GOAT - The eternal debate

[General Melchett]

Are forwards even in the conversation? What chance does a prop have of being the rugby GOAT? Zero. Backs (especially half backs) get the headlines for obvious reasons but for me the positions are so different that it's like comparing apples with oranges.

Personally I would split rugby GOATs into two categories - forwards and backs. There are valid arguments to say it should even be by position given how different the skillsets are. It's going to be subjective regardless. Some backs were given a greater platform to showcase what they can do by playing behind outstanding packs.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I think rugby is among the worst sports to have a GOAT debate. I'm very close to bringing career points into this conversation. Presume it'd be dismissed but surely the fact that DC has scored multiple thousands of points is noteworthy over Dupont!

Don't you guys see what appears to be a pretty big correlation between the people who claim that Dupont is the goat?

I am not sure of your point. At a guess, they all need viewers and engagement to be relevant?

 

[Saintjay]

Are forwards even in the conversation? What chance does a prop have of being the rugby GOAT? Zero. Backs (especially half backs) get the headlines for obvious reasons but for me the positions are so different that it's like comparing apples with oranges.

It's obviously subjective but I would personally split rugby GOATs into two categories - forwards and backs. There are valid arguments to say it should even be by position given how different the skillsets are. It's going to be subjective regardless. Some backs were given a greater platform to showcase what they can do by playing behind outstanding packs.

That's it. Is Dupont the GOAT in several positions on the pitch. Definitely not. The requirements and skill set is to varied.

Would Dupont be a better centre than BOD for example.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

That's it. Is Dupont the GOAT in several positions on the pitch. Definitely not. The requirements and skill set is to varied.

Would Dupont be a better centre than BOD for example.

This is the bit that really helps him for me - Would he be a better centre than BOD would be 9, would he be a better back row (his turnover stats are outrageous) than McCaw would be a 9, or than Carter with the same comparison?

The answer to all of those is yes for me - it's not the only metric, but one which I think is worth considering. The bloke is just so good at so many things

 

[Reiser99]

Presume it'd be dismissed but surely the fact that DC has scored multiple thousands of points is noteworthy over Dupont!

Simple fact is one player has more opportunities to score, so how is that fair?

It's why for me the best way is percentages. Even then, especially in a sport like rugby it's hard. Cricket is easier. For example, Anderson is a fantastic bowler, but he wouldn't be so high if you did it on averages because he's played so many more games.

 

[Which Tyler]

Surely you need some measure of sucess or recocogition ie trophies. It helps narrow the debate.

Why? Especially in a team sport?

Why do people insist on objective measures for entirely subjective views?
There are times when objective measures provide a convincing argument (eg Bradman), I fail to see why a lack of objective measures (eg Parisse / Dupont) provides argument ending evidence - especially in a team sport.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Simple fact is one player has more opportunities to score, so how is that fair?

It's why for me the best way is percentages. Even then, especially in a sport like rugby it's hard. Cricket is easier. For example, Anderson is a fantastic bowler, but he wouldn't be so high if you did it on averages because he's played so many more games.

But when points win games does taking the responsibility for those opportunities not emhance your argument significantly?

 

[Reiser99]

But when points win games does taking the responsibility for those opportunities not emhance your argument significantly?

How about the player who wins the penalty to get the opportunity? It's like saying in football whoever scores the most goals is the best and then completely ignore the other players who created the opportunities. By your logic Richie McCaw can never be in the running for best player as he's not scored as many points.

 

[Which Tyler]

But when points win games does taking the responsibility for those opportunities not emhance your argument significantly?

No

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

How about the player who wins the penalty to get the opportunity? It's like saying in football whoever scores the most goals is the best and then completely ignore the other players who created the opportunities. By your logic Richie McCaw can never be in the running for best player as he's not scored as many points.

I don't think it's the only factor but I think it's mad to dismiss the fact that DC is the best points scorer in history from the conversation. I think it should hold significant weight.

 

[Which Tyler]

I don't think it's the only factor but I think it's mad to dismiss the fact that DC is the best points scorer in history from the conversation. I think it should hold significant weight.

