Battle of the Rugby World Cup players

[Francis]

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.

[Fiery]

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.

There's also plenty of Lomu tries that Kirwan wouldn't have a hope of scoring.

Lomu > Kirwan

[Perm]

There's also plenty of Lomu tries that Kirwan wouldn't have a hope of scoring.

Lomu > Kirwan

In World Cups or overall?

[Fiery]

In World Cups or overall?

Both

[Perm]

Both

Disagree (again ), as a World Cup player I wouldn't hesitate in calling Lomu better, but overall I think Kirwan has it.

[Stefano]

Lomu was an amazing athlete. He was big, strong, fast! He was unstoppable: sometimes three players were not able to stop him. If you gave him the ball, he would score a try... But, rugby is not just running.

- Have you ever seen a good kick by Lomu? I have not
- Have you ever seen a good pass by Lomu? I have not
- What about defense? When someone kicked at him, he had no idea where to go...

This is my point: Lomu was an exceptional athlete. But as a rugby player he was not as great as Kirwan, Campese.

[chaminda_00]

If you want an all rounder Rugby player look no further then John Eales. But really its about how well someone played in their position or role in the side. Do you have a go at front rower cus they can't pass or kick the ball, its not their role in the side. A winger role is to score tries, anyhing else is a bonus.

[Fiery]

Lomu was an amazing athlete. He was big, strong, fast! He was unstoppable: sometimes three players were not able to stop him. If you gave him the ball, he would score a try... But, rugby is not just running.

- Have you ever seen a good kick by Lomu? I have not
- Have you ever seen a good pass by Lomu? I have not
- What about defense? When someone kicked at him, he had no idea where to go...

This is my point: Lomu was an exceptional athlete. But as a rugby player he was not as great as Kirwan, Campese.

Kirwan couldn't kick or tackle that well either

[Perm]

If you want an all rounder Rugby player look no further then John Eales. But really its about how well someone played in their position or role in the side. Do you have a go at front rower cus they can't pass or kick the ball, its not their role in the side. A winger role is to score tries, anyhing else is a bonus.

Nowadays front rowers are expected to be able to pass the ball equally well of both hands, whereas in the past it wasn't something that worried most players or coaches. With professionalism comes a certain work ethic and these players have worked hard to get their passing to a good level.

[Francis]

There's also plenty of Lomu tries that Kirwan wouldn't have a hope of scoring.

I agree. My point was that Kirwan's try was one of the all time great tries and that Lomu couldn't score a try that great.

Lomu > Kirwan

Dan, if your reading this you'll probably get a kick out me saying this:

While I agree Lomu scored tries Kirwan couldn't have gotten, it has to be said that with all the oppotunities he was presented, players like Kirwan could have scored *some* tries Lomu did. I've seen Kirwan run past and outmuscle three or four defenders in situations where he shouldn't be able to score. I think people look at Lomu and how he ran over people and think "he's so unstoppable". But with the space he was provided to do his thing, there were other wingers who could've scored in some of those situations, but wouldn't have done it in such an impressive display of brute force. Campese is one example, I've seen him slice through opposition defences when beat three/four defenders.

Again, people get Lomu because what he does is simple to get. It's impressive seeing a guy run all over people. But he often was provided plenty of space and there are some wingers who could score from his situation, only not in such an awesome display of power. Of course there were some tries only Lomu could have gotten, but I think it's overlooked how other wingers could have scored with an in-and-away, a side-step, a goose-step, a chip and chase etc in some situations.

As for Kirwan vs. Lomu. I love what I've seen of John Kirwan, he's one of my favourite players and for good reason - he was sensational. He had incredible pace, wonderful deceptive skills (watch him beat Campese all-ends-up in the second 1988 match) and was a far more complete player than Lomu. His case is helped by like a decade of good form. Thinking of him in Lomu's situation reminds me of a few tries I've seen him set-up. While he couldn't trample over some players, he was so strong and determined that he often drew in so many players committed to tackle him that he'd set up a try. One he would do with David Kirk where Kirk would go the blinds, pass to Kirwan, loop him, and score - the expectation from Kirk was that Kirwan could not only attract two defenders on him, but also free his arms and get a pass off. They did it for Auckland quite a bit and it worked a lot on the international stage. As far as I'm concermed, anybody who sets up tries like that is as good as someone who scores the try. In both cases, the winger in the reason the try occurred. So often I've seen Kirwan fend off one or two players, draw in two more who knew what it took to bring him down, and by having such an effect, he sets up a try. I don't think I've seen such a determined and confident winger like Kirwan.

Hard to see where Lomu has it over Kirwan to be honest...

[Fiery]

Hard to see where Lomu has it over Kirwan to be honest...

Size, strength and speed

[ohtani's jacket]

I don't think people took the poll that seriously.

For the record, I think Kirwan was a better player than Lomu & in many ways just as impressive in '87 as Lomu was in '95, but it was the nature of how Lomu scored that made him so famous. If you look at the try Kirwan scored against Wales down the touch line in '87 and then Lomu trampling over Catt, Kirwan's try displays far greater skill, but Lomu's try a winger shouldn't be able to do.

If you're talking about all-round skill, Wilson was better than both of them.

And Jones was better than both of them too. He was not only player of the tournament in '87 but revolutionised the open side flanker role. Having said that, I'm not sure exactly who I'd vote for as the greatest player in World Cup history.

[Fiery]

If you're talking about all-round skill, Wilson was better than both of them.
.

Excellent point

[chaminda_00]

Nowadays front rowers are expected to be able to pass the ball equally well of both hands, whereas in the past it wasn't something that worried most players or coaches. With professionalism comes a certain work ethic and these players have worked hard to get their passing to a good level.

End of the day the main role of a front rower is to gain yards and the main role of a winger is to score tries. Anything else is just a bonus, you not going to pick Matt Dunning over any half decent front rower cus he can kick drop goal. Its important these days to be more well rounded, but the prime objectives are still the same.

[Perm]

End of the day the main role of a front rower is to gain yards and the main role of a winger is to score tries. Anything else is just a bonus, you not going to pick Matt Dunning over any half decent front rower cus he can kick drop goal. Its important these days to be more well rounded, but the prime objectives are still the same.

No I wouldn't, and you aren't likely to pick one prop over another because he has a better pass. But what I'm saying is that these guys are expected to be able to pass off both hands and put one of their team mates through a gap. It is their main objective to gain yards up the middle, as you said, but they are expected to do other things also.