Greatest Centre Ever??

twinytwo

Ok can try and keep this on topic

the list that i can come up with is....(feel Free to add)

Danie Gerber
Phillipe Sella
Mike Gibson
Brian O Driscoll
Tim Horan
Tana Umaga
Jerry Guscott
Denis Charvet

personally i would have to go for either drico or sella

Serenity Now!

Tim Horan
Joe Stanley
Walter Little

daveyrovers

I know he lacked a bit in certain areas but Scottie Gibbs was pretty impressive in his heyday. I'm thinking Lions 97 when he knocked Os Du Rant out of the way.

Stev_o

daveyrovers wrote: »

I know he lacked a bit in certain areas but Scottie Gibbs was pretty impressive in his heyday. I'm thinking Lions 97 when he knocked Os Du Rant out of the way.

+1 Bloody hell it was unheard of and thats what he did throughout his career a legend of a player.

Also +1 for Tim Horan at his best he could carve up any defence in the world

RuggieBear

bunce i'd add too

ThomasH

Danie Gerber
Phillipe Sella
Brian O Driscoll
Tim Horan
Tana Umaga
Jason Little

They all offered different options under different rules. For me a young BOD played exactly the same style as Danie Gerber in his days.

My pick would have to be Tana (although don't admire him). He could lead, score tries, defend, pass and was just a general good allrounder.

Jeremy Guscott for me was not a good defender.

Pinetree Boy

Are we talking inside and outside?

If outside only I don't rank Umanga as among best (even in NZ) where Robertson, Osborne, Stanely and Bunce would be ahead.

NZ don't produce many centres with real flair.

For me Sella best I can remember. Followed closely by Tim Horan.

Serenity Now!

Sella was indeed a class act.
When Noddy Lynagh started out, he was a great centre with Ella delivering the backline. Then Horan/Little came along. What a partnership that was.

RuggieBear

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Sella was indeed a class act.
When Noddy Lynagh started out, he was a great centre with Ella delivering the backline. Then Horan/Little came along. What a partnership that was.

not a patch on phil and vinnie tbh:D

RugbyFanatic

In his prime its got to be Brian O'Driscoll

themont85

Of the past 10 years BOD, before that I think its impossible to say because of my age and because the game has gone pro.

anonymous_joe

Could well be BOD.

Webbs

Has to be Gerber for me - was a centre well ahead of his time power pace fantastic balance, a real shame we never really saw him on the world stage as would have seen more of this

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EHS10Kg9cHY

A record of 19 tries from 24 caps says it all really.

g5fd6ow0hseima

I feel Gibson was a better player than O'Driscoll.

How was 'Drico's' world cup last year?

RugbyFanatic

Alexander Obnoxious Gunrunner wrote: »

I feel Gibson was a better player than O'Driscoll.

How was 'Drico's' world cup last year?

actually quite good though admitedly nowhere near his form in his prime, not even close.

twinytwo

Alexander Obnoxious Gunrunner wrote: »

I feel Gibson was a better player than O'Driscoll.

How was 'Drico's' world cup last year?

Plus if i remember correctly was gibson not on 5 consecitive lions tours?

Kdub

My vote is with Sella, consistency and longevity at the top level.

Outhalf

Pinetree Boy wrote: »

Are we talking inside and outside?

If outside only I don't rank Umanga as among best (even in NZ) where Robertson, Osborne, Stanely and Bunce would be ahead.

NZ don't produce many centres with real flair.

For me Sella best I can remember. Followed closely by Tim Horan.

JB Smith, the big Maori, was one of the best rugby players ever.. He had real flair, pace, strength, one of the most powerful runners the game has ever seen. He and Gerber would be the most awesome centre partnership in humankind..

anonymous_joe

Alexander Obnoxious Gunrunner wrote: »

I feel Gibson was a better player than O'Driscoll.

How was 'Drico's' world cup last year?

Best Irish played easily, despite being injured.

Sparky14

twinytwo wrote: »

Plus if i remember correctly was gibson not on 5 consecitive lions tours?

Tho that was when they were every 3 years, O'Driscoll will make every Lions Tour he will have been around for and more than likely be a starter.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Paris, 2000 - yeah yeah yeah,

but to say he is amonst the top centres of all time is way off in my opnion. Sella, Horan, Gibson, Gerber all way ahead of the man.

