60 replies to this topic

[wildman]

Who would be the stand out All Black captain of the decade?
Three candidates:

MaCaw is firming as a great and has owned the last part of the decade.
Umaga had universal approval as captain and was unquestioned.
Thorne was mostly malinged and always questioned.

It would seem a two horse race between MaCaw and Umaga both with un questioned leadership and results:
Umaga- Lost 2004 tri nations, Won 2005 tri nations, Retained Bledisloe cup, Whitewashed Lions, Grand Slam. Winning % as Capt 86%(18 from 21)
Not capt in a world cup Winning % as Player 80%
MaCaw-Won 2006-2008 tri nations, Lost 2009 tri nations, Retained Bledisloe cup, unbeaten in the north. Winning % as Capt 86%(37 from 43)
Grand Slam, Lost in Quaters of World cup Winning % as player 87%
Both very impressive, but how does Thorne compare?
Thorne- Won 2002 & 2003 tri nations, Regained the Bledisloe cup, unbeaten in the north, Winning % as Capt 87%(20 from 23)
Lost in semis of world cup. Winning % as player 85%


All of these players have outstanding winning % records as capt, compareable with the best of all time(fitzy,Winneray etc), Thornes was the best at the end of the decade. None won a world cup but there arnt many All Black Captains that have! (Fitzy being onethat hasent). MaCaw and Thorne captained at world cups this decade, Thorne achieved the better placing.
Umaga achieved a whitewash over the Lions a great achievement but in reality a series against the French would have been a much better contest, ditto the grand slams. Umaga won one tri nations and lost one. Thorne won two and achieved the biggest tri nation winning scores against the Wallabies and Boks both 50 points plus, Thorne never lost to South Africa as captain 5-0

So in my opinion it would comedown to MaCaw and Thorne, if Umaga had stayed around for another couple of years it would have been different, but he diddent.
There is no doubt that MaCaw will be one of the all time great captains and the thing that sways his way at the moment is the amount of games he has played as captain.
But biased as I may be im going to give it to the man with the best winning % of the decade, the best word cup placing and the captain who subdeud the mighty Bokke in tne noughties.

Congratulations Mr Thorne!!

Edited by wildman, 30 December 2009 - 06:09 PM.

[Scorz]

Umaga won a Lions series as skipper.

Thorn didn't win much at all.

McCaw has a Grand Slam (yawn) and... didn't win a RWC.

[BartMan]

wildman - your opinion, at the moment, carries as much weight as mine does around here - nada!!!

I voted Umaga, he would be the man I would want to lead my troops over the top!

[wildman]

AH, but the statistics dont lie bartman, and im aware that Umaga won a lions series but as I stated that Lions team was as much a threat to the All Blacks as Tony Johnson is to playing at tight head instead of Hayman!!!!! A tour by the French would have been a much trickier proposition. Face the facts Thorne was a more successfull skipper than Umaga, its there in black and white wether you like it or not!!!

[Voltron]

Wildman you are on another planet.

Reuben Thorne was the only one of those three who was dropped as a player before he retired. Reuben Thorne was the only one who was dropped as captain before he stopped playing.

To me Umaga stands head and shoulders above the rest as captain of the decade.

Richie (as much as we love him) is very much a soundbite captain. Umaga with the media was priceless. He was always open and honest and his quotes were unbeatable (who could forget "Its not bloody tiddlewinks"!). I dont really remember what Thorne was like in front of the camera, i dont even remember him speaking. Hell, i barely remember him playing! The only place he was conspicuous was on the Fern being vilified (or championed if you're Phooey or Canerbry)) on a weekly basis.

I would suggest that the statistics tell us bugger all - they're so similar it makes no difference. And if you want to use success ratio then Jerry Collins can be your captain of the decade.

[LAKiwi]

If Umaga played two more games, and won those (reasonably likely), he would have identical captain statistics to Thorne.
Not much in those two statistically speaking.

Great when you have 3 captains at 86% or above.

[dogmeat]

Man that Fitzy's a sliy old buggercaptaining a side to win the rwc. Unless you mean he won a world cup and later captained the side, but I can think of 6 AB captains who've won a world cup.

As for the three. Wouldn't rate any as great AB capts. None of them strike me as great rugby brains tactically and are more lead by example and paint by numbers capts. Nohing wrong with that though. They're all decent capts and all seem to have had their teams on side, something that you can't say about everyone with the c next to their name.

