Stephen Jones' Best Ever World Rugby XV he's ever seen in his entire life

Discuss..

Jones Glorious XV, methinks.

Yes, the idiocy continues. Shaw, Pagel, Chris latham, Guscott, laugh:

Thatd be a first for them in anyones team. Is his senility complete or do the north need knowledgeable rugby journalists as well. What an embarrassment to the game this plonker has been.

Even for Jones this is bizarre. Is it honestly real!?

One of daftest selections ever. He is just looking for clicks.

Well, it’s hard to argue against what he thinks is the best team he’s seen. Sure, we can suggest our own. But this clearly states that this is, in his opinion, the best HE has seen. So nothing to discuss. NEXT!

The Oracle wrote:Well, it’s hard to argue against what he thinks is the best team he’s seen. Sure, we can suggest our own. But this clearly states that this is, in his opinion, the best HE has seen. So nothing to discuss. NEXT!

Ah, the LordDowlais school of thought. Makes complete sense

BamBam wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Well, it’s hard to argue against what he thinks is the best team he’s seen. Sure, we can suggest our own. But this clearly states that this is, in his opinion, the best HE has seen. So nothing to discuss. NEXT!

Ah, the LordDowlais school of thought. Makes complete sense

I’ve never been more insulted in my whole life!

But seriously though, if you posted YOUR top 15 of players you’ve ever seen who am I to argue with it?!

Here's my selection:

1. Leonard
2. Wood
3. Tadgh Furlong
4. Eales
5. Johnson
6. Richard Hill
7. McCaw
8. Dallaglio
9. Joost
10. Carter
11. Lomu
12. Horan
13. O'Driscoll
14. Campese
15. Cullen

I actually thought you were mocking him / others who post in that way

The Times asked a number of reporters/pundits to name their "Best Ever" team. I assume the others will be printed as the days pass - but one thing the article stated was that Guscott was the only unanimous selection.


I can never come up with a team as it is nigh on impossible to compare across eras. I would not be able to select one person to play 13 from a list that includes (but not exclusive to) Gerber, Sella, Guscott and BOD. I also would never select someone who is still playing.


Now this is of course his personal list, but you do have to wonder whether a team that contains more Argentinians than Kiwis is genuine. Especially when most would argue Hernandez is not even the best Argentinian 10 ever.

LondonTiger wrote:The Times asked a number of reporters/pundits to name their "Best Ever" team. I assume the others will be printed as the days pass - but one thing the article stated was that Guscott was the only unanimous selection.


I can never come up with a team as it is nigh on impossible to compare across eras. I would not be able to select one person to play 13 from a list that includes (but not exclusive to) Gerber, Sella, Guscott and BOD. I also would never select someone who is still playing.


Now this is of course his personal list, but you do have to wonder whether a team that contains more Argentinians than Kiwis is genuine. Especially when most would argue Hernandez is not even the best Argentinian 10 ever.

Doesn't Guscott write for the Times?

Nah, BBC

LondonTiger wrote:Nah, BBC

You sure. I think he may have at one point.

Collapse2005 wrote:Here's my selection:

1. Leonard
2. Wood
3. Tadgh Furlong
4. Eales
5. Johnson
6. Richard Hill
7. McCaw
8. Dallaglio
9. Joost
10. Carter
11. Lomu
12. Horan
13. O'Driscoll
14. Campese
15. Cullen

Yes pretty good. Would put fifty on Jones team.

Collapse2005 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Nah, BBC

You sure. I think he may have at one point.

 Cannot recall him ever writing for them, but my memory is not what it was. With the Times being part of News International you would not normally see BBC pundits writing for them. Sky pundits always (hence Barnes and Atherton) and nowadays also some BT guys.

In that case you are probably right.

Looks a half decent team to me. I'd have had Henson over Bunce though.

Stephen Jones is probably the best ex player WUM there is

chucks out the bait and waits for it to be clicked!

The Oracle wrote:But seriously though, if you posted YOUR top 15 of players you’ve ever seen who am I to argue with it?!