Id have rathered Waisale Serevi in the centre

RichTea

For me it has to be Sella.

BOD was the man in his heyday of the early 00's but struggles over the course of his career to hold a candle to the Frenchman.

SpAcEd OuT

I asked my dad this question tonight. My dad had watched the likes of Sella, Gerber and O'Driscoll through the years and he maintains that whatever happened thereafter, Brian O'Driscoll from the years 2000-2005 was untouchable. For 5 years he reigned not just as the world's greatest centre but the world's greatest player. In those years he had everything he was truely astonishing and would make 30 yard breaks out of seemingly closed spaces. Sometimes I think people forget just how good he was in those years.

It is tragic that his career was so marred by injuries I believe I read a statement once from a member of the IRFU coaching staff that O'Driscoll started more or less nearly every game after 2004 with some kind of niggling injury.

anonymous_joe

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I asked my dad this question tonight. My dad had watched the likes of Sella, Gerber and O'Driscoll through the years and he maintains that whatever happened thereafter, Brian O'Driscoll from the years 2000-2005 was untouchable. For 5 years he reigned not just as the world's greatest centre but the world's greatest player. In those years he had everything he was truely astonishing and would make 30 yard breaks out of seemingly closed spaces. Sometimes I think people forget just how good he was in those years.

It is tragic that his career was so marred by injuries I believe I read a statement once from a member of the IRFU coaching staff that O'Driscoll started more or less nearly every game after 2004 with some kind of niggling injury.

Knox said that about injuries too.

Crash

I also think you need to try and place players in their era- As of about 2005/2006 O'Driscoll was the most marked player i've ever seen in my time watching rugby - and I think a sign of what he was truly capable of was the fact that defenses were forced to adapt to a single player. While I wouldnt necessarily argue for him to be the best centre EVAR, I think you have to take that into account.

Sparky14

People forget that O'Driscoll took defensive play to a new level, no centre has ever won so much turnover ball for their side.

crisco10

Sparky14 wrote: »

People forget that O'Driscoll took defensive play to a new level, no centre has ever won so much turnover ball for their side.

This is something that he is incredible at. rumour has it that when d'arcy first became a good centre, the two of them used to put money on who could win more turnovers in a game. This aspect of defence for a centre was previously unheard of...

88show

the ella brothers of sydney were pure magic to watch
better than Little/Horan
Bunce for talent/power/finesse was amazing, especially for the amount of training he put in
which pretty much was the touch game b4 practice and the slices of sponge cake in his Harbour days, There would have been no walter little if not for Bunce so I can't see how someone nominated him on his own merits.
All round Modern day era I would back Tana 100%
There is no hole in his game that he played, right up to his last game.
Brian has to get a mention but not the greatest, please
Over the last few years he seems to be losing his youthfulness in his flare more noticeable since his game has been watched so much.
top 5 MAYBE, but you get on the field with Sella or little timmy horan and I'd say he'd have a very hard job ahead of him

88show

Outhalf wrote: »

JB Smith, the big Maori, was one of the best rugby players ever.. He had real flair, pace, strength, one of the most powerful runners the game has ever seen. He and Gerber would be the most awesome centre partnership in humankind..

i'd have to agree too

Diamondmaker

I think it has to be said that during tha amater era a freakishly taleted player stood out that bit more.

BOD stood out amongst proessionals where every one has been trained, conditioned, coached and treated to the Nth degree.

Some of the centres being touted played a fraction of the game time BOD did,
would crumple under the forces modern players are required to take during play and did not have the anlaysis and study against them that BOD has had for example.

The last being a quite important point I feel in with regard to any threads where we analyse past a present players......

The professinal era has made standing out a bit tougher yet he did it for years!

Webbs

Diamondmaker wrote: »

I think it has to be said that during tha amater era a freakishly taleted player stood out that bit more.

BOD stood out amongst proessionals where every one has been trained, conditioned, coached and treated to the Nth degree.

Some of the centres being touted played a fraction of the game time BOD did,
would crumple under the forces modern players are required to take during play and did not have the anlaysis and study against them that BOD has had for example.

The last being a quite important point I feel in with regard to any threads where we analyse past a present players......

The professinal era has made standing out a bit tougher yet he did it for years!

I disagree about the standing out bit, great players will come to the top regardless, as all that has happened is that the levels of conditioning has increased - you cant coach that extra few % that makes players stand out.

