• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Banned substances in rugby

He was a good rugby player, but very overrated. Jonah Lomu is the most famous rugby player in history, but there were better players than him in his position.

Lomu made ​​many tries in RWC 95 and 99. Then people who don't look rugby and just look RWCs believe that he was the best. But for example: Christian Cullen has more tries in the Tri Nations than Lomu. Doug Howlett also has more tries than Lomu on ABs. Then Lomu is just that, the greatest idol of the people who don't follow rugby.

The true rugby supporters don't consider Lomu as the best rugby player in history, because they look rugby 365 days a year, they follow the Super Rugby, Tri Nations and other tournaments that Lomu was overtaken by several players. People who only follow the RWC think that Lomu is the God of rugby. I disagree.

I prefer Christian Cullen, Doug Howlett, Bryan Habana and others wingers. I don't even consider him as the best wing in rugby history.

Cheers

How could you consider Howlett to be a better winger than Lomu? How many tries did you see Howlett create...? Just because he was the list player in the back line doesn't mean he should get the plaudits for placing down the ball.

I mean I just watched a highlights package for Howlett on Youtube, and about 95% of the tries were catch and run five or ten metres and dot the ball down. Howlett benefited from being part of one of the most dominant All Blacks eras in history, one where they were able to score tries simply by outflanking the opposition (notice that the other main wingers from his time, Gear, Rokocoko and Sivivatu, all had particularly high strike rates, and all managed to score multiple braces of tries in matches).
 
Last edited:
How could you consider Howlett to be a better winger than Lomu? How many tries did you see Howlett create...? Just because he was the list player in the back line doesn't mean he should get the plaudits for placing down the ball.

I mean I just watched a highlights package for Howlett on Youtube, and about 95% of the tries were catch and run five or ten metres and dot the ball down. Howlett benefited from being part of one of the most dominant All Blacks eras in history, one where they were able to score tries simply by outflanking the opposition (notice that the other main wingers from his time, Gear, Rokocoko and Sivivatu, all had particularly high strike rates, and all managed to score multiple braces of tries in matches).

How many skills had Lomu? In addition to run fast and be strong? He could give a 20-meter pass easily like Dan Carter? He could easily kick the ball like Bryan Habana? How good was offloader? Like Jean De Villiers or Conrad Smith? He could give a reverse-pass like Will Genia or Sonny Bill Williams? He could a side-step like Quade Cooper?

For me Lomu was like Alesana Tuilagi but more faster. A giant of 125 kg who could broken any defense but I saw better players than him.

Also 20 years ago the players were smaller. Currently the backs are bigger. Lomu played against Mike Catt in 1995, today would face Manu Tuilagi and Billy Vunipola who are as strong like the best Lomu.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
How many skills had Lomu? In addition to run fast and be strong? He could give a 20-meter pass easily like Dan Carter? He could easily kick the ball like Bryan Habana? How good was offloader? Like Jean De Villiers or Conrad Smith? He could give a reverse-pass like Will Genia or Sonny Bill Williams? He could a side-step like Quade Cooper?

For me Lomu was like Alesana Tuilagi but more faster. A giant of 125 kg who could broken any defense but I saw better players than him.

Also 20 years ago the players were smaller. Currently the backs are bigger. Lomu played against Mike Catt in 1995, today would face Manu Tuilagi and Billy Vunipola who are as strong like the best Lomu.

Cheers

I tend to agree with this. Lomu was a phenom in the amateur era and was a huge part of the reason the game went pro. In context he is a legend and rightly so but I would pick a lot of other wingers ahead of him now if everyone were at their best. So it depends on what angle you take.
 
How many skills had Lomu? In addition to run fast and be strong? He could give a 20-meter pass easily like Dan Carter? He could easily kick the ball like Bryan Habana? How good was offloader? Like Jean De Villiers or Conrad Smith? He could give a reverse-pass like Will Genia or Sonny Bill Williams? He could a side-step like Quade Cooper?

For me Lomu was like Alesana Tuilagi but more faster. A giant of 125 kg who could broken any defense but I saw better players than him.

Also 20 years ago the players were smaller. Currently the backs are bigger. Lomu played against Mike Catt in 1995, today would face Manu Tuilagi and Billy Vunipola who are as strong like the best Lomu.

Cheers

Ok, first of all, Vunipola is a number 8. Regardless, he's still only the same size as Lomu, but significantly slower. Tuilagi is 10cm's shorter and weighs almost 20kg's less than Lomu did.

Lomu was fast and powerful, and had a fend like Cory Jane. I don't think you understand how potent Lomu was on attack.

Yes, Lomu wasn't a great kicker, nor was his passing game anything to gloat about, but he didn't need these things, what's the point in chipping the ball over the fullback when you can literally run right over them? Just because he didn't possess the skills of a first five it doesn't mean he wasn't a good rugby player.

When picking between two players, one with a greater skill set and one who is going to have a larger positive effect on the game, I know who'd I'd go for, and I know who I'd say is the better rugby player. They're one and the same, just because you don't possess all the skills rugby players can use it doesn't mean you're any less valuable.
 
I've never really liked this distinction between great athletes and great rugby players. I get that some players shine through athleticism and others through technique and intelligence, but end of the day, a great rugby player is a guy who does great things on a rugby pitch. Doesn't matter how. And, to be a great rugby player, it's pretty difficult not to have a complete package. I imagine we've all seen some massive guys who simply didn't have the fire, or didn't know what to do on the pitch, or didn't have the hands - or whatever. Just because a guy cannot perform every facet to a masterpiece standard does not mean they don't have excellent technical, mental and physical attributes in general.
 