I think the fact this man has a considerable voice and platform within the media - and then produces a team like this - is a valid reason to query both him and this selection. It's hardly the first time he's come out with some b@tsheet opinions on rugby in the last 5 years or so. Seems way past his sell by date as a journalist. If you know how he behaves on twitter as well I'm sure you'd feel validated in questioning his value.

I saw a copy of the Sunday Times after the England NZ game this autumn. I think he wrote two pieces - the match report and the player ratings. England were a good 10-15 points higher than NZ overall - fine, it's an opinion, but it was as if he wasn't watching the game. Some of the ratings were absolutely shocking - 9/10s for average performances, and underrating some of the better performances. Well worth trying to find that if anyone has access to it.

The real problem was the fact that he had a man of the match in the player ratings, but picked a different man of the match in the game report. And this wasn't just for man of the match, there were wild inconsistencies between the numerical assessments and the written report on specific players. Even taking into account the fact that someone else might have written the ratings - which is giving him a lot of credit - it was as if he didn't watch the game. As I said, well worth trying to find the copy online.

All told, I don't really have an issue with SJ. It's nothing personal, he's just an unbelievably poor journalist and probably shouldn't have the platform he does in this day and age. This team selection seems to demonstrate that clearly.

Jerry Guscott definitely used to write for The Times in the mid to late 00s. Not sure if he still does.

As mentioned above, this team selection came out during a podcast. Haven't listened to it, but here's the link: https://play.acast.com/s/theruck/bestteamever

What's the point of wums if people think you're being deathly serious even when you throw your hand up and say: "I was only kidding.  Yis take me too seriously.  That's not me best team ever...really."

It's panto season.  So a Big "Oh YES it is!!!" comes back his way.

I'd have only two from his list. Edwards and Campese.

..... but I'm only joking really....

OH No you're not!

SecretFly wrote:I'd have only two from his list.  Edwards and Campese.

..... but I'm only joking really....

OH No you're not!

Stupid woman people

When are the MODS going to step in and start to take control of things ?

some of the members on this forum are ruining it. I do not comment on here much anymore, yet there are still members like BamBam and Oracle who cannot help being obsessed wit me.

What a pair of dimwits.


As for the team, he has picked some damn good players, his wingers were the best of their era, Chris Latham was probably the best fullback during his time, Hernandez is a weird one, as is Shaw and Lydiate, but the others were arguably some of the best in their fields when they were playing.

The best in their fields? Then why isn't Einstein on the team? Jones is a chancer. Omitting Ali and Einstein is unforgiveable.

SecretFly wrote:The best in their fields?  Then why isn't Einstein on the team?  Jones is a chancer.  Omitting Ali and Einstein is unforgiveable.

Because Einstien isn't a rugby player.

Au contraire, he played in the U20 6N (on the Italian wing). Not sure he'd make a 'best ever' squad tho as he got nowhere near the speed of light.

There weren't many rugby journalists back in the day, so they were all must-reads to some degree. I got frustrated with Jones when he started to get in slanging matches with southern hemisphere journalists, especially Spiro Zavos. When the Times put up a paywall, it cut me off from one of the major pipelines of rugby reporting but, by then, I didn't miss it at all. Jones had become irrelevant.

Oddly, I've come to understand him a bit better since he started taking part in the Times podcast. When it comes down to it, he's a wind-up merchant. He worked in an era when rugby was regarded as an obligation by the broadsheets rather than something to bring in readers. He always looked for an angle to stir things up.

I often bristled when I read Jones' columns, even when he favoured England. Having heard him on the podcast, I can see that some of his work (only some, mind you) was tongue-in-cheek. By contrast, Spiro Zavos always seemed to have a chip on his shoulder.

If you ask Jones to pick a best XV, then he is never going to produce the usual suspects: he's going to see it as his job to be provocative. When he picks Simon Shaw at lock, he's reminding us that, in different circumstances, it's possible he could have been just as much an English icon as Martin Johnson is now.

I now quite enjoy Jones on the podcast, because I can see what he's doing. However, he's a disaster on social media. He is very dismissive of the non-professional rugby coverage ecosystem which as grown up. However, he's not the gatekeeper anymore, and I don't think he understands that we don't need him, or the old broadsheet coverage, as we once did. I also suspect he tweets too often when he's had a few drinks. He wouldn't be the first to fall into that trap but it's a measure of how he has a very narrow view of who his peers are today.

