must be based around world cup wins, but why? World Cups offer little insight into the long-standing quality of a side. Just look at England – they won in 2003, but then went on to be the easy beats of world rugby and Woodward (who was now sir Woodward) went on to coach a well endowed British and Irish Lions side to a 3-0 hammering by the All Blacks! Surely your criteria should be based on consistency over the whole decade, and if that’s the case it should go to Graham Henry, whose All Blacks have statistically only lost an average of 2 matches a year – far better than any other side.
pothale said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Except that Spiro does point out the need for using coherency in selection to get the shape of the side right. Thus, just as the selection seeks to have the right blend of players, so also do you pick the coach accordingly. Whilst a number of people object to Clive Woodward, so also would there be objections to Henry and his track record in failing – like Woodward – in getting a variety of different talents, cultures and personalities to play together in his ill-fated Lions tour in 2001. And latterly with Wales.
Terry Kidd said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Very good point Hoy. My only gripes with Spiro’s selection is BOD at 12, Parisse at 8 and Leonard at prop.
Something else that would be very interesting …. a NH Team of the Decade and a SH Team of the Decade …. entirely hypothetical but what a game that would be to watch …. and speculate about.
Who would be the referee of the decade?
Jerry said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Paddy O’Brien in one half, Wayne Barnes in the other. Each hemisphere guaranteed to bitch.
James said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Wayne Barnes…just joking, can’t stand him as a ref and I am not even a Kiwi.
In recent years I would say maybe Kaplan but I think Mark Lawrence will become a great ref, he has a very good demeanor with the players and lets games flow.
When did Andre Watson and Paddy O’Brien retire – both very good refs(shame about both of them now)
Brett McKay said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:36am | Report comment
absolutely Terry, anything to get Larkham and Carter on the paddock together!!
sheek said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:35am | Report comment
SCW was guilty of one of the most self-indulgent, impractical & just plain bone-headed episodes in rugby history – his Lions “army” that toured NZ in 2005.
With modern touring teams on a 10-12 match tour, if you need anymore than 35 players & 10 coaching/support staff, you have a massive problem of incapicity on all levels.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:46am | Report comment
No Roger, I haven’t heard about the Shaw-Sackey disagreement, do tell.
I have heard the phone call story from other England players too – not a good legacy. I imagine that Dallaglio never had to experience it like others did (Incidentally, Richard Hill was the only England player never to be dropped by Woodward), but I do recall him publicly discussing Woodward’s flaws, using the same stories as Leonard and Catt etc. Ultimately he was deeply flawed.
I definitely think there is a place for a person with Woodward-esque vision, but to all purposes he was basically a consultant. That said, it is undeniable that such a broad, and perhaps visionary, outlook is necessary. Too many rugby coaches currently seem to be narrowing the rugby context, i.e. lets keep things simple and neat.
Roger Rational said | January 8th 2010 @ 10:00am | Report comment
The Sun newspaper had a story (which they seem to have since taken down) that Sackey might take Shaw to court over a story in his autobiography that Sackey was involved in a car crash in Paris that hurt his leg during the WC2007. Sackey claims it’s a lie but Shaw swears blind that Sackey told him the story and agreed he could include it in his book. If the Sun’s account is true, it’s a fairly ridiculous situation. I’m a big fan of Sackey’s but what with this and his complaining about the England medical team last year, I have a hunch he might struggle to make it back into the Elite Squad any time soon.
Bay35Pablo said | January 8th 2010 @ 5:17pm | Report comment
WW, “I definitely think there is a place for a person with Woodward-esque vision”.
Yeah, he’s called Rod McQueen.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 8th 2010 @ 10:46pm | Report comment
Of course, I’d forgotten that McQueen was still coaching/managing during the decade. I’d have no qualms with him gaining the position, as I’m sufficiently underwhelmed by Woodward and White. Although, having read John Eales’s book I did start to consider McQueen in a new light, slightly tarnished, if you will.
Who Needs Melon said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:53am | Report comment
pothale,
How many games has BOD played at 12? Do you agree with Spiros moving him to that position and then nominating him as the best 12?
Clearly I rate Giteau (in the 12 jumper!!!) higher than others judging by opinions on this site. In my opinion he is definitely ONE of the best 12s of the past decade and it’s not outrageous that he be selected there. Mind you I hadn’t considered BOD as a candidate for the “best 12″ spot.
pothale said | January 8th 2010 @ 11:08am | Report comment
He played there, but certainly not much in the test side that I can recall.