We've only had a very few great AB capts (as opposed to great players who captained or had great records) and we've had planty of shit house ones.Some of whom were great players. None of these 3 were crap but none were a Lochore, Mourie or Wineray either

[wildman]

Jerry was not captain for 20 plus tests now was he!! One quote I will always remember was from Kees Meuews that he would have Thorne on the blindside and captain in any team he would play in because he was the sort of player you would crawl over broken glass for. So it really diddent matter what the media or most morons thought I dont think you would find a player who played under Thorne who thought he was insignificant in any way.

[LAKiwi]

Great point dogmeat.
I think most of us on here, don't really have a memory of a great captain - to compare to.
The likes of Buck and Umaga - are leaders - follow me into the trenches type captains.

But as you said, you have to go back 25+ years for a great Captain.

[Voltron]

Umaga is a great to me, he went from being a questionable captain to universally respected.

In 20 years when the question of captains come up - Umaga will be one of the first names in my head. Thorne definitely will not

[Voltron]

LAKiwi said:

Great point dogmeat.
I think most of us on here, don't really have a memory of a great captain - to compare to.
The likes of Buck and Umaga - are leaders - follow me into the trenches type captains.

But as you said, you have to go back 25+ years for a great Captain.

i really hope you mean follow me OUT of the trenches!

[taniwharugby]

isnt a good/great leader the kind of person you would follow anywhere, do anything for and all but die for?

Guess it depends on your definition of a leader/captain.

Your coach should essentially lay the game plan, and create a back up, it is up to the captain to adjust things as he see's it, or his deputies, the 2003 & 2007 RWC matches stand out as ones where the captains did not have the ability to deviate (or for whatever reason did not want to ) from the non-working game plan.

[Scorz]

wildman said:

Jerry was not captain for 20 plus tests now was he!! One quote I will always remember was from Kees Meuews that he would have Thorne on the blindside and captain in any team he would play in because he was the sort of player you would crawl over broken glass for. So it really diddent matter what the media or most morons thought I dont think you would find a player who played under Thorne who thought he was insignificant in any way.

Nope he didn't captain the AB's, however Jerry managed to keep Thorne out of the first choice line-up though, so his leadership can't have been that much bloody use.

As for your last attempt to apply some form of weird logic in that paragraph - we can't ask the players, and neither can you, it's null and void. All we can do is judge from what we saw - and as Voltron said, Thorne was the only one dropped as a captain and dropped as a player. No need to ask the selectors what they thought in that case.

The enduring image of Captain Invisible from my memory, is of him standing with hands on knees away from the rest of the team while someone else read the riot act under the posts. Maybe I'm biased, but I'd have chosen a fan as captain before him after that.

[Voltron]

I would also suggest that the captain of the decade is the guy who would be captain of the team of the decade. Thorne, therefore, is clearly disqualified

[MajorRage]

Picture this... It's 2003, a game hasn't just happened but we are out of the WC. You suddenly receive a view from a website at the end of 2009 where somebody is advocating Thorne as the best captain of the decade on the results of 01 - 03.

Would you honestly watch another AB game until 2010? You would have to assume the results rest of the decade and the leadership to be absolutely dire.

[taniwharugby]

My view of Thorne was he was actually a better captain than he was a player, in that he only snuck in, often controversially, into the 15, but IMO, when he was a captain, he was a very good one.

Mccaw, is a lesser version of Umaga, not quite the presence, but more the player, I think 2007 RWC loss will remain etched in the minds of most fans as a reason McCaw cannot (for the time being) be held up as a great leader/captain (similarly for Thorne)

IMO, Umaga was born to lead, and he is the kind of guy you'd expect players would want to play well for, players would follow him anywhere

[Razbra]

"Umaga is a great to me, he went from being a questionable captain to universally respected.

In 20 years when the question of captains come up - Umaga will be one of the first names in my head. Thorne definitely will not"



Completely agree. There always the cliche that players aren't always appreciated in their own time. I think that resonates here with Umaga's captaincy, not with me I think he's a great already, but i think some quarters underestimate his importance. I suppose that can be said of Thorne too though.....again not by me though. I think I correctly estimated his lack of importance.

Edited by Razbra, 30 December 2009 - 05:43 PM.

[Red Beard]

LAKiwi said:

Great point dogmeat.
I think most of us on here, don't really have a memory of a great captain - to compare to.
The likes of Buck and Umaga - are leaders - follow me into the trenches type captains.

But as you said, you have to go back 25+ years for a great Captain.

I think you can be a follow me type inspirational leader if you have brains in your team who are smart decision makers. Martin Johnson was a great leader but because of his postion probably relied on guys like Dallaligo, Back, Hill, Wilkinson and Dawson to call the shots tactically. Buck was the same, he was the almighty warrior and Foxy called the shots.

