If Robbie goes who should replace him as Wallabies coach?

[The_Brown_Hornet]

That's right Scotty. The great teams of Jones, A; Dwyer and MacQueen more than matched it in the tough stuff, but also ran the ball. I don't understand why people think you can't have both. Surely we should be aspiring to the lofty heights of what those teams achieved? Being number two or three in the world would suggest that improvement in the right areas would make those aims possible.

The current All Black team are as tough as teak in the pigs and display some serious adventure in the backs. The great French teams of the past (and maybe even the present, based on what we've seen recently) also showed that you can bash the opposition in the forwards and score great tries as well.

That's the great thing about our game, it combines brute force and artistry in a way that few other sports do.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Yeah but the current All Blacks are apparently the greatest team ever so why bother even trying to match them.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yeah, why indeed. That 1987-1990 team were unbeatable too, until we did and then won the RWC.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I cannot stand to hear that. I don't know who would consider them to be at their strongest in the positions of THP, Hooker, Lock, 6, or wing. I doubt head to head you could consider them superior to the All Blacks of 2009, 2007 or 2003, 1999, 1995, 1991 or 1987. I believe it's more a case of the standard around them dropping.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I've maintained for a long time that the 1987-90 team is the best I've seen in test match footy. The RWC2011 bunch were mighty good though.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I cannot stand to hear that. I don't know who would consider them to be at their strongest in the positions of THP, Hooker, Lock, 6, or wing. I doubt head to head you could consider them superior to the All Blacks of 2009, 2007 or 2003, 1999, 1995, 1991 or 1987. I believe it's more a case of the standard around them dropping.

Geez you're a hard marker - even by my standards

 

[Train Without a Station]

So current Mealamu or Hore, Franks, Romano & Whitelock, Messam and Savea are better than the previous editions the wear the jersey? Possibly in 7, 8 and 15 you'd consider them are their strongest ever.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Only one I dont rate yet is romano - the others may be a touch under their forebears but as a team I think they have been stronger: but no more - they're on the wane

 

[Braveheart81]

Savea has scored 12 tries from 9 tests. It's pretty hard to argue he hasn't had a stellar start to his test career.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Yes. But I'm saying would you compare him to the greatest All Black wingers yet? Obviously he's been on the end of a pretty decent backline which has helped him.

 

[Braveheart81]

Yes. But I'm saying would you compare him to the greatest All Black wingers yet? Obviously he's been on the end of a pretty decent backline which has helped him.

No, I wouldn't. The start to his test career probably has him well ahead of just about every one of the greatest All Blacks wingers though. If he's close to the worst player in the team it is probably the reason why they're so good.

What makes the current All Blacks side so strong is that they do have several 'best ever' sort of players (McCaw, Read, Carter), amongst the best ever players (Mealamu, Thorn (up until end of 2011)), World XV players such as Conrad Smith, Israel Dagg, Corey Jane etc.

They really don't have any weak players. Pretty much all their players would either be in the Wallabies XV or 22 and for much of the last few years we've been the second best side in the world.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Pretty much all their players would either be in the Wallabies XV or 22

Yeah but what I'm saying is that more of a sign of our weakness, rather than their strength. Plenty of All Black players over the past 20 years you'd say that about. You'd say more would make the current Australian 22 than you would have previously though I think.

 

[wamberal]

Their under 20s have been going pretty well for a while, too. Scary.

However, they look a bit weak in the centres now, getting older.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't think it's a case that everyone else is weak right now. If Australia is far worse than we have been historically and we've still been there or thereabouts as the second best team in the world in recent years then effectively you're saying that every team in world rugby is crap and New Zealand just wins by default.

I think it's far more likely that New Zealand do have a great team right now.

To take a random 'great' All Blacks team, let's look at the team that beat Australia 30-9 at Concord Oval in 1988. This was during their previous undefeated reign (that they matched before losing to England).

15 - John Gallagher
14 - John Kirwan
13 - Joe Stanley
12 - John Schuster
11 - Terry Wright
10 - Grant Fox
9 - Bruce Deans
8 - Buck Shelford (c)
7 - Michael Jones
6 - Alan Whetton
5 - Gary Whetton
4 - Murray Pierce
3 - Richard Loe
2 - Sean Fitzpatrick
1 - Steve McDowell

If you look forward a year you could add players like Graham Bachop, Zinzan Brooke, Ian Jones, and Walter Little to the list.

How many of these players would you slot into the current All Blacks side? Michael Jones, Buck Shelford and Grant Fox are the standouts from this team and you'd have to argue pretty hard for any of them to be ahead of McCaw, Read and Carter.

Fitzpatrick is an AB great but so is Mealamu. At their best, it's pretty hard to split them.

I think there is very much a theme of rose coloured glasses whereby everyone thinks that the All Blacks and Wallabies were much better in the past and the current lot are average and are only on top because Australia is so bad.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Jesus, look at that pack. That, folks, is why I look up on that team is about the best test match team I've seen. They weren't shabby in the backs either, with Gallagher, Kirwan and Stanley. A good number of those blokes wouldn't individually be the "best ever" in their positions, but as a team they are right at the top of the league table for mine.

 

[Braveheart81]

Are they that much better than a pack containing:

Woodcock
Mealamu
Franks
Retallick/Romano/Whitelock
Thorn
Kaino/Messam
McCaw
Read

???

The current backline surely smokes that backline.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yes, I believe the 1988 pack to be superior to the current one. The backs are better in the current team overall IMHO.

 

[Hawko]

Yes, I believe the 1988 pack to be superior to the current one. The backs are better in the current team overall IMHO.

Taking it position by position you would, I think, have McCaw, Read, Kaino, Thorne and Franks in front of their counterparts. The weaknesses (comparative weaknesses, not real ones) in the current pack are the locks without Thorne and hooker.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I think it's a very close run thing. Michael Jones was an unbelievably good player and only McCaw has elevated himself to that lofty height of the opensides who have followed. Depending on how I feel on the day, either one of the two is the best I've seen at 7. Buck beats Read, but only just and Alan Whetton was a hugely unsung player in that team. I would take the 1988 front row over the current one as a combination, with Loe being the only controversial selection. In the second row I believe the 1988 team to have a clear advantage over the current team, but much less so over the RWC2011 squad.

 

[qwerty51]

Are they that much better than a pack containing:

I find it interesting people saying the current AB side is one the best ever. If you compare the packs from 2011 to now you lose Kaino and Thorn and gain Messam and Romano/Retallick. The 2011 pack is much stronger on paper.