W2 recalls correctly about him shfting to 12 with Darcy at 13 in 2004. I don’t have exact figures on numbers of games for either club or country. Certainly, the pair were one of the most lethal in 2004/2005 period and regarded by some as the best pairing in the world at the time.
it was Gary Ella in Leinster who identified the potential partnership when he shifted Darcy into the centre from his club position of wing. O’sulivan followed suit in the test team when O’Driscoll got injured.
Darcy was the runaway Player of that 6 Nations Championship at 13, when O’Driscoll first played at 12 in the 6 Nations starting from Round 2 in Feb 2004.
The switched partnership continued into the June two-test tour of South Africa. Except Darcy got injured in the first test and Horgan moved to the 12 shirt with BOD back at 13. Darcy was out for the November internationals and when he returned for the 6 Nations in 2005, O’Sullivan put him back at 12.
I think that was it for BOD at 12 at test level – might be different at Leinster level.
I understand Spiro’s point about putting him at 12 because he was very effective with Darcy. Maybe the reason Spiro shifted BOD to 12 was to include him, or rather not exclude him through selecting Mortlock, rather than that he was the best 12 of the decade.
In my view, I’d rate Darcy ahead of BOD as one of the best 12s of the decade. But for injuries at critical times in the 2004-2007 period, he could have been even better. But he’s only 28 and is still scoring some brilliant tries for Leinster and Ireland.
Rin said | January 8th 2010 @ 11:30am | Report comment
For once i am in agreement with you Spiro, your team selection is more accurate reflection of the team of the decade then the rugby world one. Pity no space for Robinson I would have him instead of Williams.
Your assessment of the lack of quality 8’s around the park this last decade pretty much sums it up. Hopefully the next decade will get better with the likes of Spies, Heaslip, Vito and Picamoles as the new pretenders.
Rin
Hoy said | January 8th 2010 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
Victor Vito is a weapon.
I love how he played 7s and I hope to hell he can play 15s like that.
Rusty said | January 8th 2010 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
My 2 cents worth – As much as I liked the old ‘fun bus’ I think the only real contender for loosehead is Tony Woodcock. Mils has been a very slick and composed machine but if you wanted the back three to set it alight then a Habana, Williams, Robinson combo would be electrifying
Frank O'Keeffe said | January 8th 2010 @ 5:07pm | Report comment
I don’t get how John Smit keeps making these sides. He, Pichot, and Martin Johnson were likely the best captains this deacde, but aside from that I’ve always felt he was an overrated player. I loved his try against the Lions in the 1st Test this year – it was a terrific forwards try. But generally he’s been a better captain than player. This year alone he’s been a liability at tight-head for South Africa.
Surely Wood and Ibanez would be better selections.
Jason Leonard didn’t make the Lions starting line-up in 2001, and nor was he a starting player in England World Cup winning side. His longevity is to be respected, but longevity doesn’t mean quality. Australians wouldn’t pick Gregan in this side based on longevity. Al Baxter is Australia’s most capped prop, but he wouldn’t make any side either.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 8th 2010 @ 10:51pm | Report comment
I’m more surprised that you’re the only contributor to raise the Smit point, Frank. I’d have countless hookers ahead of him now and during the decade: Mealamu, Hore, Ibanez, Thompson, Wood, Paul…
sharminator said | January 10th 2010 @ 8:59pm | Report comment
I think the problem with hookers from 2000 to 2009 is longevity … mealamu .. hore .. ibanez .. thompson .. paul .. Szarzewski, all were at times outstanding .. but also in and out of their national starting lineups .. for me Smit is the only hooker who took the role by the horns and kept it (although now he is sometimes prop for du plessis to come in)
Wavell Wakefield said | January 11th 2010 @ 3:01am | Report comment
Personally I have never seen Smit as anything other than durable, certainly not in the league of the other hookers. People tend to forget that during his early test career his lineout stats were literally appalling. People tend to see Smit as an illustration of consistency, something that I don’t agree with. The front row was a weak link for SA during the noughties.
Frank O'Keeffe said | January 8th 2010 @ 7:14pm | Report comment
Also…
“The most important consideration in selecting a rugby side, and this is the view of the great Alan Jones, who was an excellent selector, is to get the shape of the side right.”
Agree 100% with that.
