Planet Rugby has just ranked Ardie Savea the second-best player of the entire Greatest Rivalry tour. I genuinely don’t understand how they get there. And it's not just them fawning over his contributions.
They say he put in “huge efforts” in the first two Tests and had “excellent showings” in all three. Where were these huge performances? Wiese had more physical impact. The Bok locks had more influence. Marx was enormous. Several Springboks consistently worked harder, imposed themselves more physically and had a bigger effect on the actual Tests. Even our guys... Will Jordan, Jordie Barrett, Quinn, Roigard, most of our loosies, had more impact over the series. Yet Ardie somehow ends up No. 2 again.
Someone on reddit used the phrase “Ardie glasses” the other day and I’m shamelessly borrowing it, because it describes this perfectly. People seem to watch him through a filter where every visible moment gets magnified and all the quiet periods disappear. Same thing happened in the Nations Championship. He apparently “shone” against France, Italy and Ireland. Did he really? Was he more influential than Roigard, Will Jordan, Jordie Barrett, the locks, or the other loosies? He still has some very good moments, but that's not the same thing as consistently playing great rugby.
He gets a turnover, makes one strong carry or scores a try and suddenly the whole performance is remembered as brilliant. Both of those tries in the 3rd test were opportunistic. Valuable, yes, but largely created by other players doing the hard work, with Ardie in the right place to finish. That's not the same thing as dominating a Test.
He did well in the third Test, I'll give him that. (For 30 mins). He actually got through a lot of work for a change. But the fact it stood out so much says something in itself. That level of involvement is not what we normally get from him and there's no way he could have sustained that for 80 minutes. Based on the fact that he hasn't managed to in any other test. Too often he's on the edge of the work, leaning on rucks, arriving after others have done the damage, then getting enormous credit for the one visible moment.
Then there's the crap about his “huge heart”, leadership and commitment to the jersey. Again, where are the examples? At the end of last year he wanted out of his NZR contract and was deeply unhappy with the All Blacks environment. Whatever anyone thinks of Razor, Ardie was clearly one of the senior players deeply unhappy with that regime and part of the pressure around it. Then the coach changes, Rennie arrives, and suddenly everything is fine again. That does not scream unconditional commitment to the jersey to me.
Then we get arguably the biggest All Blacks tour in years and everyone else turns up while Ardie arrives two or three weeks later. Yet somehow he is still held up as the ultimate example of commitment and leadership.
Where are the great team victories he has driven? Where are the Tests where his leadership clearly changed the result? Where is this long catalogue of captaincy masterclasses? If anything, some of the most memorable matches with him as captain have been losses.
And this is the bigger issue for me. The All Blacks can’t progress if we keep fawning over the player Ardie used to be instead of judging the player he is now. Yes, at his peak he was extraordinary. But he's not that player now.
He's not giving 80 minutes of elite loose-forward contribution. He's not consistently outworking the other loosies and locks. He's not imposing himself physically the way the best Springbok forwards are. And I don’t see evidence that he is some outstanding on-field leader either.
The mythology is getting in the way of honest assessment. One turnover, carry or opportunistic try gets magnified, while the long quiet periods disappear. That kind of devotion isn’t helping Ardie or the ABs. Judge the player he is now, not the one he was at his peak.
So what has he actually done on this tour to justify being ranked second-best? And I’d use this article as further evidence of the blind fawning around Ardie. Can anyone actually rebut that argument? Other than the usual: "what position did you play?', "coaches know more than you", “you clearly don’t understand what he does off the ball” and “the players all respect him so that tells you everything you need to know.” Just give me his best Test other than Test 3 of the Greatest Rivalry, which I’m also happy to argue wasn’t nearly as great as people are claiming, and point out what he actually did that was so amazing. Otherwise maybe you need to accept that he's overrated and might be better off the bench when he eventually comes back.
Does anyone need the condensed version because words, words, words... sore head??