Against other 1st choice kickers, yes - and even then it would be points-per-match, rather than pure points, (and even then it'd be mitigated by playing with the best team in the world as opposed to an also-ran. Kicking percentage would probably be the most useful metric there, which still has plenty of caveats).
Against any other position - no.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Against other 1st choice kickers, yes - and even then it would be points-per-match, rather than pure points, (and even then it'd be mitigated by playing with the best team in the world as opposed to an also-ran. Kicking percentage would probably be the most useful metric there, which still has plenty of caveats).
Against any other position - no.

See to me that's just discrediting one of the most important and difficult skills in the game. (And another reason why rugby is one of the worst sports to decide a GOAT due to the completely different skillsets)

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I am not sure of your point.

I haven't performed a forensic analysis but it certainly looks like most of the ones who call him the goat came from the same side of the globe.
Thought it was obvious but i guess it was just me. My bad.

 

[Saintjay]

Why? Especially in a team sport?

Why do people insist on objective measures for entirely subjective views?
There are times when objective measures provide a convincing argument (eg Bradman), I fail to see why a lack of objective measures (eg Parisse / Dupont) provides argument ending evidence - especially in a team sport.

I'm not saying it's arguement ending. The debates so fine on Goats in a team sport. It's how do you narrow it down. I don't think you can tbh.

Someone could name someone who's never played international rugby or picked up by a top flight club. Yet could be considered the GOAT.

It's difficult enough with different positions. Reid vs Parisse. Would Parisse have done better than Reid in the All Blacks team, or Reid for Italy. Was Parisse good only because he was in a poor team, or would he be better in a good team etc, etc.

 

[Which Tyler]

See to me that's just discrediting one of the most important and difficult skills in the game. (And another reason why rugby is one of the worst sports to decide a GOAT due to the completely different skillsets)

Except... it's not being discredited at all

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Except... it's not being discredited at all

Really?

No

Against any other position - no.

 

[Which Tyler]

Carter being the kicker for the best rugby team of all time, does not make him a better rugby player than McCaw. He may or may not be, but his scoring points isn't what makes the difference.
I don't see how that is discrediting Carter's ability to kick a rugby ball.

Maybe we mean different things by "discrediting"

But again, I'll go back to my core point - GOAT is a subjective opinion with no right answers. Objective measures can help an argument, but ultimately, are close to irrelevant next to subjective opinion.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Surely you need some measure of sucess or recocogition ie trophies. It helps narrow the debate.

Absolutely not.
The counterargument is quite clear in football.
Albiol has a FIFA world cup and two eurocups under his belt. Neymar has no world cup and no copa america. Are we to conclude that Albiol is better than Neymar?
Was Capdevilla (WC and Euro) better than Zlatan?
Was Paulo Sergio (WC, CL, Intercontinental, etc) better than Laudrup? Or Dennis Bergkamp?
Are we to judge Mat Le Tissier poorly just because we wanted to play for Southampton?
I dont think so.

Magnus Carlsen was asked about Messi before 2022 (i.e. before Messi winning the WC) and when the reporter asked him about Messi not having a WC trophy in his shelf Magnus replied (i am paraphrasing): 'should i judge Messi differently because Higuain missed a clear chance on 2014's final? Why are we putting that on him? Why should we judge a player differently if his actions would have been (supposedly) the same."
I think he has a strong argument.

Personally I like to judge players based on what they do with the resources available in their team. If player X is surrounded by top talent i will judge him differently that if he is surrounded by plebs. I try to apply the same criteria to the competition they face.

Judging individual players in a team sport is more and artform than a science.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Are forwards even in the conversation? What chance does a prop have of being the rugby GOAT? Zero.

Thank you!
The funny thing is if you were to give a coach a blank sheet and ask him to build his new squad from scratch odds are he'll begin with a loosehead, and not because of the numbering.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I think rugby is among the worst sports to have a GOAT debate.

Agreed!
The bulk of players' careers is played at clubs/provinces/franchises and those face mostly local and a bit or regional competition. Hardly any intercontinental (until recently).
We still argue about Crusaders vs Saracens/Toulon/Leinster, with people on both sides considering it a no-brainer.