The best players of 2016 - and they aren't all All Blacks

A World XV: The best players of 2016 - and they aren't all All Blacks

PAUL CULLY

Last updated 12:56, December 7 2016

Here is a World XV for 2016.

1. Jack McGrath (Ireland). The Irish loose-head has been building for a few years and enjoyed a breakout November as the Irish scrum took a major step forward under coach Greg Feek, the former All Black. 

2. Dane Coles (New Zealand). Coles' work around the park is a bonus, albeit a sizeable one. His base game, his set-piece work, is outstanding. His lineout throwing in particular puts him ahead of Agustin Creevy. 

3. Owen Franks (New Zealand). The most dominant scrummaging tight-head in world rugby, Juan Figallo, didn't play a test this year because of Argentina's selection policy and Franks added enough to his all-round game to head the rest of the field. 

4. Brodie Retallick (New Zealand). He's not just the world's best lock but he's been in the top three players in the world for the past three years. On his way to a special place in All Blacks history.

5. Maro Itoje (England). Attitude, aggression, size, agility and intelligence. He bossed the Wallabies in June and is a certainty to tour with the Lions in 2017.

6. Chris Robshaw (England). Exceptional work rate makes him vital to resurgent England. Lesser players would have disappeared after the World Cup shambles.

7. David Pocock (Australia). There are better all-round No 7s - Sam Cane, Sean O'Brien - but I'm not sure they've quite put together a sufficient body of work in 2016. Pocock was hindered by being continually picked out of position but he's still a rock.

8. Kieran Read (New Zealand). It's true he's not at his peak, but give me Read over Billy Vunipola over 80 minutes any day. Undeniable, though, that a queue is forming behind Read with Vunipola and Taulupe Faletau at the front. 

9. Conor Murray (Ireland). Big, physical, lump of a player in the flesh whose ability to put Ireland in the right part of the paddock is outstanding. 

10. Beauden Barrett (New Zealand). Game management has improved out of sight and his ability to manufacture points out of nothing has set the All Blacks apart.

11. Liam Williams (Wales). This year represented a lull in the age of the power winger. Had to find room for this fellow because he has it all.

12. Owen Farrell (England). Mental toughness to rival the best because physically he is unremarkable. The world's best at building scoreboard pressure. 

13. Jonathan Joseph (England). Defensive work has gone up a gear or two and he is now a real intercept master in the midfield of the type not seen since Jean de Villiers left the arena. 

14. Israel Dagg (New Zealand). Isn't really a wing but that's fine because wings aren't really wings these days anyway. Reads the game instinctively and has somehow found a yard of pace previously thought lost. 

15. Ben Smith (New Zealand). Liam Williams could have deposed him here but Smith's understanding with Beauden Barrett at No 10 was a thing of wonder.

 - Stuff.co.nz

 my picks would be:

1. Jack McGrath (Ireland).

2. Dane Coles (New Zealand).

3. Owen Franks (New Zealand).

4. Brodie Retallick (New Zealand).

5. Sam Whitelock. M. Itoje was fine the first half of the season (he wasn't call for the November tests) and he's one of the most interesting prospects in world rugby but still very far from being the best. Whitelock is the one, with Retallick, and both form the best lock pair by far.

6. Jerome Kaino. His physicality makes the difference, there's no other loosie in the world (except probably Vermeulen before his injury) who impose his strenght the way Kaino still does at 33

7. David Po[removed] (Australia).

8. Kieran Read (New Zealand).

9. Conor Murray (Ireland).

10. Beauden Barrett (New Zealand).

11. Liam Williams (Wales). 

12. Wesley Fofana. Without any doubt the best and more dangerous 12 at this moment. Is a joke to choose Farrel, who can only kick to goal, over him

13. Jonathan Joseph (England). Just a defensive center. Lucky to have played 4 times against aussies. ALB is a far more complete center but he didn't play too much.

14. Israel Dagg (New Zealand).

15. Ben Smith (New Zealand).

What! No South Africans? So Shocking after our wonderful year! Seriously though, can't argue t he list too much.

 The list could not be only ABs even if it must be.

All this stuff is fan service and ABs as the only team playing winner rugby is not appropriate to fan service.

Fans all over the world desire to keep believing there are other rugbys than NZ rugby.

Lists like this, written to please fans, must include players from other nations, just to pretend. Bones to gnaw at.

Sense of humour to have included that english homegrown non white talent to later compare it to a SA retired player.

TheTraditionalist, please explain to me how England is playing anything other than "winner rugby"? They have not lost this year, the AB's have. 

That's a lot of excellent men !  

 Yeah, they are excellent men, no doubt and they will continue to be excellent men because their rugby structures apart from their individual strengths are good and athletic...the NZ'ers are naturally endowed sportsmen...numbers really don't justify a countries strength provided what you have is good...ie cricket West Indies and Sri Lanka.

NZ'ers don't patrionise or have FALSE modesty...they simply get on with the job and play rugby...all 15 of them or 11 in cricket...they are simply good people and balanced imho...rugby or cricket or any sport is NOT rocket science.

NZ is actually a very small and simple country but with heart and character...if you don't believe me look at their soldiers in WW1 and 2...look at the first man that conquered Everest...Sir Edmund...it's a strong spirit guys run by people who don't hate each other, respect each other and yes their policies here and there are socialist and also do things wrong but no country is our modern world is anywhere near perfection.