Ok, first of all, Vunipola is a number 8. Regardless, he's still only the same size as Lomu, but significantly slower. Tuilagi is 10cm's shorter and weighs almost 20kg's less than Lomu did.

Sorry to be a pedant, because I don't disagree with what you are saying.... But:

Billy is at least 126kg (130kg according to his club S&C dept.) and Manu is 110-112kg.
AKAIK Lomu played the vast majority of his career at around 118-120kg, so he definitely wasn't anywhere near 20kg heavier than Manu and definitely not heavier than Billy.
 
Sorry to be a pedant, because I don't disagree with what you are saying.... But:

Billy is at least 126kg (130kg according to his club S&C dept.) and Manu is 110-112kg.
AKAIK Lomu played the vast majority of his career at around 118-120kg, so he definitely wasn't anywhere near 20kg heavier than Manu and definitely not heavier than Billy.

As far as I'm aware Lomu was 125-130 kg for a lot of his career, though I could very well be wrong. He's definitely considerably heavier and taller than Manu, and Vunipola is hardly a fair comparison given his position, but either way there's not too much between their measurements.
 
I think that's wrong, he gained a lot of weight after he got ill which is when he weighed 130kg-ish.
But I've only really seen him listed by reliable sources at 120kg and he simply doesn't look like he was any heavier than that.
He was big - but hardly muscle-bound.
 
I'd say the most likely time for any player to take them would be when they're in school but how many would actually do that at that age?
you would. You said yourself there was creatine in the protein you had.
 
He was a good rugby player, but very overrated. Jonah Lomu is the most famous rugby player in history, but there were better players than him in his position.

Lomu made ​​many tries in RWC 95 and 99. Then people who don't look rugby and just look RWCs believe that he was the best. But for example: Christian Cullen has more tries in the Tri Nations than Lomu. Doug Howlett also has more tries than Lomu on ABs. Then Lomu is just that, the greatest idol of the people who don't follow rugby.

The true rugby supporters don't consider Lomu as the best rugby player in history, because they look rugby 365 days a year, they follow the Super Rugby, Tri Nations and other tournaments that Lomu was overtaken by several players. People who only follow the RWC think that Lomu is the God of rugby. I disagree.

I prefer Christian Cullen, Doug Howlett, Bryan Habana and others wingers. I don't even consider him as the best wing in rugby history.

Cheers

You're an idiot. I saw the whole of Lomu's career and all of the other players you mentioned. I watched almost all of his provincial and Super rugby games, which you obviously didn't, cause if you think he only ever played good at world cups then you truly are stupid. He was an absolute machine for Counties and the Blues. With Jonah and Joeli Vidiri on the wings, Counties went from second division to the 1st div final in a couple of years.

Doug Howlett, while a fine player, is nowhere near Lomu's level.. that you actually think Howlett was ever better than Lomu is madness and really does show you just haven't watched enough of Lomu. Christian Cullen was a fullback most of his career so that isn't a good comparison really. They were both freakish, but in different ways. And before you tell me I haven't seen anything other than world cups, I was a young kid on the terraces at the Palmerston North showgrounds watching Cullen play for Manawatu in 1994 and 1995 before anyone had heard of him.

Number of tries doesn't really denote anything. If it did then Caleb Ralph would be one of the great Super Rugby players. He wasn't.

How many skills had Lomu? In addition to run fast and be strong? He could give a 20-meter pass easily like Dan Carter? He could easily kick the ball like Bryan Habana? How good was offloader? Like Jean De Villiers or Conrad Smith? He could give a reverse-pass like Will Genia or Sonny Bill Williams? He could a side-step like Quade Cooper?

For me Lomu was like Alesana Tuilagi but more faster. A giant of 125 kg who could broken any defense but I saw better players than him.

Also 20 years ago the players were smaller. Currently the backs are bigger. Lomu played against Mike Catt in 1995, today would face Manu Tuilagi and Billy Vunipola who are as strong like the best Lomu.

Cheers

I appreciate that athletes are bigger now, but still nobody has the physical traits Lomu had. Savea is one of the world's best wingers in the modern game, and he is pretty much just a poor man's Lomu; smaller, slower. So how does that match up with your point?

Bryan Habana can't kick for sh*t either so that is a weird point to bring up. Lomu had far better footwork and a better offload than Habana.

You're making pointless comparisons with irrelevant players. The others above covered why these points are redundant.

The fact that he was a combination of those skills and footwork and the size and pace that we frankly haven't seen since mean he was a once in a lifetime player, and indeed one of the best wingers ever. And that he did it all while suffering a debilitating illness makes it even more remarkable. If he never got sick I only wonder just how much better he could have been.
 
I tend to agree with this. Lomu was a phenom in the amateur era and was a huge part of the reason the game went pro. In context he is a legend and rightly so but I would pick a lot of other wingers ahead of him now if everyone were at their best. So it depends on what angle you take.

I see this point a fair bit, but I don't ever agree with it. Savea is generally considered one of the best wings in world rugby, as is George North. And they're both essentially just smaller/slower versions of Jonah. You're disregarding how much better Lomu would have been given the increased training and everything of today. Regardless of when he was born, Lomu had gifts nobody before or since has had, so of course he would dominate whatever era he is theoretically plugged into.
 

Latest posts

Top