Originally posted by doomage
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Is Rugby turning a bit, erm...metrosexual?
Collapse
X
-
-
Yes, speed off the mark for a big guy and power were what set him aside from the rest in his day, but the exaggerated claims about his 100m time are just silly. 120kg men don't do 10.4 for the 100m.Originally posted by doomage View PostI was a pretty winger. A pretty bad winger.
As for Lomu, awesome player, what people often overlook was his speed off the mark, impressive for a big guy. But he played with a lot of passion and vision as well, looking for work, hitting the line at pace while in support. He gained a lot of hard yards as well through the middle of the park and sucked in plenty of defenders creating lots of space. Not the best defender but when he put a big hit in we all felt it.
Arguably Jeff Wilson & Christian Cullen were better players in that era, but Lomu won a lot of games for the ABs.And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014Comment
-
It takes a pretty big cannon.Originally posted by Mich the Tester View PostYes, speed off the mark for a big guy and power were what set him aside from the rest in his day, but the exaggerated claims about his 100m time are just silly. 120kg men don't do 10.4 for the 100m.Keeping calm. Keeping invoicing.Comment
-
You can argue all you want, but you can't prove it ergo facile argument. Lomu too would have benefited from the modern training methods. It's an age old argument esp with boxers and whilst it can be interesting is unprovable and therefore no more than a diversion over a few pints.Originally posted by Mich the Tester View PostI don't know if you've been watching any rugby, but you might have noticed that players these days are bigger, faster and fitter than they were when Lomu was at his peak. That doesn't make Lomu a bad player, he was in fact very good in his day. Now, however, his speed and strength would not be so exceptional as they were then.But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition. Pliny the youngerComment
-
Just like that big Shandypants Fran Cotton. Sheeesh!!Originally posted by Pondlife View Post
What next?
“The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first vessel to have departed is Britain”Comment
-
Gavin Henson's designer lingerie?Originally posted by shaunbhoy View PostJust like that big Shandypants Fran Cotton. Sheeesh!!
What next?
And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014Comment
-
Originally posted by Mich the Tester View PostGavin Henson's designer lingerie?
Now Charlotte Church's...............MMMmmmmmm“The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first vessel to have departed is Britain”Comment
-
As does everybody. Lomu used a modern approach well before others; now everybody's using modern methods. Sure, he was good, but his speed has been exaggerated and he simply wouldn't plough through modern players the way he did then.Originally posted by Gibbon View PostYou can argue all you want, but you can't prove it ergo facile argument. Lomu too would have benefited from the modern training methods. It's an age old argument esp with boxers and whilst it can be interesting is unprovable and therefore no more than a diversion over a few pints.
Campese was clever, but I don't believe he'd get away with half the tricks he played, simply because defences are well organised now, andd back in his day defence training was basically an afterthought, even at the highest levels. Now you have defence coaches, video analysis, well worked out defence theories, and perhaps even more important, many forwards are now just as quick as backs so there's nothing like as much space. Just look at the first try in this vid. If NZ defended like that now the whole back line would be dropped; it's shoddy, just what you expect from amateur teams. Dog legs everywhere, isolated tacklers, back row too slow to get across, no line of defence or second line of cover, all pressure applied on fly half and nothing on the centres, no coordinated rush including wings and outside centre starting outside their opposite number to push play back infield, I could go on. Good in their time, but shamateur days and professional days can hardly be compared.
Yes, Campese was good, but could anyone play that way today? No.Last edited by Mich the Tester; 13 November 2012, 12:03.And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014Comment
-
I have a good GIF for her, but I keep getting trouble for making threads NSFW!Originally posted by shaunbhoy View Post
Now Charlotte Church's...............MMMmmmmmmOriginally posted by Stevie Wonder BoyI can't see any way to do it can you please advise?
I want my account deleted and all of my information removed, I want to invoke my right to be forgotten.Comment
-
You can't prove it.Originally posted by Mich the Tester View PostAs does everybody. Lomu used a modern approach well before others; now everybody's using modern methods. Sure, he was good, but his speed has been exaggerated and he simply wouldn't plough through modern players the way he did then.
Circa 1973 there was a boxing match.
Boxer X was bigger, stronger and @10 years younger than boxer Y
Both X and Y had recently fought boxer Z. Boxer X had knocked out boxer Z in 2 rounds and knocked him down numerous times in the first round. Boxer Y had lost to boxer Z over the distance and had his jaw broken.
The result is well known, but completely against the informed opinion. Unless Lomu was playing now at his peak all your definitive statements are no more than speculation and opinion, not fact.But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition. Pliny the youngerComment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- What does the non-compete clause consultation mean for contractors? Feb 19 07:59
- To escalate or wait? With late payment, even month two is too late Today 07:26
- Signs of IT contractor jobs uplift softened in January 2026 Yesterday 07:37
- ‘Make Work Pay…’ heralds a new era for umbrella company compliance Feb 16 08:23
- Should a new limited company not making much money pay a salary/dividend? Feb 13 08:43
- Blocking the 2025 Loan Charge settlement opportunity from being a genuine opportunity is… HMRC Feb 12 07:41
- How a buyer’s market in UK property for 2026 is contractors’ double-edge sword Feb 11 07:12
- Why PAYE overcharging by HMRC is every contractor’s problem Feb 10 06:26
- Government unveils ‘Umbrella Company Regulations consultation’ Feb 9 05:55
- JSL rules ‘are HMRC’s way to make contractor umbrella company clients give a sh*t where their money goes’ Feb 8 07:42


Comment