Good analysis

Yes well said RF, a blow to the heart of the man....a necessary one.

tigertattie wrote:Stephen Jones is probably the best ex player WUM there is

chucks out the bait and waits for it to be clicked!

Ex player WUM? Was he a player? Or do you mean he WUMs about ex (I.e. retired) players?

He was a player? Gaww. Youd think hed be anle to recognise a good one then.

Was going to edit that but somehow it looks apt

Taylorman wrote:He was a player? Gaww. Youd think hed be anle to recognise a good one then.

No, he wasn’t a player as far as I know.

I have a vague recollection that Jones played some form of rugby (the equivalent of semi-pro in the amateur days) but no real idea. He’s a character journalist and not to be taken too seriously. Sadly his equivalent as a co-commentator/pundit, Stuart Barnes, has actual air time.

At least barnes has a bit of character, quite enjoy his little digs now and then.

I'm working on the presumption that Jones never actually saw McCaw, Hill or Dallaglio, on account of their magical cloaks of invisibility. It all makes a lot more sense when you view it that way.

Taylor, Barnes’ digs are mostly about England, because he felt he never got a fair go vs Andrew. He actively hates England every time he gets the mike. He’s like the opposite of Jiffy for his own nation.

Cyril wrote:Taylor, Barnes’ digs are mostly about England, because he felt he never got a fair go vs Andrew. He actively hates England every time he gets the mike. He’s like the opposite of Jiffy for his own nation.

That's where Jones stands in. The Welsh Anglophile. He more than compensated for the English Hibernophile, Barnes.

Barnes does love Ireland speschaily (sic) Leinster/Munster. He practically wets his pants in the Euro comps when an Irish player gets the ball.

Thing about Stuart Barnes though is that he does come out with some interesting analysis at some point during a game.

A lot of what he says is overblown, repetitive and cliched (Sky Sports standard). At other times, he's aloof and critical - trying to 'predict' what will happen from a kick/the next period of the game etc. instead of just providing a nuanced addition to the main commentary.

But then he delivers something interesting once or twice a game. The kind of thing that being an ex-player helps to bring. That's where he differs from SJ - the experience of being an international rugby player, and a creative/attacking one at that.

The comparison to Jiffy is interesting. I understand why non-Welsh fans would have an issue with him. But other than the obvious WUMs/partisan support that come out in 6Ns (when most non-Welsh fans will see him), when it comes to actual analysis, there aren't many better than Jiffy. You can see his rugby intelligence and reading of the game even in the current era - the 'numbers' and 'go on!' calls can be cliched, yeah, but the fact he calls the game as it's happening, providing in depth analysis of plays and systems during the next stoppage, reveals the fact he knows what he's talking about. Playing League and in the SH definitely helped, I think, with that. I think as fans it can be easy to underestimate how hard consistently accurate and interesting analysis can be from the sidelines - someone like Martyn Williams, say, was deemed an 'intelligent' rugby player in an era after Jiffy, yet he doesn't provide nearly as interesting or intuitive analysis, in my opinion.

As with Jiff, being a former #10 probably helps, but once you get past the sticky Sky Sports gloss that comes with Stuart Barnes, he does provide an interesting angle in the wider field of analysis from time to time.

He does come across a bit pro-Lions-anti-English though, and tends to view games through preconceived lenses too often. Also, if Jiffy gets criticised for having any annoying voice, then so must Barnes.

Jiffy is a very good League co-commentator. Awful at Union. Barnes is a bitter has-been.

If I had to pick a side to win a match to save my life:

1.Os du Randt
2.Sean Fitzpatrick
3.Carl Hayman
4.Martin Johnson
5.John Eales
6.Richard Hill
7.Richie McCaw
8.Lawrence Dallagio

9.Joost van der Westhuizen
10.Dan Carter

11.Jonah Lomu
12.Tim Horan
13.Brian O'Driscoll
14.Jason Robinson
15.Christian Cullen

If I was picking a side of great players who I simply loved watching play rugby:

1.Os du Randt
2.Keith Wood
3.Iain Milne
4.Martin Johnson
5.Brad Thorn
6.Thierry Dusautoir
7.Michael Jones
8.Jerry Collins

9.George Gregan
10.Dan Carter

11.Rupeni Caucaunibuca
12.Will Greenwood
13.Brian O'Driscoll
14.Jason Robinson
15.Matt Burke

Cyril wrote:Barnes does love Ireland speschaily (sic) Leinster/Munster. He practically wets his pants in the Euro comps when an Irish player gets the ball.

