10 best All Blacks ever

[Perm]

Exactly what I was going to say. Know Jack about rugby but I'd have assumed he was up there.

He was loved in England far more than he was in New Zealand, he could do some amazing things with the ball in hand but there are quite a few players rated above him.

 

[Francis]

Here my next question:

If Colin Meads is the censensus pick for the best All Black ever... who's the second best All Black ever?

Surely that's easier than a top ten.

 

[Francis]

While I don't think he'd be my pick based on what I've heard... I think there's a few people who've given testimony who'd have George Nepia as the number two All Black. One testimony from the 1920s had him as the best rugby player ever. He was also one of only three All Blacks to make the 100 most loved New Zealanders of all time list I once read.

 

[Perm]

George Nepia, Waka Nathan, Sir Brian Lochore, Sir Wilson Whineray are all guys from the older generation. Then you have guys like John Kirwan, Sean Fitzpatrick and Justin Marshall who have been some of the greatest players over the last 20 years.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Marshall??

Why do you rate Marshall so highly?

 

[Perm]

I was raised in the same town as him. I think he's been the best halfback that the All Blacks have ever had just like Fitzpatrick has been the best hooker they've ever had. Back around 97/98 when Gregan, Marshall and Joost van der Weisthazen (I can't spell) where playing was the pinnacle of halfbacks in the world ever. I just really loved Marshall's play and his attitude.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I was raised in the same town as him. I think he's been the best halfback that the All Blacks have ever had just like Fitzpatrick has been the best hooker they've ever had. Back around 97/98 when Gregan, Marshall and Joost van der Weisthazen (I can't spell) where playing was the pinnacle of halfbacks in the world ever. I just really loved Marshall's play and his attitude.

I think most people would consider either Laidlaw, Going or Loveridge our best half back. Personally I liked Bachop more than Marshall, but early on ('95-'97) he was a fine player. He was a good servant for New Zealand rugby.

 

[Perm]

Personal preference I suppose, but if I had to choose it would be between Going and Marshall. It depends who you ask and what era they grew up in I suppose but I can understand why people don't rate Marshall, what with his super competitive attitude that sometimes borders on arrogance.

 

[Francis]

Next question... in looking at the All Black legacy of greats, where does the New Zealand rugby legecy rank among other countries? I'll say the top five best rugby countries are:

1. South Africa
Took ages for New Zealand to beat them on SA soil... granted SA only beat NZ in NZ soil in the 30s... but they were robbed in 1981 when Hewson was given that penalty. Plus, they have four Grand Slam titles... FOUR! NZ has two and Australia one... no question which Southern Hemisphere country has it best over the Northern Hemisphere countries. They may have been an easy pick if they weren't isolated.

2. New Zealand
Meh, not a lot I need to say here. Ohtani's Jacket can tell you all about their most famous teams that rules the world except South Africa. Smart fella that boy.

3. Wales
Quite scary the talent they had in the 70s with Edwards, John, Bennett, Williams, Davies, Price etc. It's a shame Gareth Edwards only played NZ twice... both were close games and I think if they played more Wales could have had that great win. But yeah, the champions of Europe for so very long.

4. France
Probably the high-point of five nations came when Wales and France were the two top teams in the late 70s. To be honest, I don't know a lot about French rugby at all... but I know on their day they could beat just about any team on earth. Serge Blanco might be my favourite rugby player ever as well.

5. Australia
They haven't been a super power for long. But from the moment they won the Grand Slam I don't think they've ever dropped off from being one of the world five best teams. From 1991-1994 and 1999-2001 they were the best team in the world. Even these days, they suck, but ask the Irish how big a win against them this year was and they'll say beating SA and Oz in a row is a team highlight. That's the best complement you can give Australia, they can be occasionally mentioned in the same sentence as SA or sometimes NZ these days. What puts them in this top five is that they actually had a fine team in the 60s I read, with guys like Catchpole and Rob Hemming etc.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Hmm. Don't wanna overdo the whinging pom bit, but given that we invented the sport, are current World Champions & hold winning all-time records against two of the teams in your top five (52-50 v Wales & 46-33 v France) I'd say England have been rather harshly done by. We've also recorded away victories over South Africa & NZ in this millenium, which yer Taffs have never done.

