• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A new GIANT winger for Waratahs: Taqele Naiyaravaro (MASS)

I'm wondering how many grass roots, Alofa Alofa type players you could get, for the same amount of money they are paying this guy ... I bet its a MAS ... er ... a few
 
Shaggy said:
I'm wondering how many grass roots, Alofa Alofa type players you could get, for the same amount of money they are paying this guy ... I bet its a MAS ... er ... a few
Click to expand...
I doubt they've mortgaged the house for him Shaggy... this bloke was playing reserve grade footy in the NRL, so his bargaining power wouldn't have been great. I'd say he would have been lured with the promise of development and increasing his value over time by working toward a wallabies jumper.
 
sanzar said:
I doubt they've mortgaged the house for him Shaggy... this bloke was playing reserve grade footy in the NRL, so his bargaining power wouldn't have been great. I'd say he would have been lured with the promise of development and increasing his value over time by working toward a wallabies jumper.
Click to expand...


That's good then... I don't mind so much when they buy them cheap
 
Shaggy said:
That's good then... I don't mind so much when they buy them cheap
Click to expand...

Yeah, the challenge will likely more be one of hanging onto him if Cheika makes something out of him. Whilst wing is pretty interesting for a guy his size, I'd imagine the long term strategy would be making him an outside centre to draw guys in and then offload to a faster winger.
 
ABs2011 said:
I see your 120kg and raise you 15kg :)



http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/10043495/Turbo-Tupou-explosive-hat-trick-wows
Click to expand...


no fkn way.........those Pacific Islanders are downright incredible sometimes...one hundred and thirty five kilos and he's running like a fkng winger. Love the dummies and all too...
According to stereotypes, he shouldn't be able to scrummage for shhit, but honestly, as a backup Tighthead, if he costs you a couple of penalties at scrum time but is that much of a handful for 20min, I'll take "it".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sanzar said:
It's not exactly rocket science though (well, it sorta is...), it's just the simple physics of it. People - myself included - immediately think "if they can teach this 120kg behemoth to handle the ball well and he has pace, then he will hurt defences". Pretty simple really.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple though is it. If it was the rugby world would be full of 120kg+ wings......

In basketball you often hear coaches state: "you can't teach height". While this is undeniably true, size is certainly not the only attribute that you can't "teach". No amount of gym work is going to make Cory Jane as big and strong as this guy, but likewise no amount of training is going to give this kid the Cory Janes ability under the high ball and ability to read the game. Just as going to the gym will improve Jane's size and strength, training will improve Naiyaravaro's ability under the high ball and ability to read the game, but there is a limit to how good he will get in these areas.

There seems to be an assumption that with training you can turn any big fast guy into a quality rugby player. That is far from the case. I guess my point is that size alone isn't a great indicator of whether someone has the potential to be a good rugby player - it certainly helps, but you need other things too (things that you may not necessarily ever possess no matter how much training you do). Obviously size (and speed to some degree) are easy for the average punter to assess (and get excited about), but most rugby coaches will tell you that there are many other attributes that they consider to be far more important...

When assessing rugby players I ask a simple question: are they good rugby players. Obviously I haven't seen too much of Naiyaravaro, but based on the fact he can't crack the NRL it would suggest to me he isn't a very good league player! Watching a few highlights of him on youtube haven't convinced me he is going to be a quality Rugby Union player either - they basically consist of him hitting the ball up like a front-rower, and he seems to lack any acceleration (a key attribute for a win in Union). If we were talking about a giant young Union wing who was carving it up at lower levels I think people would have every right to be excited about his prospect. However that is not the case. I do hope I'm proved wrong and Naiyaravaro proves to be a success in Union (as I don't want to be wishing failure on anyone!), I just don't think people should be getting overly excited about him based solely on his size. If however he starts performing on the field I no reason not to get excited!
 
all sanzar is saying is if a guy can ball AND he's big, then it's better. If he's huge and is a shhit player, no good...I don't think too many people (jokes aside :p ) really get excited by size alone. Obviously there aren't millions more enormous wingers in the world for a reason. It's an incredible coincidence that a player should have a proper high Rugby IQ, be sound technically, have the footspeed, body control AND be gigantic. Lomus really don't grow on trees...
 
