Dream team of the year

That's very funny. 

. 

Dud Allende gets in but Etzebeth doesn’t….you can’t be serious. Give us the  link Dave

Etzebeth & Savea ................... ??

15. Freddie Steward (England), 14. Will Jordan (New Zealand), 13. Lukhanyo Am (South Africa), 12. Damian de Allende (South Africa), 11. Marika Koroibete (Australia), 10. Johnny Sexton (Ireland), 9. Antoine Dupont (France), 1. Ellis Genge (England) 2. Malcolm Marx (South Africa) 3. Tadhg Furlong (Ireland) 4. Tadhg Beirne (Ireland) 5. Sam Whitelock (New Zealand) 6. Pablo Matera (Argentina) 7. Josh van der Flier (Ireland) 8. Gregory Alldritt (France).

…..

With van der Flier as player of the year. 

As with most of these exercises there is a huge political component that result in funny contradictions eg 2 Bok backs are picked and one forward. Are our backs relatively better than our forwards.

And because of Ireland’s win over NZ they had to have Player of the Year. Also the Bargies had to have one rep …so Matera. But would anybody pick Matera, van der Flier and Aldritt as their three loosies?

Then there are positions where there isn’t outstanding talent at the moment…eg 12, so they pick the best known brand names. So they pick Dud.

There is no value in this process….a political exercise.

Van Der Vlier is the world player the year, so that spot goes to him automatically. Savea has been a machine, so don't understand why he wasn't selected. 

Although, France is number 2, so only would make sense to have some French players. 

I still don't rate Dud, yes, he is good at fracturing it up and play the battering ram, but he can't pass beyond 1 meter. Also that he continues to kick the ball away on so many occasions. 

Bullshit they pick the sides based on form, it has fuck all to do with politics or brand names

The lists are by all means political. They are written in order to avoid hurting unions'feelings. They usually reflect the unions'importance, their order in the hierarchy of the rugby world.

It is a different kind of politics than SA rugby supporters as SA rugby politics are mainly based on race (white players uber alles, quota players are named because of a non existing quota policy)

Nevertheless, the lists are based on politics and inclusion of players are determined by the union's weight.

The french player who plays for IT as a back should have made the list over the EN if based on form and contribution to results of the team.

He did not as IT has no weight as a union to the opposite of the EN union. List makers can not afford neglecting certain unions.

It's essentially a pageant to appease the casuals. A popularity contest. Nothing more. Statistically, our top 5 players for production didn't make this team. 

You are right about modern rugby. It is so much harder to break tackles or get over the advantage line that the ball either has to be kicked over head or hope for a counter attack. Only big centres can give you that go forward. They don't stand up like they use. 

Wonder how Mike Tindell, Aaron Mauger, Matt Gitaue and the likes would do today? 

That is probably why Eng can never settle on a 12, but they have Owen Farrell who has been their only consistent selection in the midfield, but he is not that direct as Damian. 

The last time SA used a playmaker at 12 was probably Hennie Le Roux. Jean was up there, but shifted to becoming a battering ram towards the end. 

Frans Steyn could cut inside and get over the advantage line way back when. 

According to normal practice World Rugby appointed 8 experts to choose he Player of the Year and Team of the Year.    So I am delighted to see that selection is a political proce3ss where rugby perfo rmances are not an issue -  that kind of idiocy is extremely funny so thank you for the laughter,      

According to normal practice World Rugby appointed 8 experts to choose he Player of the Year and Team of the Year.    So I am delighted to see that selection is a political proce3ss where rugby perfo rmances are not an issue -  that kind of idiocy is extremely funny so thank you for the laughter,      

You learn to accept this reality

no rugby panel would entertain a poor player receiving a prestigious award or selection.

What a comment. All these lists are figments of imagination. They are an exercice of fantasy. They are even worse than the usual crap from supporters who enjoy rotating names in a list without ever bothering to associate a stub of a game plan.

Those lists represent no team of players who  would ever play together. They do not exist. And they have no chance to ever exist. At least, in the NBA, there are all star games which gives hints on how dream teams could play.

So from this, people who accept see no value in the said lists, the awards associated etc

It is for the show, a way to increase business, a trade policy byproduct. 

Other than that, there is no reality to be associated.

The nature of modern rugby

SA rugby are outside modern rugby. In fact, their evolution has been marked by following an opposite trend than the one that led to modern rugby. While other unions have been looking at expanding the skillsets of theirs players, the tasks each of them is in charge, SA rugby had to reduce everything in order to keep the face. A SA rugby player looks competitive relatively to other union players only because he is restricted to fewer tasks. He is required to do much less than his counterpart.

Any contribution from a SA rugby player is placed out of context when related to other union teams. SA rugby is out of modern rugby considerations. Theirs players can not fit in any other team.

No union would do with the SA pair of centres if they had the option to. They simply do not fit in, they could not blend.

According to normal practice World Rugby appointed 8 experts to choose he Player of the Year and Team of the Year.    So I am delighted to see that selection is a political proce3ss where rugby performances are not an issue -  that kind of idiocy is extremely funny so thank you for the laughter,    

Simple mindedness is not idiocy. That is a confusion often made by superior minded people who enjoy circonvulions.