 

[Francis]

but given that we invented the sport

To be fair, that doesn't mean one is better at it.

are current World Champions

Yep But again, to be fair, had there been a world cup in the 70s, I think Wales could've won it. I mean England were great from 2002-2003... bu Wales were the best of the home unions for all of the 70s.

& hold winning all-time records against two of the teams in your top five (52-50 v Wales & 46-33 v France)

Firstly, that record against Wales should suggest they're close. Secondly, it takes time for sports to develope and really that record could be skewered by the fact that the game was invented in England. Also, Wales has the dignity of being known as a team that had an entire decade a super power. When England were beating Wales, were they beating the rets of the world. Because when Wales dominated for so long, they were champions of Europe and they surveyed.

The record against France is more convincing of course. I think England could have been picked over France or Australia. And I'm no rugby expert. You say England has a world cup... Australia has two. Australia, while they weren't overly dominant, were the team of the 90s as they were the best from 1991-1994 and 1999... they sort of established themselves as superpowers these last two decades in a way which few other countries have. Had England kept their form from 2003 onwards, then they'd be up there.

But like I said, I'm no rugby expert... do you have a top five boybrumby?

 

[BoyBrumby]

But like I said, I'm no rugby expert... do you have a top five boybrumby?

Not a million miles from yours. I'd probably have NZ above yer saffies tho. Up here at least the perception is the the ABs have always been the benchmark, probably because The Lions have generally done better against The Boks. I'd have us in there too, probably at the expense of Les Bleus.

There is some merit in what you say about our record being distorted against The Taffs because we invented (or at least codified) the sport. We won 10 of our first 13 games against them, with another draw. &, weirdly, we've won 16 of our last 19 against them too. I guess it shows that between 1896 & 1989 the Welsh were pretty good!

 

[Francis]

I'd probably have NZ above yer saffies tho. Up here at least the perception is the the ABs have always been the benchmark, probably because The Lions have generally done better against The Boks.

I know the consensus belief is that NZ have the best legacy, but I think that might be helped by SA's isolation. You mentioned the Lions have genrally done better than the Boks. Like I said, I'm no expert, but all I've heard of with the Lions is a thrilling drawn series in the 50s, and of course going undefeated in 1974. Both among the best Lions sides. When you think about it, NZ didn't fair much better in 1971. I mean in 1974 SA lost to the Lions 3-1-0 while NZ lost 2-1-1... one game difference. And lets not forget SA had four Grand Slams over NZ's two... add to the fact that it took NZ so long to beat SA on their soil. If I recall NZ didn't even have a drawn series on SA soil, and only won there until 1996. SA sweeped them in 1949 and NZ never sweeped them on NZ soil. Whereas SA beat NZ in the 30s, and came damn close in 1981... in fact, apparently there was an Allan Hewson penalty given that gave NZ the 1981 series that shouldn't have been given. Ironically, for all their Grand Slams and success against NZ, ironically it was Australia who, statistically, had the best success against SA... they were the first in the 20th century to beat them in two consecutive games at home in 1963. They had a historic win in the 50s and won a home series against them in 1965... shocking really.

But I don't wanna paint the wrong picture. It's damn close between SA and NZ and I don't blink when people say NZ. They're the easy top two.

There is some merit in what you say about our record being distorted against The Taffs because we invented (or at least codified) the sport. We won 10 of our first 13 games against them, with another draw. &, weirdly, we've won 16 of our last 19 against them too. I guess it shows that between 1896 & 1989 the Welsh were pretty good!

Yeah after what you said there, and how Wales dominated from 1986-1989... I think Wales are a pretty safe pick for #3. I have no problems saying Wales at #3.

I'd have us in there too, probably at the expense of Les Bleus.

The bottom two of my top five is the hard part. If there was one country I'd knock off my top five it would probably be Australia because aside from a purple patch in the 60s, before 1984 they were among one of the worst teams in world rugby. Not even close. They legitimately, when they lost to Tonga in 1974, the Bangladesh of world rugby.

