• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Create Jonah Lomu

C

captainamerica

Guest
Originally posted by Los Lover@Feb 24 2005, 07:15 PM
My main point is that this is the GAMING forum - why would you bypass Jonah for your all-time XV when he would clearly be the best winger (or there or thereabouts) in all the games that have included him? Doesn't really make sense..
Alright first off, I'm not letting you get away with 'this is the GAMING forum' nonsense. That has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

We're talking about Jonah Lomu being put into an All Time XV, Best of XV, Winning XV -- whatever. If you want to create this XV into Rugby 2005, cool -- but it is not based on selection from the existing rugby video games. That's ridiculous.

Now, you boys have a lot of passion for the man-mountain and that's cool. I admire that big guy too and I admire his contribution to the sport (let alone his really cool video game
<
)

So, instead of listing the reasons why Jonah Lomu won't grace my XV, I'll just write down a handful of names, in which 11 & 14 should be picked from:

David Duckham
David Campese
John Kirwan
Bryan Williams
Tony O'Reilly
Carel du Plessis
Sean Fitzpatrick (in open play, you could always find him out there)

And 187 . . . I'm just realising how funny this quote is of yours. Hilarious!

Originally posted by 187
I'm not putting a team together based on skill!... I am putting a team together that is going to win!

PS.
5,000 a tackle sounds great, but I'm not even getting into the poisoning issue -- it's never been proven, only accusations, which won't hold up in a court of law.
 
C

C A Iversen

Guest
It's never been proven who poisoned the team, and I couldn't seriously blame South Africa, but in reality we all know that game should have been postponed by a day.

I think everyone knew the New Zealanders were sick, (about 13 of them including reserves) and were not fit to play.

Money dictated that they had to play on that day, and it is a disgrace for the IRB to this day that they have no back-up plan for the World Cup final.

It is unlikely to ever happen again, but should not have happened to start with.

The ONLY shame the South African players should have felt, was for not supporting New Zealand by refusing to play untill they were fit. I would never play against a side with several sick players, not even for my country's first world cup.

Still, hindsight is always viewed with 20/20 vision.
 
C

captainamerica

Guest
Originally posted by C A Iversen@Feb 24 2005, 07:55 PM
The ONLY shame the South African players should have felt, was for not supporting New Zealand by refusing to play untill they were fit. I would never play against a side with several sick players, not even for my country's first world cup.

Still, hindsight is always viewed with 20/20 vision.
That is a very true statement and on moral grounds it is very sound. I agree wholeheartedly with it.

I also see the point that the game was scheduled (obviously) and anything (in theory) could have happened up to that and if you make that gesture (of postponing the match), then it feasibly could be used again and again. Unlikely, but it could be abused.
 
C

C A Iversen

Guest
True Cap, and history is fun to debate.

I think there should be, (and I know this sounds stupid) neutral doctors.
Maybe three of them, and after all the other teams bring them with them, so they could earn their money?
Maybe the IRB aren't as inovative as us Rugby Forum guys tho?
 
C

captainamerica

Guest
Originally posted by C A Iversen@Feb 24 2005, 08:04 PM
Maybe the IRB aren't as inovative as us Rugby Forum guys tho?
Again! You with the true statements.

I don't think it would kill the IRB to have neutral doctors assisting with team doctors for an unbiased opinion in big/massive tournaments such as the World Cup. How hard is it to test for food poisoning, get some trainee doctors for work experience (and match day seats on the touchline! I'd go to medical school for that!)

Though it is professional sport and there is an ass-load of money involved, it'd be nice if we could take any doctors word for it and give people the benefit of the doubt.

It's also be nice if we could trust the host nations food . . . if that was the case (
<
), but overall, it's going to be down to the teams and the people they surround themselves with for their success. And that's not entirely a bad thing.
 
C

C A Iversen

Guest
I guess it's impossible to plan for everything, just history is full of things we wish we could have seen go another way.......
 
T

THE CHIROPRACTOR101

Guest
Originally posted by Los Lover+Feb 24 2005, 03:25 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Los Lover @ Feb 24 2005, 03:25 PM)</div>
<!--QuoteBegin-Boltman
@Feb 24 2005, 04:09 AM
Whats up with all the name calling?


*****, ********.

Do you all really feel it necsesary to use such words to get your points across?

Chill out fellas, the game is due soon, then you can stop your e-insults.

Go have a few beers, and relax, life is way too short to be wasting time typing insults to someone you dont even know over the internet.
I guess it depends on what insults you personally or gets you angry...

I'd rather be called a name than have someone say something mind-numbingly stupid or make a false assertion about me.


I found Chiro's confusing and false comment to be more frustrating and infuriating than I would have felt had I been called any number of names.

"sticks and stones...."?

Good to hear a voice of peace though.

<
[/b]
what comment was that?...i thought you brang me into your little argument with allen iverson
<
...

no harm done right...b...
<


nah kidding...peace ouutttttttttt.....
 
B

Black|Raven

Guest
Originally posted by C A Iversen@Feb 24 2005, 07:55 PM
It's never been proven who poisoned the team, and I couldn't seriously blame South Africa, but in reality we all know that game should have been postponed by a day.

I think everyone knew the New Zealanders were sick, (about 13 of them including reserves) and were not fit to play.

Money dictated that they had to play on that day, and it is a disgrace for the IRB to this day that they have no back-up plan for the World Cup final.

It is unlikely to ever happen again, but should not have happened to start with.

The ONLY shame the South African players should have felt, was for not supporting New Zealand by refusing to play untill they were fit. I would never play against a side with several sick players, not even for my country's first world cup.

Still, hindsight is always viewed with 20/20 vision.
that is exactly what should've been done, it makes no sense in beating a weak or sick team.......it defeats the purpose of playing at all.

true you have to find their weaknesses, but find them when they are 100% fit to play.
 

Latest posts

Top