Frank O'Keeffe said | January 8th 2010 @ 7:47pm | Report comment
Hate to triple post, but I thought I’d mention that Rothman’s did a team of the decade in the 80s and this is what they came up with…
1. Robert Paparemborde
2. Colin Deans
3. Graham Price
4. Andy Hayden
5. Steve Cutler
6. Michael Jones
7. Graeme Mourie
8. Mourne du Plessis
9. Dave Loveridge
10. Hugo Porta
11. David Campese
12. Phillipe Sella
13. Danie Gerber
14. John Kirwan
15. Serge Blanco
Personally I’d have gone with…
1. Topo Rodriguez (runner up: Robert Paparemborde)
2. Colin Deans (runner up: Tom Lawton)
3. Iain Milne (runner up: Graham Price)
4. Andy Hayden (runner up: Steve Cutler)
5. Gary Whetton (runner up: Paul Ackford)
6. Simon Poidevin (runner up: John Jeffrey)
7. Michael Jones (runner up: Jean-Pierre Rives)
8. Buck Shelford (runner up: Murray Mexted)
9. Dave Loveridge (runner up: Nick Farr-Jones)
10. Mark Ella (runner up: Hugo Porta)
11. David Campese (runner up: Patrice Lasiquet)
12. Phillipe Sella (runner up: Didier Codorniou)
13. Danie Geber (runner up: Michael O’Connor)
14. John Kirwan (runner up: Brendan Moon)
15. Serge Blanco (runner up: Andy Irvine)
Fragglerocker said | January 11th 2010 @ 5:50pm | Report comment
Blanco was the best fullback I’ve ever seen, So no argument there.
Matty P said | January 9th 2010 @ 3:46am | Report comment
I must say I was a little disappointed by Spiro’s article. There has been a lot of prior discussion on this topic on The Roar, which seemed to raise more questions than answers, and I would have liked to have had Spiro’s view.
One obvious flaw in this process is that we aren’t defining what we mean by “Team of the Decade” and how players become eligible – just by playing in the decade, are are they judged on their body of work solely in that last decade. Rod McQueen and John Eales (and Jonah Lomu???) are obvious guys who if you only need to have played this decade to be eligible, I think you need to justify why you have excluded them, whereas if you are judging them solely on games played in the naughties, they probably weren’t around long enough. And are we basing this solely/primarily on internationals form, or do we also include club comps (obviously the works of say a Contepomi are far greater for his club than his results with the Pumas).
All the selections for loosehead have been weak (the players and justifications)! How about Patricio Noriega (see above – played for Australia through 2003, but probably did his best work in the 90s)? Rodrigo Roncero? Castrogiavanni (a hatrick of international tries for a prop???) Slyvain Marconnet? The lack of any French player in itself, especially in the forwards, would have been worthy of a comment from Spiro. How abour Haridnordoquy, Betsen, Dussatoir, Nicolas Mas, Olivier Magne?
And – given the consensus view of weak “pure” no 12 candidates (although this is probably not fair on Jean De Villiers) – why not a Larkham/Carter first/second five eights combo? (Not suggesting Larks over Carter, but Carter did play that spot very well before moving in one, a la Michael Lynagh). Then take your pick, personal preference, as to whether you want BOD running angles or Mortlock running a crash ball outside them. That would give the opposition something to think about…
Generally, I think what is more interesting for discussion is justifying why certain players get left out of contention. For example I think Doug Howlett is hard done by to be left out of discussion for a wing spot – 49 tries and 62 tests for the All Blacks is a formidable record (surely just getting selected that many times for the ABs says something?).
Wavell Wakefield said | January 9th 2010 @ 6:04am | Report comment
You’re spot on about the process of qualification, Matty. There needs to be an accepted universal measure (if such a thing is possible). Where else does one start from?
Noriega was a 3, btw, as is Roncero, but you’re right, there has been limited discussion about the front row. Personally I think the list is potentially endless:
1: Crenca, Marconnet, Grau, Lo Cicero, Jenkins, Woodcock, Du Randt, Smith, Clohessy, Leonard, Roncero…
3: De Villiers, Vickery (early years), Hayman, Marconnet, Reggiardo, Hayes…
The same applies to the lack of Frenchmen, there has been an abundance of excellent French players. Simply put, I think the issue is that the Top 14 is not open to the general public.