Also remember that modern attacking players also have the analysis benefit and will have studied their opposite numbers to know where their weaknesses are, be it a weak inside shoulder, lack of pace etc.

Its wrong to compare pro to amateur players directly, they have to be considered in the era they played - as they can only play whats in front of them. The roles have also changed as rule changes etc come in (esp in the area of the breakdown)

BOD is one of the greats undoubtedly, unsurpassed for a few years but I would argue that someone like Sella was world class from the moment he came on to the scene to when he retired (injuries may have something to that but we will never know), and Gerber I think would have been even better if played on the world stage more often.

anonymous_joe

Webbs wrote: »

I disagree about the standing out bit, great players will come to the top regardless, as all that has happened is that the levels of conditioning has increased - you cant coach that extra few % that makes players stand out.

Also remember that modern attacking players also have the analysis benefit and will have studied their opposite numbers to know where their weaknesses are, be it a weak inside shoulder, lack of pace etc.

Its wrong to compare pro to amateur players directly, they have to be considered in the era they played - as they can only play whats in front of them. The roles have also changed as rule changes etc come in (esp in the area of the breakdown)

BOD is one of the greats undoubtedly, unsurpassed for a few years but I would argue that someone like Sella was world class from the moment he came on to the scene to when he retired (injuries may have something to that but we will never know), and Gerber I think would have been even better if played on the world stage more often.

Look at another sport for a second.

Pelé is almost certainly the best player football's ever produced. Were he to be 20 today he'd still be one of the best, but he wouldn't be as good.

When he was playing, he was naturally a physical prodigy. He could run a 10 second 100 metres, he was extraordinarily strong and agile and had a leap like a salmon on cocaine.

Were he to play today, his skills would be just as evident, as would his intelligence. But not his physicality.

Rugby's the same, Jonah Lomu would not be as effective now as he was in 95. Even since Bod's debut back in the day, rugby has come on hugely in terms of stamina, speed and defensive intelligence. It is nowhere near as easy to score a try as it was 10 years ago.

What makes O'Driscoll (or Carter or Giteau or anyone you could care to name) so incredible is that they were able to play well and stand out even with the vastly improved defences. That's what makes them world class. That's why it's harder to compare the heroes of the amateur era to them as well. Harder, not impossible.

handsomecake

tana umaga for me. out standing distribution( that 30 yard pass to sivivatu in the lions first test), great off loading( his flick pass out of the tackle for jeff wilsons try in the match against england in twickenham in the 99 world cup).huge hits(dropping josh lewsey on his head in the first lions test,smashing tuirinui in the super 14, his tackle in to touch on habana to win the try nations in melbourne) i could go on and on.phenomenal haircut, best haka leader, and put o driscoll in his place ie head first into the grass. i have never been so chuffed watching a match then when i saw him get flattened .blah blah illegal tackle my arse. darcy speared tipoki in the match against the maoris and no body said a word. identical tackles.watch the footage. umaga for pope

anonymous_joe

handsomecake wrote: »

tana umaga for me. out standing distribution( that 30 yard pass to sivivatu in the lions first test), great off loading( his flick pass out of the tackle for jeff wilsons try in the match against england in twickenham in the 99 world cup).huge hits(dropping josh lewsey on his head in the first lions test,smashing tuirinui in the super 14, his tackle in to touch on habana to win the try nations in melbourne) i could go on and on.phenomenal haircut, best haka leader, and put o driscoll in his place ie head first into the grass. i have never been so chuffed watching a match then when i saw him get flattened .blah blah illegal tackle my arse. darcy speared tipoki in the match against the maoris and no body said a word. identical tackles.watch the footage. umaga for pope

Best hair in rugby? Fúck off! Swarezski (damned Hungarian (?) names.) clearly has the best hair in rugby other than one man - Chabal. :pac:

I can take the comments about the spear tackle, but I will not tolerate lies. :pac:

handsomecake

hah ha. by the way fwiw that o driscoll incident and the proportion it was blown out of by the media ruined rugby. the amount of cracking tackles i see where a fella gets picked up and buried that are now yellows (and in the currie cup an alarimng amount of reds ) is crazy. i have a much bigger problem with high tackles . i think if you pick a player up and drive him to the ground with you falling to ground also thats fine. refs are way to pedantic with the spear rule. its not tiddlywinks you know

Webbs

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Look at another sport for a second.

