Originally posted by Gibbon
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
-
Of course I can't prove it, but it's common sense that Lomu would not smash guys like Tuilagi, Tindall, Ellison, SBW or Visser out of the way like he did to Carling and so, simply because those guys are so much more powerful than in the past; he wouldn't be such an exception these days.And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014 -
You may be right about lomu not being able to dominate as physically as he did, but he would still be the most formidable wing in the world if he had been playing (and training to todays standards) today.
Likewise Campese. Whilst defences are indeed better organised he would have adapted to todays training standards and would have been one of the best wingers in world rugby.
it is quite ridiculous to say that yesterdays players would not have competed in todays rugby as yesterdays players would have been training according to standards of todays professionals.Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyoneComment
-
Official RWC 2015 Site - RWC 2015
Interesting reading back on recent history like this. Zinzan Brook recalls having great difficulty tackling Lomu himself and he was by no means small.
They do agree with your point Mich regarding modern training methods etc and that Lomu caught people unprepared in that era.
I still maintain he'd have a huge impact in the modern game due to his size/speed/hand-off and the sheer size of his bloody thighs!Comment
-
A few would, but remember; many of today's players are trained professionally from about age 14 or 15, and not 20 or so as in the past. Also, there's a generational size difference that's quite noticeable, especially if you got used to being one of the bigger guys 20 years agoOriginally posted by DodgyAgent View PostYou may be right about lomu not being able to dominate as physically as he did, but he would still be the most formidable wing in the world if he had been playing (and training to todays standards) today.
Likewise Campese. Whilst defences are indeed better organised he would have adapted to todays training standards and would have been one of the best wingers in world rugby.
it is quite ridiculous to say that yesterdays players would not have competed in todays rugby as yesterdays players would have been training according to standards of todays professionals.
. Lomu is one matter, but Campese; I'm not sure, I don't think defences are fooled so easily now and Campese didn't have extraordinary speed and power to compensate.Yes, both would be good, but I don't think they'd be exceptional now. Sure, if you want to theorize Lomu being even taller, even heavier and even faster then he'd make a huge impact, but that's stretching it a bit too far. Campese would possibly be an outstanding sevens player though, maybe the best of all, where there's less importance attached to sheer strength and more importance attached to handling and agility.
And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014Comment
-
It's just part of the evolution of the game IMHO. As the forwards have transitioned from being fat knackers to mountains that can move at pace, the back have had to get bigger to compensate. And vicky-vercky , bigger backs mean you need more agile muscle to take them out. All part of being a professional game.
Case in point is that the likes of Shane Williams' days were numbered (again IMVHO).
Comment
-
It's your 'common sense' not everybody's. Let's just agree to disagree.Originally posted by Mich the Tester View PostOf course I can't prove it, but it's common sense that Lomu would not smash guys like Tuilagi, Tindall, Ellison, SBW or Visser out of the way like he did to Carling and so, simply because those guys are so much more powerful than in the past; he wouldn't be such an exception these days.But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition. Pliny the youngerComment
-
Originally posted by fckvwls View PostOfficial RWC 2015 Site - RWC 2015
Interesting reading back on recent history like this. Zinzan Brook recalls having great difficulty tackling Lomu himself and he was by no means small.
They do agree with your point Mich regarding modern training methods etc and that Lomu caught people unprepared in that era.
I still maintain he'd have a huge impact in the modern game due to his size/speed/hand-off and the sheer size of his bloody thighs!
Brooke was brilliant, but not very big; 6'3'' and 16 stone; that's not big at all for a back row forward in first class rugby.And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014Comment
-
If anyone is overrated due to poor defence making him look good it's manu tuilagi.
imho.Keeping calm. Keeping invoicing.Comment
-
I think you're right; I think 15s and 7s are evolving further apart and 7s is getting a boost from going to the Olympics, and that's where you'll see the likes of Shane Williams. 15s will be dominated by big men, unless some law changes are made or the pitches are made a few yards wider. Personally I'd like to see wider pitches, but that would be imppossible for many clubs to achieve; if the game were to be played on Gaelic football pitches there might be more chance for the pure speedsters; as it stands, the likes of Lagisquet, Nigel Walker (the only top international wing with proven sub 10.5 times for 100m) and Christian Cullen (who was truly quick in his early days) may be numbered.Originally posted by Pondlife View PostIt's just part of the evolution of the game IMHO. As the forwards have transitioned from being fat knackers to mountains that can move at pace, the back have had to get bigger to compensate. And vicky-vercky , bigger backs mean you need more agile muscle to take them out. All part of being a professional game.
Case in point is that the likes of Shane Williams' days were numbered (again IMVHO).Last edited by Mich the Tester; 13 November 2012, 12:33.And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014Comment
-
Did I mentioned I was in the same form as Shane Williams at school?
Yes? Well okay, I don't have many claims to fame and that is the best of them.
Not something that people generally care about but it helps in the game of 6 connections.
Comment
- 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
- Umbrella companies, beware JSL tunnel vision now that the Employment Rights Act is law Today 06:11
- 26 predictions for UK IT contracting in 2026 Yesterday 07:17
- How salary sacrifice pension changes will hit contractors Dec 24 07:48
- All the big IR35/employment status cases of 2025: ranked Dec 23 08:55
- Why IT contractors are (understandably) fed up with recruitment agencies Dec 22 13:57
- Contractors, don’t fall foul of HMRC’s expenses rules this Christmas party season Dec 19 09:55
- A delay to the employment status consultation isn’t why an IR35 fix looks further out of reach Dec 18 08:22
- How asking a tech jobs agency basic questions got one IT contractor withdrawn Dec 17 07:21
- Are Home Office immigration policies sacrificing IT contractors for ‘cheap labour’? Dec 16 07:48
- Will 2026 see the return of the ‘Outside IR35’ contractor? Dec 15 07:51

Comment