I have farming family there that work hard and sometimes miss SA but they have become quite distant because they went a long time ago.

All Blacks are great but NZ'ers seem in my opinion to be one of the nicest people in the world...that's why we plan a visit. God look after NZ.

The great time machine, visit NZ and you go back 30 years in time......cool stuff. And even the people are nicer, as they were 30 years back.

Thetraditionalist, I am not going to let this go. Please answer my very simple question "please explain to me how England is playing anything other than "winner rugby"? They have not lost this year, and the AB's have."

 It was answered multiple timed already.

Until England show they can beat regularly NZ (and not that one game as promised by their coach), there is no confirmation they are playing something else than loser rugby.

Professionalism has born consequences by providing means to rugbys. It allowed to further approaches of the rugby game.

NZ has been using those means to keep advancing the way rugby should be played in order to achieve success. That has given winner rugby.

There was no contradiction that other nations did the same either by taking the same path as NZ or by following their own path.

In the end, they did not and are stuck in ways of playing that are known to lose ultimately.

The way the game is codified, a rugby game usually ends with a winner and a loser. Not losing is not a sign of practising winner rugby.

At the moment, England is the champion of the nations that play loser rugby. There must be one. Victories over AUS can not even be interpretated as they were caused by AUS structural issues in grooming enough players to sustain a competitive effort.

In the world, there is only one healthy rugby NZ. The others are in troubles.

 On NZ losing games: of course they are going to lose games. It is mandatory to keep up the rugby activity.
It is like a poker table: patsies are encouraged in staying at the table when they are given a few wins.

That is the situation: NZ put professionalism to good use to advance the way rugby must be played in order to win.
As other nations failed to do the same, NZ has ended the competition. There is the NZ rugby and the others.

This works against the way money is made as competition events are salesitems.

In a nutshell,  broadcasters sell a competition event that has no longer competition in it.

This is disastrous for NZ that has not the economical power to avoid losing the stage they make the money off.

Anything that exhibits too much the absence of competition works against NZ interests.

Establishing a 100 victory streak works against NZ interests. Because record breaking is an event to be sold.
In order to keep the patsies in, NZ must lose now and then.

It is happening right now.

NZ winning streak left a record that is accessible to England.
In the meantime, England is introduced as the last hope of nations playing loser rugby, they are dedicated to producing a rugby that could challenge NZ rugby.

It is hype. The last hope is proving his worth by beating other loser rugbys and maybe matching NZ rugby streak.

When the clash comes, it will sell by itself.

Combat sports used to proceed like that (and maybe keep doing that): a contender was manufactured by pairing him adequately with guys that could be beaten so that when challenging the champion, the guy had some credibility. It was all hype in order to market an event.

 On the incoming clash: NZ will be well advised to drop a game against England as a sign  of encouragement.

Other  nations failed to emulate the NZ way of doing.
England stated they would come with something different that could challenge NZ rugby. That is developping their own winner rugby.

If England fails, this would be a poor signal to other nations of rugby. They cant emulate NZ rugby and there would be no other path to winner rugby.

They will be prisoners of a steel trap: they cant win and continue to win so that NZ can keep winning. No escape.

 Something in that as regards the effect of NZ losing occasionally , they never lose on purpose though its just not on!

 Excellent men want to stay in activity. NZ cant afford losing business partners by being hegemonical.

They must compromize. And compromizing means dropping a few encouraging defeats here and there.

If that was otherwise, the simple fact that SA rugby must be aborted would be accepted.

NZ like SA will do whatever it takes to keep the rugby activity going.

The Trad, thanks for the comprehensive reply. I only saw it now hence my slow response. Also, I think this is the first coherent post that you have made, and i must say, I am quite impressed. 
You make some valid points regarding NZ vs England, but I still don't agree that England is not playing winner rugby. They have not lost in a year, and yes, they have not played NZ, but NZ has also not played them. The situation is a bit like that of a Schrodinger's Cat. Until the box is opened, the cat is both dead and alive. Until the two teams meet, they are both winners. 
Lastly, I don't think this is all hype. England are genuinely competitive at the moment, and there are many signs that they are better than the mighty English team of 2003. It is not a big conspiracy that all world rugby teams are party to, the chips have just fallen in such a way that there are two dominant teams at the moment, that have not yet crossed paths. 

 I will look forward to seeing the Boks play France next year and of course ABs vs Lions .Might shut a few yappy NH mouths .

 I will look forward to seeing the Boks play France next year and of course ABs vs Lions .Might shut a few yappy NH mouths .

 2003 is nothing of reference as it happened closely to the start of professionalism.

Today, the transition from amateurism to professionalism is completed (player side)

NZ has been using that time to structure their approach of rugby: thinking the game, how it must be played to win, in parallel, training players in order to carry out and experiment the considerations made on how to be successful.

It is a complete project that has been thoroughly field tested and proven. NZ have thought winning ways and have trained players to enable them.


England have nothing of that: they spent time trying to emulate what NZ was doing and failed(accordingly since NZ have been training their players to match NZ considerations over the game) and are now reversing to some old considerations that are discredited already.

To mount a challenging project to NZ, it will take time, decades.

At the moment, England's chance is their federation is richer than others, that allows to field better squads than other loser rugby nations.

Engmand have nothing of what NZ have: winning considerations on the game, and players trained to match the considerations.

The england squad is a mismatch of players drilled in loser rugby and not meant to perform together.