Pelé is almost certainly the best player football's ever produced. Were he to be 20 today he'd still be one of the best, but he wouldn't be as good.

When he was playing, he was naturally a physical prodigy. He could run a 10 second 100 metres, he was extraordinarily strong and agile and had a leap like a salmon on cocaine.

Were he to play today, his skills would be just as evident, as would his intelligence. But not his physicality.

Rugby's the same, Jonah Lomu would not be as effective now as he was in 95. Even since Bod's debut back in the day, rugby has come on hugely in terms of stamina, speed and defensive intelligence. It is nowhere near as easy to score a try as it was 10 years ago.

What makes O'Driscoll (or Carter or Giteau or anyone you could care to name) so incredible is that they were able to play well and stand out even with the vastly improved defences. That's what makes them world class. That's why it's harder to compare the heroes of the amateur era to them as well. Harder, not impossible.

I actually think that Pele would have looked a better player today than he did then. The protection offered to players of skill now is far higher then it was 40years ago, anyway thats a bit of topic.

My point is is that defence and attack have improved/advanced/changed with new rules. And if you look at the stats more tries are scored in rugby now than when the likes of Sella, Gerber were playing.

anonymous_joe

handsomecake wrote: »

hah ha. by the way fwiw that o driscoll incident and the proportion it was blown out of by the media ruined rugby. the amount of cracking tackles i see where a fella gets picked up and buried that are now yellows (and in the currie cup an alarimng amount of reds ) is crazy. i have a much bigger problem with high tackles . i think if you pick a player up and drive him to the ground with you falling to ground also thats fine. refs are way to pedantic with the spear rule. its not tiddlywinks you know

Ignoring my own personal views on the O'Driscoll 'incident.' (I'm an Irish Leinster fan you can guess what they are ) whether or not it was deliberate he broke his shoulder. Those tackles are appallingly dangerous. You lose all control of how you land (which is how you avoid injury) and if you don't bring someone down quickly you get what happened to O'Driscoll happening. And in all likelihood, if he hadn't sacrificed his shoulder, he would have hit the ground neck first, and rugby as a sport would have been beyond ruined.

Webbs wrote: »

I actually think that Pele would have looked a better player today than he did then. The protection offered to players of skill now is far higher then it was 40years ago, anyway thats a bit of topic.

My point is is that defence and attack have improved/advanced/changed with new rules. And if you look at the stats more tries are scored in rugby now than when the likes of Sella, Gerber were playing.

He'd have been more protected but his physical skills would have shone less. In a rugby context, Lomu would still be an awesomenly good winger, but there'd be more big guys in the backline to stand up to him.

And yeah, rugby is technically a lot more skillful than it was 10 or 20 years ago. At times the difference is frightening.

twinytwo

handsomecake wrote: »

tana umaga for me. out standing distribution( that 30 yard pass to sivivatu in the lions first test), great off loading( his flick pass out of the tackle for jeff wilsons try in the match against england in twickenham in the 99 world cup).huge hits(dropping josh lewsey on his head in the first lions test,smashing tuirinui in the super 14, his tackle in to touch on habana to win the try nations in melbourne) i could go on and on.phenomenal haircut, best haka leader, and put o driscoll in his place ie head first into the grass. i have never been so chuffed watching a match then when i saw him get flattened .blah blah illegal tackle my arse. darcy speared tipoki in the match against the maoris and no body said a word. identical tackles.watch the footage. umaga for pope

Mate unless you have something worth while to contribute to the discussion can you not post this sort of tripe...Its this sort of bs that degrades many of the threads.

Amz

Twintytwo, leave the moderating to the moderators please.

handsomecake

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Ignoring my own personal views on the O'Driscoll 'incident.' (I'm an Irish Leinster fan you can guess what they are ) whether or not it was deliberate he broke his shoulder. Those tackles are appallingly dangerous. You lose all control of how you land (which is how you avoid injury) and if you don't bring someone down quickly you get what happened to O'Driscoll happening. And in all likelihood, if he hadn't sacrificed his shoulder, he would have hit the ground neck first, and rugby as a sport would have been beyond ruined.


He'd have been more protected but his physical skills would have shone less. In a rugby context, Lomu would still be an awesomenly good winger, but there'd be more big guys in the backline to stand up to him.