The boy needs diapers...that's a lorrah pizz.............

Only with Leinster these days (the IRFU side in all but name). Might as well put it on the jersey. Leinster is Ireland (and massively subsidised), Munster is paying off the debt (or not), Connacht is fecked and the embarrassing cousin is Ulster. Their views is all tied up with their politics.

miaow wrote:Thing about Stuart Barnes though is that he does come out with some interesting analysis at some point during a game.

A lot of what he says is overblown, repetitive and cliched (Sky Sports standard). At other times, he's aloof and critical - trying to 'predict' what will happen from a kick/the next period of the game etc. instead of just providing a nuanced addition to the main commentary.

But then he delivers something interesting once or twice a game. The kind of thing that being an ex-player helps to bring. That's where he differs from SJ - the experience of being an international rugby player, and a creative/attacking one at that.

The comparison to Jiffy is interesting. I understand why non-Welsh fans would have an issue with him. But other than the obvious WUMs/partisan support that come out in 6Ns (when most non-Welsh fans will see him), when it comes to actual analysis, there aren't many better than Jiffy. You can see his rugby intelligence and reading of the game even in the current era - the 'numbers' and 'go on!' calls can be cliched, yeah, but the fact he calls the game as it's happening, providing in depth analysis of plays and systems during the next stoppage, reveals the fact he knows what he's talking about. Playing League and in the SH definitely helped, I think, with that. I think as fans it can be easy to underestimate how hard consistently accurate and interesting analysis can be from the sidelines - someone like Martyn Williams, say, was deemed an 'intelligent' rugby player in an era after Jiffy, yet he doesn't provide nearly as interesting or intuitive analysis, in my opinion.

As with Jiff, being a former #10 probably helps, but once you get past the sticky Sky Sports gloss that comes with Stuart Barnes, he does provide an interesting angle in the wider field of analysis from time to time.

He does come across a bit pro-Lions-anti-English though, and tends to view games through preconceived lenses too often. Also, if Jiffy gets criticised for having any annoying voice, then so must Barnes.

Yes good points about the ex player thing, especially at the level and style he played which requires him to think on the spot, and that comes through in commentary, Justin Marshall and earlier Murray Mexted were like that, and as with making on the spot decisions playing matches sometimes theyre great, sometimes they can blow up in your face and are hilarious. But at least theyre real time raw and honest.

Someone like Jones will sit back and take it all in then spin a report that tries, and fails, to replicate that sort of reaction...'what can I say to get people saying what on earth is he thinking'? so they're talking about him the same way.

Bit sad really.

king_carlos wrote:If I had to pick a side to win a match to save my life:

1.Os du Randt
2.Sean Fitzpatrick
3.Carl Hayman
4.Martin Johnson
5.John Eales
6.Richard Hill
7.Richie McCaw
8.Lawrence Dallagio

9.Joost van der Westhuizen
10.Dan Carter

11.Jonah Lomu
12.Tim Horan
13.Brian O'Driscoll
14.Jason Robinson
15.Christian Cullen

So, if I were picking one to stop them winning that match...

1. Jason Leonard
2. Brian Moore
3. Tom Smith
4. Sam Whitelock
5. Brodie Retallick
6. Serge Betsen
7. Neil Back
8. Billy Vunipola

9. Kyran Bracken
10. Jonny Wilkinson
11. Alesana Tuilagi
12. Will Greenwood
13. Conrad Smith
14. Bryan Habana
15. Josh Lewsey

Not necessarily the players I'd have in my own "save my life" XV, but the ones who I think might give your XV the most trouble. Your selection of Os du Randt immediately made me think of picking Smith, and it escalated from there...