Knocking off Les Blues? Maybe. It's the same argument as Wales vs. England. Wales were better once their game got going... and France from the late 70s and early 80s were amongst the best in the world. I'll willingly admit I don't know a lot about French rugby, but I know enough to know they have a tremendous legacy of greats. I think their legacy of greats might be greater than England's or Australia's.

The bottom two of my top five I'm iffy about so I'm not one to say for sure... Australia piped England for me because:

*They have two world cups to England's one
*A Grand Slam
*Can say there were best in the world for a good period of time from 1991-1994 and 1999, where as England might only have 2002-2003.
*Had a decent history of results against SA back when nobody could beat SA. These days they can't beat SA in SA to save their lives.

But they're not even close to being a certain pick for my top five.

 

[Smudge]

If I recall NZ didn't even have a drawn series on SA soil, and only won there until 1996.

The 1928 series was drawn.

This being the series where, for the first time, we weren't allowed to take any players of Maori origin. Hence, two of our best players - the great George Nepia and halfback Jimmy Mill - were left behind. There were other internal conflicts on that tour which didn't help our cause, but that was our own fault.

SA sweeped them in 1949 and NZ never sweeped them on NZ soil.

A series win is a series win. As for 1949, again we weren't able to bring some genuinely great players (such as centre Johnny Smith), but in all honesty, from what I've heard and read, that 1949 South African team was something special with the prop Okey Geffin kicking goals from all over the place.

Whereas SA beat NZ in the 30s, and came damn close in 1981... in fact, apparently there was an Allan Hewson penalty given that gave NZ the 1981 series that shouldn't have been given.

A South African (I'm assuming) complaining about refereeing decisions? Oh dear. While home referees were still in operation until the mid-1970s, and I'm sure our referees such as Frank Kilby etc weren't lilywhite, South African referees were in a league of their own. Perhaps it's not totally their fault, as due to much of the isolation, the rules in South African morphed somewhat to the point where lifting was commonplace in lineouts - something frowned upon in the rest of the rugby world.

But I don't wanna paint the wrong picture. It's damn close between SA and NZ and I don't blink when people say NZ. They're the easy top two.

Happy to agree with that - our overall winning percentage in test rugby is better, but that doesn't necessarily mean much.

 

[Francis]

The 1928 series was drawn.

This being the series where, for the first time, we weren't allowed to take any players of Maori origin. Hence, two of our best players - the great George Nepia and halfback Jimmy Mill - were left behind. There were other internal conflicts on that tour which didn't help our cause, but that was our own fault.

Didn't know that.

A series win is a series win. As for 1949, again we weren't able to bring some genuinely great players (such as centre Johnny Smith), but in all honesty, from what I've heard and read, that 1949 South African team was something special with the prop Okey Geffin kicking goals from all over the place.

Yeah I heard about that. Sounds like a terrible year for NZ rugby because there was a Bledisloe sweep as well. But as you say, that SA team were something special.

A South African (I'm assuming) complaining about refereeing decisions? Oh dear. While home referees were still in operation until the mid-1970s, and I'm sure our referees such as Frank Kilby etc weren't lilywhite, South African referees were in a league of their own. Perhaps it's not totally their fault, as due to much of the isolation, the rules in South African morphed somewhat to the point where lifting was commonplace in lineouts - something frowned upon in the rest of the rugby world.

Yeah I've heard stories about the SA refs. Maybe NZ would have won on SA soil if not for them... SA may have won on NZ soil if not for them as well.

Happy to agree with that - our overall winning percentage in test rugby is better, but that doesn't necessarily mean much.

Winning records are sort of distorted because more rugby is played today. It's easier with home unions because four/five nations were played every year, so every year you got an idea of who was better. If SA played more rugby I cannot fathom how incredible their records might be. But the same can be said of NZ... so they're close.

You got a top five Kiwi?

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I know the consensus belief is that NZ have the best legacy, but I think that might be helped by SA's isolation.

