Back on topic...
Lomu was the star of the '95 world cup and escaped from the ''99 world cup with his reputation in tact. But so did Kirwan and Jones.
Lomu couldn't dream of scoring the try Kirwan did in 1987. 'Not forgetting Kirwan scoring a fine try in the final despite being in great pain. Kirwan, while embarrassed by Campese in the '91 semi final (not a knock on Kirwan, Campese was just that good), had a great second half where he tried to inspire a NZ victory. You know Daniel, more than anybody, that I rate Lomu and get annoyed when you don't give him credit, but it's easy for people to understand why Lomu was great whereas they may not appreciate Jones. Lomu is a megastar because he's easy to get, not because he's this great player.Jones was unaminously dubbed the world's best player in 1987 and was the star of that tournament, perhaps moreso than Lomu, it's just that Lomu is easier to get. Such transparency shouldn't influence this poll. I understand why Lomu did so well and I'm glad he did... but there's plenty of world cup stuff Lomu couldn't dream of doing because he's not as skilled as Kirwan.
I probably would have given the thing to Campese, because while Lomu was held at bay in the '95 final, when Campese played a good defensive team in New Zealand in 1991 he did gamebreaking stuff not even Serge Blanco could do. No other player in the world would have tried what he did, let alone pull it off... you just can't counteract stuff like that. I know he didn't score in the final, but that was down to one unlucky bounce of the ball. Lomu was beaten in the final by South Africa... Fitzpatrick said it best of Campese that when he got that first try that was almost the game, because you know when things are so tight that such gamebreaking genius wins you games.