Experts' knowledge is only worth the test of knowledge. That is what makes the difference between an expert and a non expert.

Anyone can list names of players. Listing names makes no one an expert in rugby (or anything else by the way)

These teams have no vocation to ever play. There is no test to knowledge. A list by a socalled expert has no more value than a team from a non expert. There is no way to part one way from another, not even from authority as both sides would gain authority by naming lists of names that would never play as a team.

On the other hand, one thing that is tested: the reception of the list by the fans, supporters, union members etc and how pleasurable it is for them. That is what is tested.

It seems these days that superior minded people are no longer aware of the circonvultions they keep operating. They have lost touch. They float in a different dimension. They could not even make liars as they have lost consciousness of them lying.

They are convinced that the power of a word is to be found in the group that supports it. A word is as strong as the group that spreads it.

Nope it’s about vision….seeing where the play is going….running a line at pace.

Here’s Ioane’s stats on Saturday….and Dud’s:

Hello….is it me you’re looking for?

Why did Ioane put NZ on top in the first half…..because he could see the play, hit his lines at speed, ran at the gaps rather than the man.

Sure the channels are tighter, but game after game we see 12 cutting the line and getting try assists. Last time Dud got a try assist is hard to remember.

I disagree that the lines are tighter in modern rugby. In fact, it's much more open. The problem is that with defences pushed back post-ELVs, they have more time to see play unfold. That's why the modern game began to use more layers, screens, pods. Movement behind the anterior layer. In pre-ELV rugby, the defence arrived upon the attackers earlier, which meant clever running lines were more devastating in a more linear attack. The Boks, under Erasmus have never found the right balance, and our players don't seem to be able to see the opportunities. A good inside centre is still highly effective, as we have seen. This is an important link between the first receiver units and the outer units. Sometimes we see 12 or 15 as a lone man between two four man pods. However, more often as a link between 10 and his pod screen. His decision to run, or pass, it sets the tone for the rest of the phase play. Look how wonderfully Kerevi gets the entire Wallaby team going forward with front foot ball and how he can distribute to keep the attack alive. You don't see the Boks play like that. Even our offloads, they are not very effective. How often have we seen our players break the line, and offload in contact, and we see the support runner burst through the line? It seems to go sideways. Stop, reset, pass, run, stop, reset... rinse and repeat. Damian is not dynamic enough to lift the team. He doesn't have the decision making ability to be a playmaker, a facilitator, a generator of momentum and opportunity. 

Is it really a Competent Rugby Panel that gets to pick these Dream teams?

Owen Farrell may play 12 but he’s not a Centre. 

Saffex, there's a reason why the Aussies were being penalised for obstruction in the pre-ELV era when using box formations and multi-layered attacks, there wasn't enough time and space for them to develop. You are well behind the times. That was the entire point of the ELVs, to give the attackers more space and time. This was such the case that teams stopped using complex plays off the back of scrums when 8 could simply run into space. I have to ask, do some of you even watch rugby, o r just live off of articles and YouTube videos? 

So Mozart and l'Grande Merde know more about rugby than experts with many years of international rugby do and they have a greater insight in Rugby than anybody else in the world.   Blaas my Siel.   Their impertinence is beyond imagination.     

Imagine entering into a discussion with no more than, "Because they (unspecified individuals) say so!", punctuated by indignant foot stamping . It isn't quite beyond imagination, but it is rather funny! 

Do you have a fetish for humiliation? I hope you're not getting off from these exchanges! Right now you are taking an 80s icon and conflating that into a single era with the professional era in comparison to the ELV era. Have you been drinking? Rugby only became professional shortly after the 1995 RWC. The game changed a lot between 1996 and 1999. Australia were at the forefront of advancements on defensive systems and attacking systems to counter them. It reached its speed from 00 to 07. We had tremendous difficulty adapting to those defensive systems, so we kicked the ball away. Nobody played like we do now back in 2007 and further back, it'd have been suicide. You're clearly lacking fundamentals here, so I don't really know how I can expect anything more wholesome from you. Just now shouting and crying. So be it. 

Kerevi finds space, beats defenders and creates tries. We can’t necessarily expect to find Kerevi, but we can expect our 12 not to die with the ball every time he gets it.

That offload the Somerset West kid playing lock for England produced against the ABs was better than anything we have seen from Dud in 12 years. There’s a scary fact!

Mozart sees things in matches that do not exist and also see nothing that really exist.  That makes him a true expert n rugby strategy and implementation.    That is why he thinks he is a better evaluator of player performances than rugby experts - in other words he actually is a prejudiced farce when it comes to player evaluation and a BSter supremo.             

So Mozart and l'Grande Merde know more about rugby than experts with many years of international rugby do and they have a greater insight in Rugby than anybody else in the world. 

It is not about knowing more. It is about knowing. Enough to measure the vanity of the exercize.

And this does not take much.

The world rugby award ceremony is a promotional event: the crop of the world rugby community gathers to celebrate and honour themselves. It sheds light on the current state in power station for each. It does not go further.

The list is distinguished from other lists by the decorum of the ceremony. That is what makes it distinct from any other list that sets the same goal.

People believe what they want to believe. They grant value as they desire.

The list remains the byproduct of a promotional event and as such, has no other value.