Matty P said | January 9th 2010 @ 6:30am | Report comment
Luckily living in the US I can get a French cable channel ,which shows Top 14 games, for a few bucks a month. Great rugger, with the added advantage of French commentary – like listening to soccer commentary in Spanish, it adds immeasurably to the atmosphere without the downside of having to listened to blatently biased and often just plain ignorant commentary (at least since the retiremend of Bill McLaren).
Having played for many years in all spots in the front row I tend to think of props is being interchangeable, but of course you’re right. Lo Cicero is another beast. Another that deserves consideration is Julian White – if only for his excellent decking of Andy Sheridan! I always thought a good straigh right is a good measure of a prop.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 9th 2010 @ 8:26am | Report comment
I’m a fan of watching French rugby with French commentary. That language is so dreamy… Funnily enough I caught the Perpignan v Racing Metro game tonight where Lo Cicero was propping against Mas.
Julian White… now there’s a props prop. A pure scrummager.
adam said | January 9th 2010 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Giteau, in my view, is an over-rated player who rarely if ever dominates Tests against strong opponents. Mortlock was feared by the All Blacks and the Springboks as the most dangerous Wallaby on the field when playing against them.
well said i always said Giteau was an over rated player. he only plays well agaisnt the namibian blind school
OldManEmu said | January 9th 2010 @ 9:45pm | Report comment
Would it be insane to suggest that Eddie O’Sullivan coach this mob? It seems to me from the odd report that I have received of the man that he was and is an excellent bloke first, honest with his players second, and a very good Rugby strategist third.These three criteria after all no matter what order you put them in, are what makes a good Rugby coach are they not? I see good times ahead for the USA national team if they keep the paddy at the helm.
pothale said | January 10th 2010 @ 12:42am | Report comment
O’Sullivan had a fairly good winning percentage record with Ireland during his tenure. However, the critical matches that were lost – e.g. 3 grand slam opportunities – and the debacle of the team preparation for 2007 WC did him in, in my view.
Terry Kidd said | January 11th 2010 @ 5:15am | Report comment
Good post Warren. Well said and I entirely agree. I’m an Aussie by the way. Some of the gross generalizations written here have quite often soured my enjoyment of the general rugby writing and banter between fans from various nations.
Brendan said | January 11th 2010 @ 6:12am | Report comment
WW
You must have forgotten C Visagie in your post above?? He was a great tight head who deserves to be mentioned in the same league as the other tight heads you list above, particularly Vickery who isn’t a great scrummager.
Wavell Wakefield said | January 11th 2010 @ 6:39am | Report comment
Visagie was an excellent prop, Brendan. I recall his performance during the 1999 WC and I recall how White attempted to incorporare him into the 07 WC squad prior to injury. Fortunately, I also had the pleasure of watching him play in the flesh at Saracens. However, I’m not sure I’d seriously consider him as a prop of the decade. He simply didn’t play enough test rugby.
Vickery was never a great scrummager but some of his loose play in the early part of the decade was absolutely awesome.
Fragglerocker said | January 11th 2010 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
It’s always difficult to name a team of any particular decade. Is the selection criteria any player who played during the period and if so is it merely based on players at the top of their game? One obvious case is Jona Lomu.
Lomu was still playing in 2000. Many remember his injury-time try in Sydney in 2000 to win the “Greatest Game ever played”. But was he at the top of his game? I think not. He played the majority of his tests in the 90’s and his peak form was also in the 90’s. Is selection for a team of the decade based on form THIS decade.
Another of Mr Zavos’ points is very valid. There will always be a bias towards players you are used to watching. Most Australian rugby supporters just aren’t able to watch enough regular European club rugby to form an educated opinion on which European players would be in the top XV, and vice versa. I remember speaking with Lions supporters during the 2001 tour who were (quite justifiably) talking up their own team pointing out the best European players. Some were surprised at the fact I didn’t know who they were talking about. They were even more surprised to find out that for most Australians at that time, watching their own Super 12 teams wasn’t even an option without pay TV let alone seeing the Heineken Cup.
Maybe a worthwhile feature on this site might be a lengthy debate on the SANZAR team of the year held annually at the end of the Super Rugby season.
Anyway – My XV (based on their peak career form):
1. O Du Randt
2. J Paul
3. P Noriega
4. M Johnson
5. V Matfield
6. R McCaw (I know he’s a 7 but were selecting a team here not just best in position)
7. G Smith
8. B Skinstad
9. A Pichot (only just above Gregan)
10. S Larkham
11. J Lomu
12. T Umaga
13. B O’Driscoll
14. B Cohen (We are talking about peak career form here)
15. M Burke
Jason Robinson, S Williams and others deserve to be in the top 15 but this is my selection for best team not best players.