Big Ewis said:
all sanzar is saying is if a guy can ball AND he's big, then it's better. If he's huge and is a shhit player, no good...I don't think too many people (jokes aside :p ) really get excited by size alone. Obviously there aren't millions more enormous wingers in the world for a reason. It's an incredible coincidence that a player should have a proper high Rugby IQ, be sound technically, have the footspeed, body control AND be gigantic. Lomus really don't grow on trees...
Click to expand...

Based on this thread alone this does not appear to be true. There have been questions as to whether he is eligible to play for Australia, and suggestions he could be a bolter for the Wallabies next year! As far as I can tell these have little to do with the guys rugby playing ability, but are based almost solely on his size....
 
Darwin said:
It's not that simple though is it. If it was the rugby world would be full of 120kg+ wings......

In basketball you often hear coaches state: "you can't teach height". While this is undeniably true, size is certainly not the only attribute that you can't "teach". No amount of gym work is going to make Cory Jane as big and strong as this guy, but likewise no amount of training is going to give this kid the Cory Janes ability under the high ball and ability to read the game. Just as going to the gym will improve Jane's size and strength, training will improve Naiyaravaro's ability under the high ball and ability to read the game, but there is a limit to how good he will get in these areas.

There seems to be an assumption that with training you can turn any big fast guy into a quality rugby player. That is far from the case. I guess my point is that size alone isn't a great indicator of whether someone has the potential to be a good rugby player - it certainly helps, but you need other things too (things that you may not necessarily ever possess no matter how much training you do). Obviously size (and speed to some degree) are easy for the average punter to assess (and get excited about), but most rugby coaches will tell you that there are many other attributes that they consider to be far more important...

When assessing rugby players I ask a simple question: are they good rugby players. Obviously I haven't seen too much of Naiyaravaro, but based on the fact he can't crack the NRL it would suggest to me he isn't a very good league player! Watching a few highlights of him on youtube haven't convinced me he is going to be a quality Rugby Union player either - they basically consist of him hitting the ball up like a front-rower, and he seems to lack any acceleration (a key attribute for a win in Union). If we were talking about a giant young Union wing who was carving it up at lower levels I think people would have every right to be excited about his prospect. However that is not the case. I do hope I'm proved wrong and Naiyaravaro proves to be a success in Union (as I don't want to be wishing failure on anyone!), I just don't think people should be getting overly excited about him based solely on his size. If however he starts performing on the field I no reason not to get excited!
Click to expand...

You're talking about rugby coaches, so exactly this is the case, a rugby coach as Michael Cheika. He was closely watching him, he saw interesting things in him and Michael believes that he could make a good rugby player. I think Cheika has more authority as rugby coach than any of us. That doesn't mean that this guy will be the best winger in the world or anything, can be a failure, it's a bet Michael.

I think like you, big players usually aren't very complete. It's what I always say about Lomu, he wasn't a complete player. He never could play at fullback, he simply didn't have the skills to play at that position. But he had the advantage of playing at a time when rugby wasn't professional, he also played in the early years of professionalism. So what happened in 1995, when he humbled to Mike Catt is something that couldn't happen today because the athletes are better trained. If Lomu is a rugby player today, if he plays against England would have to face big players such as Manu Tuilagi (110 kg) or Luther Burrell (109 kg), then he wouldn't have so much advantage as in 1995.
 
Darwin said:
Based on this thread alone this does not appear to be true. There have been questions as to whether he is eligible to play for Australia, and suggestions he could be a bolter for the Wallabies next year! As far as I can tell these have little to do with the guys rugby playing ability, but are based almost solely on his size....
Click to expand...

well the whole Rugby following community understands the importance of physical strength, and see its importance rising and rising, and some fans around the world could forget midway through their thoughts and anticipation that the guy still needs those other vital qualities to play a said position...