[mariner4life]

Obviously some great christmas cheer at wildman's house.

Tana for me, a great leader who inspired his players to some brilliant heights (hammering the Lions, leading brilliantly, despite being singled out for some over the top vitriol by certain members of the press and public).

Had the good sense to get out befor ethe inevitible world cup fuck up.

Reuben? fuck me.... remember the Bledisoe's he didn't win (no one slides on their own line!! don't turn your back!!!!!!!). No great captain can have the non-red-and-black rugby public questioning his place in the side.

[Kirwan]

First thing a captain must have, yet alone a great captain, is an unquestioned place in the side.

[Canerbry]

And he had an unquestioned place in the side unless the question is asked of you clowns or the Auckland Herald.

The coaches and the rest of his team were pretty bloody happy with him. The character assassination led by the flash harries of the queen city is one of the saddest episodes in All Black history.

My vote's for Umaga, he's the opposite of McCaw - a better captain than player.

Edited by Canerbry, 31 December 2009 - 01:05 AM.

[LAKiwi]

I think because McCaw is so good as a player - his Captaincy hasn't reached the heights of Tana. Tana had Mana. He had Charisma - and he had results (so did all three of these guys though). McCaw's Mana is growing. And if he continues on for a couple of years - he will be the equal of Tana.

I voted for Tana by the way.

Would be interesting how people would rank Tana and McCaw against the last decades Captain - Fitzpatrick.

[cricketman]

taniwharugby said:

isnt a good/great leader the kind of person you would follow anywhere, do anything for and all but die for?

Guess it depends on your definition of a leader/captain.

Your coach should essentially lay the game plan, and create a back up, it is up to the captain to adjust things as he see's it, or his deputies, the 2003 & 2007 RWC matches stand out as ones where the captains did not have the ability to deviate (or for whatever reason did not want to ) from the non-working game plan.

This sums it up for me, spot on TR. I (as did the rest of the country) watched in horror as the ABs continued to attempt to score a try in the last quarter of that dreaded game against a French team full of passion. Too little too late when McCalistar tried to hit one from 40 odd metres out. They had ample opportunity to change the tactics and win the game, McCaw must take resposibility for this. It is these tight games, where you can see how reactive a captain needs to be and whether or not they are able to demonstrate that ability. McCaw came up short on that occasion, I hope he learns from it. My vote goes to Umaga.

I have to agree with the majority of ferners... Wildman, are you on another planet? Or just from Cantabury?

[BartMan]

Quote

McCaw came up short on that occasion, I hope he learns from it. My vote goes to Umaga.

I don't know. What if they had made 10 shots at a DG, and they all missed, he would have htne been called a silly bugger for going through that...

He made his call, and it came up short. They had scored a try (Rodders) from the same tactics, and as we all know, on another planet with another REf, the All Blacks would have received 17 (Was it that many I think) penalties, and a forward pass would hyave been called, and the game would have been a different kettle of fish.

I actually think ANY tactics in that game were not going to work, the French could just do no wrong in the eyes of the Ref...

[wildman]

Canerbry is bang on the money, Thornes place was never in question to those who really mattered. And the only reason he got dropped as captain was through the change of coach, if the Mitch had been retained like henry then Thorne would have keept the captaincy, hell once Henry had settled in even he saw that Thorne belonged in the black jerey and recalled him. And remember 4 different All Black coaches (one from Canterbury, one from Wiakato and two from Auckland) all thought Thorne was worthy of wearing the black jersey and two who were not from Canterbury thought he was worthy of wearing it as captain.
And I dont believe for a minute that the 2003 world cup semi was lost through the inability of the captain to deviate from the gameplan, but through the inability of the first five to stick to it.

[dogmeat]

LA Kiwi - I'd have Tana ahead of Fitzy who I don't think was much of a capt at all. He had the fortune to lead a very very good side with lots of experienced and able lieutenants.

Like my earlier comment. I don't think Fitzy was a bad capt but def on the 2nd rung alongside a host of other guys who commanded the respect of their team mates had mana, had longevity and were very good players but didn't have that x factor that raised them into the pantheon of the truly great capts.

In saying this I have to ignore Fitzy's record. Winning our first series in SA was a great achievement and esp for an old bastard like me ranks ahead of any number of shiny trophies. Fitzy led that team but honestly did they even need a capt?