And yeah, rugby is technically a lot more skillful than it was 10 or 20 years ago. At times the difference is frightening.

im a leinster fan also.however although irish, i support new zealand. not a fan of the irish team, very boring,poor skill set, lack cutting edge. very poor pace wise. one dimensional

handsomecake

twinytwo wrote: »

Mate unless you have something worth while to contribute to the discussion can you not post this sort of tripe...Its this sort of bs that degrades many of the threads.

leave me alone you clown

twinytwo

handsomecake wrote: »

im a leinster fan also.however although irish, i support new zealand. not a fan of the irish team, very boring,poor skill set, lack cutting edge. very poor pace wise. one dimensional

then why are you here?... seriously like why not go to a new zealand rugby forum or something

Sparky14

twinytwo wrote: »

then why are you here?... seriously like why not go to a new zealand rugby forum or something

Ha, yeh he also supports the Argentinean footy team. We had a nice chat about it on this board last night, tho it all got deleted cos it was off topic.

Teg Veece

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Look at another sport for a second.

Pelé is almost certainly the best player football's ever produced. Were he to be 20 today he'd still be one of the best, but he wouldn't be as good.

When he was playing, he was naturally a physical prodigy. He could run a 10 second 100 metres, he was extraordinarily strong and agile and had a leap like a salmon on cocaine.

Were he to play today, his skills would be just as evident, as would his intelligence. But not his physicality.

Rugby's the same, Jonah Lomu would not be as effective now as he was in 95. Even since Bod's debut back in the day, rugby has come on hugely in terms of stamina, speed and defensive intelligence. It is nowhere near as easy to score a try as it was 10 years ago.

What makes O'Driscoll (or Carter or Giteau or anyone you could care to name) so incredible is that they were able to play well and stand out even with the vastly improved defences. That's what makes them world class. That's why it's harder to compare the heroes of the amateur era to them as well. Harder, not impossible.

So will the next great centre to come along be better than O'Driscoll by default?

Diamondmaker

Teg Veece wrote: »

So will the next great centre to come along be better than O'Driscoll by default?

Not necesarily, the pro era is in the scheme of things been so short and BOD has really been invloved since day 1. By default I think pro players are better than non pro. Its a no brainer, a pro player would hospitalise many non pro.

The point about analysis I believe is more relevant in arguing that pro players are actually more talented than their pre pro peers.
Eg. You cant coach an "X" factor but you can couch a team to neutralise one, a fact that means players of this era have a hrder time beating well drilled defences with anlaysis that did not exist with our non pro brothers.

Another reason is pro players must carry a tonne of weight in muscle that was not required in the old days, perhaps stifling certain skills and speed, certainly speed in BODs case....

premierstone

Diamondmaker wrote: »

.Another reason is pro players must carry a tonne of weight in muscle that was not required in the old days, perhaps stifling certain skills and speed, certainly speed in BODs case....

Or perhaps you could look at it from the other point of view that if Sella, Gibson et al had have got the professional training, conditioning etc. they would have been even further ahead of they're counterparts.

Sparky14

premierstone wrote: »

Or perhaps you could look at it from the other point of view that if Sella, Gibson et al had have got the professional training, conditioning etc. they would have been even further ahead of they're counterparts.

I don't think so, the gap between the best and the rest usually decreases as everyone improves. And think you'll find the best amateurs were usually the players that trained most like professionals.

premierstone

Sparky14 wrote: »

I don't think so, the gap between the best and the rest usually decreases as everyone improves. And think you'll find the best amateurs were usually the players that trained most like professionals.

Its just one of them arguements that can go around and round in circles the fact is you can't compare different generations its like comparing completely different sports and its why these threads will always end in disagreement - quite clearly teh answer in this case is Gibson though

Sparky14

premierstone wrote: »

Its just one of them arguements that can go around and round in circles the fact is you can't compare different generations its like comparing completely different sports and its why these threads will always end in disagreement - quite clearly teh answer in this case is Gibson though

Agree with you there, its subjective even within the same era, not much chance of seeking agreement between different eras. Never saw much of Gibson but saw a good bit of Sella and Horan in their pomp, and would rate Horan as probably one of the best ever.

Crash

Hell its subjective within the past five years as defenses have changed. I never get involved in these arguments for that reason :P