Well, we all know that South Africa were unbeatable on home soil in the 80s, but since the game turned professional, and since South Africa's return from isolation really, NZ have had a much better Test record. Historically, we've won 54% of Tests against South Africa, but in the professional era it's risen to 71%. South Africa remains a difficult place to win Test matches, but the Boks' air of invincibility has taken a hit by not producing strong touring sides in the last 15 years.

You mentioned the Lions have genrally done better than the Boks. Like I said, I'm no expert, but all I've heard of with the Lions is a thrilling drawn series in the 50s, and of course going undefeated in 1974. Both among the best Lions sides.

The Lions won the early tours to South Africa in 1891 and 1896, as well as the drawn series in 1955 and series victories in 1974 and 1997. 1971 remains the Lions' lone success in NZ, but traditionally NZ have taken Lions tours extremely seriously. The All Blacks' reputation was built on European tours by the Originals and the Invincibles and this extended to Lions series and subsequent Northern Hemisphere tours as Tests began to be played more frequently in the 50s and 60s.

And lets not forget SA had four Grand Slams over NZ's two...

NZ haven't had too many opportunities to compete for a Grand Slam. I can only think of two tours ('63-63 & '72-73) where we missed out because of scoreless draws. Many of the great NZ touring sides never got a chance. South Africa haven't done it since '60-61... These types of tours aren't contested on a regular basis. Overall, our touring record of the Northern Hemisphere is stronger than SA's.

Whereas SA beat NZ in the 30s, and came damn close in 1981... in fact, apparently there was an Allan Hewson penalty given that gave NZ the 1981 series that shouldn't have been given.

Actually the Test would've been drawn and with it the series.

Yeah after what you said there, and how Wales dominated from 1986-1989... I think Wales are a pretty safe pick for #3. I have no problems saying Wales at #3.

Wales and England are neck-to-neck -- England have won 35 titles to Wales 33 (25-23 outright), and Wales didn't just dominate the 70s, either, they had strong eras at the beginning of the 20th century & again after the Second World War. Again this is a case of England being more dominant in recent times, both in the 90s and in the current decade. England have probably had longer droughts in the Championship, but historically they've been more successful against the Southern Hemisphere.

Certainly, teams from the South Hemisphere feel a stronger desire to beat England than Wales.

Knocking off Les Blues? Maybe. It's the same argument as Wales vs. England. Wales were better once their game got going... and France from the late 70s and early 80s were amongst the best in the world. I'll willingly admit I don't know a lot about French rugby, but I know enough to know they have a tremendous legacy of greats. I think their legacy of greats might be greater than England's or Australia's.

France took 44 years and 37 tournaments before they finally shared a Five Nations championship in 1954 & they didn't win it outright until 1959, which was the makings of the first great French side -- who, in 1958, were the first team to win a Test series in South Africa since the Lions in 1896... The reason it took them so long to win a stake of the title was the fact that they were expelled from the Five Nations from 1931 to 1947 for allegedly infringing the amateur code. Since then they've had success in every decade.

The bottom two of my top five I'm iffy about so I'm not one to say for sure... Australia piped England for me because:

*They have two world cups to England's one
*A Grand Slam
*Can say there were best in the world for a good period of time from 1991-1994 and 1999, where as England might only have 2002-2003.
*Had a decent history of results against SA back when nobody could beat SA. These days they can't beat SA in SA to save their lives.

But they're not even close to being a certain pick for my top five.

* The World Cup is only a recent phenomenon, and to be fair, their head-to-head record is 2-2 in World Cup play and 1-1 in World Cup Finals.

* England don't compete for the equivalent of a Grand Slam. It wouldn't be fair to judge Triple Crowns against Australia's 1984 Grand Slam. Besides, England accomplished something like a Grand Slam in 2002 when they beat all three South Hemisphere sides in successive weekends at Twickenham.

* These days teams have a small cycle of being the best in the world (2-3 years). Australia's early 90s period was really no greater than England's. Heading into the '99 World Cup, Australia were not considered the best side in the World. In 2000 and 2001 they may have been. At home, anyway.

* England didn't tour South Africa until 1972 and that was a one off Test that England actually won.

I'd probably go:

New Zealand
South Africa
England
Wales
France