Fragglerocker said | January 11th 2010 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
And Rod MacQueen would be coach, not doubt whatsoever.
T Bone Al said | January 11th 2010 @ 6:53pm | Report comment
Spiro and others can argue the toss on some of the above selections, but you have all made one significant glaring omission, Rupeni Caucaunibuca must be selected on one wing. Rupeni on his day was a class above all the other wings mentioned here, such as Habana, Robinson, Williams etc whom are all great wingers in their own right. But anyone who has watched Rupeni play at the top of his game will know what I’m talking about. Spiro I think you should amend your team.
Fragglerocker said | January 12th 2010 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
I didn’t even think about Rupeni, but now that I have, I’d put him above Jason Robinson and Williams.
Jerry said | January 12th 2010 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
You could include Caucau given it’s only a theoretical team and he could theoretically get off his fat arse and bother to turn up for training.
T Bone Al said | January 12th 2010 @ 5:16pm | Report comment
Theoretically speaking a world class team like France should be able to tackle an ill disciplined, lazy islander, but they couldn’t. In theory world class players like Gregan, Roth, Rathbone should be able to tackle some one who doesn’t turn up to training but they couldn’t. In theory people in this forum should know what they are talking about.
Jerry said | January 12th 2010 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
Yeah, but the reality is that if you don’t turn up to training you don’t play and I’m sure Caucau was fairly easily contained in all those matches Fiji played while he was sitting on his arse in France/Fiji instead of on the pitch.
Jerry said | January 12th 2010 @ 5:38pm | Report comment
And by the way – when did Gregan and Rathbone play Caucau at international level?
Lionel said | January 12th 2010 @ 5:56pm | Report comment
You can bring disciplinary records into it, but the reality is you would never line up Williams against Caucau if you had the choice. Even if he was sent off after 10 minutes, he would have put two tries past Williams by that stage and shattered his confidence so much that you wouldn’t hear his name for the rest of the game – we all know Williams is a confidence player only. He won’t provide any spark to a losing side – both Habana and Caucau can do this against the run of play from anywhere on the field.
Jerry said | January 12th 2010 @ 6:08pm | Report comment
Well, it’s all a personal choice, but when discussing these types of teams I tend to look for consistent performance over a few years. I’d tend to go for a guy who performs at a high standard for a number of seasons over a guy who has one good one and 2 or 3 ordinary ones.
Caucau, due to his reticence to commit to Fiji, poor on field discipline and refusal to turn up to training, has only played a grand total of 7 test matches in his entire career. And that’s simply not enough for a team of the decade in my view.
T Bone Al said | January 12th 2010 @ 9:28pm | Report comment
I agree Lionel. Caucau’s ability to turn a match gets him in the side. Other players will be selected for different reasons but Caucau gets the nod for game breaking ability. Hey if he doesn’t turn up move Robinson or whoever off the bench to start. Mark Ella consistently makes the best ever team lists having played a limited number of tests. When someone is clearly more talented than his peers you pick him. Moreover if you have the best coach in the world then they should be able to manage someone as volatile as Caucau. He was the best player in the super 12 in 2003 (won a title), the best player in French rugby in 05/06 and the most dynamic player at the RWC in 2003. If you have any doubts YouTube “Rupeni Caucau”, sit back and enjoy!
T Bone Al said | January 12th 2010 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
They didn’t, they played against him at Super rugby level, I can recall one game where he scored two tries against the Brumbies. In that game Gregan, Roff and co missed him clean. The point is he made world class defenders look second rate at both international and provincial level. He played over 100 games of top tier rugby in the decade so he qualifies for the team.
Jerry said | January 12th 2010 @ 6:20pm | Report comment
Fair enough, but I say an International Team of the Decade should be based on international performances. Caucau was spectacular at times in S12 and Top14, but he’s an asterisk at test level.
Lionel said | January 12th 2010 @ 8:49am | Report comment
I agree with T Bone Al. Hard to argue against Caucau and Habana being the wingers of the decade whether looking at individual skills or team contributions – both have also proven their unique skills at world cup level against strong competition – who can forget Caucau’s tries against France? Whilst Williams is an excellent and skillful player, he has been shown up time and time again when up against strong opposite wingers. Spiro should admit he overlooked Caucau here and amend the team to retain credibility.