Contrast that with the Whineray - universally acknowledged by his adversaries as the greatest rugby brain till that time, Lochore picked as a youngster ahead of a host of senior AB's a la Taine Randell and din't have a mel down instead became revered by all of them and with the Needle redefined the game in NZ and Mourie who basically won us games we had no right to win by out thinking the opposition. I can't imagine Tana, Fitzy or McCaw doing that.

For me there's a distinction between a great capt and a great leader. You can be the latter without being the former but definitely not vice versa.

BTW I'm actually not that freakin old. Well not Lee Grant old anyway. Watch videos and read about Lochore and Whineray and you can gain an impression of what they w2ere like as capts. We know they achieved mightily after rugby. Can't imagine either of them becoming a Pommy media whore.

[BartMan]

IN the modern game - where the coaches can communicate to the players through their runners etc, captaincy has gone by the wayside. It is not like the days of Mourie and Whinneray and Lochore where the coach was not even allowed onto the field at halftime in a test.

So the job description has changed 3 times. the second when the coach was allowed onto the field, and the thirdwhen the walkie talkies, and the original when the captain did all the talking at halftime, with the coach in the stand.

so harder than ever to compare between decades!

[taniwharugby]

wildman said:

Canerbry is bang on the money, Thornes place was never in question to those who really mattered. And the only reason he got dropped as captain was through the change of coach, if the Mitch had been retained like henry then Thorne would have keept the captaincy, hell once Henry had settled in even he saw that Thorne belonged in the black jerey and recalled him. And remember 4 different All Black coaches (one from Canterbury, one from Wiakato and two from Auckland) all thought Thorne was worthy of wearing the black jersey and two who were not from Canterbury thought he was worthy of wearing it as captain.
And I dont believe for a minute that the 2003 world cup semi was lost through the inability of the captain to deviate from the gameplan, but through the inability of the first five to stick to it.

haha, you had me nodding in agreement with most of that until you showed your provincial colours with the last comment.

do you remember that game much? IIRC, it was our pack that were outplayed and struggled to win any ball for our backs to do anything with.

Dogmeat - IMO I think Thorne was a better captain than a leader, and IMO was in the side because of this, when often he probably was not the best 6 about.

Oh, I voted Tana...

Edited by taniwharugby, 31 December 2009 - 09:57 AM.

[LAKiwi]

dogmeat said:

LA Kiwi - I'd have Tana ahead of Fitzy who I don't think was much of a capt at all. He had the fortune to lead a very very good side with lots of experienced and able lieutenants.

Like my earlier comment. I don't think Fitzy was a bad capt but def on the 2nd rung alongside a host of other guys who commanded the respect of their team mates had mana, had longevity and were very good players but didn't have that x factor that raised them into the pantheon of the truly great capts.

In saying this I have to ignore Fitzy's record. Winning our first series in SA was a great achievement and esp for an old bastard like me ranks ahead of any number of shiny trophies. Fitzy led that team but honestly did they even need a capt?

Contrast that with the Whineray - universally acknowledged by his adversaries as the greatest rugby brain till that time, Lochore picked as a youngster ahead of a host of senior AB's a la Taine Randell and din't have a mel down instead became revered by all of them and with the Needle redefined the game in NZ and Mourie who basically won us games we had no right to win by out thinking the opposition. I can't imagine Tana, Fitzy or McCaw doing that.

For me there's a distinction between a great capt and a great leader. You can be the latter without being the former but definitely not vice versa.

BTW I'm actually not that freakin old. Well not Lee Grant old anyway. Watch videos and read about Lochore and Whineray and you can gain an impression of what they w2ere like as capts. We know they achieved mightily after rugby. Can't imagine either of them becoming a Pommy media whore.

Totally agreed - about the thinking Captain. Tana - is a great captain, but not a great thinking captain. He's a captain (Buck mold) of follow me.
Buck, Fitzy, Tana - all had the respect of their troops - and were great players in their positions. But they're missing those top 2 inches (not saying they're dumb) to be truly great captains in the mold of the Whineray's and Mouries of older times.

[booboo]

What's the date? Did I just dream he last 6 years?

WTF are we talking about Reuben Thorne for.

There's something about a Canterbury versus everybody else argument that is really entertaining huh? (Kind of like when the lunatic in the nutfarm insists "I'm sane!! It's the rest of you who are crazy!").

Thorne was always a controversial selection. He was never universally accepted by the public. And I reckon the public are often a good judge of who should be in the team.

He may have been a good captain - but for me I'd have struggled to pick him in an AB team of the year, any year, let alone a team of a decade. And or that he misses out as skipper.

I've got to go with Tana, with Richie as VC, and Reuben captaining the Cantabs...