Dean Pantio said | January 12th 2010 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
Carl Hayman and John Smit pick themselves. Gethin Jenkins must have been included as part of some UN type committee approach. Os du Randt just wins over Woodcock. So the front row is du Randt, Smit and Hayman.
I can’t argue against Rugby World magazine’s second row of Martin Johnson and Victor Matfield.
As per Spiro: “The backrow of Sergio Parisse, Richie McCaw and Richard Hill remains.” There have been some contenders at blindside, but Hill’s continual high performance in this position ranks above the others.
Fourie du Preez as scrum half. A better, more accurate and complete scrum half has not been seen for many years.
Surely no player can be seriously considered against Carter. Since his demolition of the B&I Lions in 2005, his speed, strength and side-step, combined with his ability to find time and space for himself or his team mates, let alone his goal kicking, makes him first five-eighth.
Jean de Villiers or Damien Traille at second five-eighth. Either or. I won’t argue.
BoD doesn’t make the team. No player dominated Mortlock. His consistent excellence summed up by his power, impact and attitude makes him centre.
“Rugby World’s magazine back three consists of Mils Muliaina, Jason Robinson and Shane Williams.” The dwarf Shane Williams is removed. Bryan Habana is an automatic pick, along with Doug Howard. Mils Muliaina remains, beating Chris Latham who although went through a marvellous purple patch also had his game suffer from too many clangers. A fit Christian Cullen would be first pick, but knee injury and two clowns in charge of the All Blacks effectively ended his career.
So my World Rugby XV is: Os du Randt, John Smit, Carl Hayman. Martin Johnson, Victor Matfield, Richie McCaw, Richard Hill, Sergio Parisse, Fourie du Preez, Daniel Carter, Bryan Habana, Jean de Villiers or Damien Traille, Stirling Mortlock, Doug Howlett, Mils Muliaina.
It’s a team that would destroy their opposition.
Captain is John Smit.
Coach is Graham Henry.
Dean Pantio said | January 12th 2010 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
HowardHowlett. Stupid auto-correct, only caught the first one.Mungehead said | January 13th 2010 @ 10:49am | Report comment
I absolutely concur. IMO that IS the team of the decade.
Colin N said | January 13th 2010 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Damien Traille? He’s a fine player, but Yannick Jauzion has been the main inside-centre for France over the past decade.
Dean Pantio said | January 13th 2010 @ 6:56pm | Report comment
As good as Jauzion is, I’m sure he’s been capped less than Traille and plays better (imo) at centre, not second five-eighth. In fact, one of the better centre pairings for France I’ve watched was Traille wearing 12 and Jauzion 13 at Christchurch in 2003.
Sam Taulelei said | January 13th 2010 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
It looks like we are very similar in our selections of a team of the decade. This is my post from last year
http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/12/17/international-rugby-team-of-the-decade/
Dean Pantio said | January 13th 2010 @ 6:58pm | Report comment
Nice, only six differences in areas where a case can be made for most of them.
His Bobness said | January 12th 2010 @ 6:12pm | Report comment
I would have a centres combination of Umaga and Mortlock rather than O’Driscoll and Mortlock. Umaga was a terrific defender, a great leader and a talismanic player – particularly in the 2005 Lions tour. Hard to leave him out of a best-of-the-decade team. De Villiers would also be pushing for contention at inside centre.
Mils Muiliana has been the most consistent, classiest fullback of the decade. Latham had his moments, but not enough of them in my opinion. And the wings should be Habana and Howlett – Williams is over-rated.
I agree with the proposition that there were few standout number 8s this past decade. If I had to pick one it would be Toutai Kefu, but I fear he retired too early in the decade to qualify. The second row is easy – Matfield and Johnson, while my front row would be Hayman, Smit and Woodcock.
I never saw enough of Richard Hill to make a judgement, but I thought Jerry Collins was a frightenly good 6 for a little while there, admittedly not long enough probably to put him in a best of the decade team. No arguments over Du Preez at 9 and Carter at 10. Coach should be Henry, surely. He was the most successful coach of the decade. Woodward was a twit.
1. Woodcock
2. Smit
3. Hayman
4. Matfield
5. Johnson
6. Hill
7. McCaw
8. Kefu
9. Du Preez
10. Carter
11. Habana
12. Umaga
13. Mortlock
14. Howlett
15. Muliaiana
Reserves: Thompson, Leonard, Jack, Collins, Marshall, Wilkinson, Latham