But although the wing and FB positions in particular world wide remain "quiet" in the MASS department (although George North, Yoann Huget or Savea aren't particularly tiny and some of the most popular atm), coaches do look for bigger guys by default. I remember some guy in France saying that his coach would say smt "in Rugby, we're looking for guys who are big. We'd rather take a guy who's big and raw but has room to improve over somebody who's good but doesn't have the muscle".

Needless to say some guys survive at test level without being huge, and that will remain always. The Brice Dulin, Christian Wade, Matt Giteau's of the world will I think always have their place in test Rugby. But truth be told, for it's an overwhelming reality of Rugby and jokes aside, power/muscle is becoming an almost-vital requirement.

But back to this guy, the huge winger: ppl travel in their thoughts when they see such a picture and stats about a potential future winger because these things provoke images in their minds, and they anticipate things that might not even be close to what the guy can manage.
If this guy could just play aggressively though, as his dimensions mandate he should, can run even mediocre lines and find average position - just that, and he would be an enormous threat to defenses. I'm assuming he's a winger because he's got some kind of adequate pace btw. Like, blessed with enormous size while still being mobile and fast, he should be able to manage the rest and translate into at very least a pretty good club level winger, at LEAST. His size alone spares him the crazy work other regular/small wingers have to incorporate to their game like Vincent Clerc or others.
 
Darwin said:
Based on this thread alone this does not appear to be true. There have been questions as to whether he is eligible to play for Australia, and suggestions he could be a bolter for the Wallabies next year! As far as I can tell these have little to do with the guys rugby playing ability, but are based almost solely on his size....
Click to expand...

I might be wrong Darwin, but ever since Lomu, I reckon people have been searching for the "next Lomu". Lomu was crazy exciting right? He changed the game in some ways, and I think ever since him, people have been on the look out for another guy who might be able to bring back that same excitement to the game as what Lomu did. Maybe it will never happen, but when a 120kg+ winger comes into the fold with pace peoples ears prick up. I'd put my money on this guy not being the next Lomu, but I think you'll find that is where the excitement stems from. Im not excited about this guy at all, nor the big Kiwi prop (although he does look more promising). Like you said, if the guy had come through the grades, been pricking ears wherever he played, then maybe some excitement would be warranted. Otherwise he's just another hulky frame and that's not much good to anyone.
 
Conrad Smith said:
You're talking about rugby coaches, so exactly this is the case, a rugby coach as Michael Cheika. He was closely watching him, he saw interesting things in him and Michael believes that he could make a good rugby player. I think Cheika has more authority as rugby coach than any of us. That doesn't mean that this guy will be the best winger in the world or anything, can be a failure, it's a bet Michael.

I think like you, big players usually aren't very complete. It's what I always say about Lomu, he wasn't a complete player. He never could play at fullback, he simply didn't have the skills to play at that position. But he had the advantage of playing at a time when rugby wasn't professional, he also played in the early years of professionalism. So what happened in 1995, when he humbled to Mike Catt is something that couldn't happen today because the athletes are better trained. If Lomu is a rugby player today, if he plays against England would have to face big players such as Manu Tuilagi (110 kg) or Luther Burrell (109 kg), then he wouldn't have so much advantage as in 1995.
Click to expand...

Mmmm, what do you mean by this exactly? Lomu played from 1994 to 2003 - that is almost entirely in the pro era. I get the feeling you have only just watched highlights of Lomu's career, would that be fair? Along with many other, I watched Lomu's career from when he was playing Number 8 for Wesley College, then for the NZ Sevens team, before bursting onto the scene. The guy was an absolute freak. I'm not sure many people that saw him play wouldn't agree. Sure he had some defensive deficiencies, and he was not a complete player, but in terms of what he brought to the game, none of that mattered one but because he was simply SO good. If I could make a world team from past and present Lomu would be the first guy on my list.

Also, players are getting bumped off al the time still, its generally about talking technique, not the size of the tackler. So I;m not sure there's much of an argument to be made there.
 
Conrad is just saying Lomu played when ppl generally were considerably smaller than nowadays. Yes it was technically the pro era already, but that's not the point. That's just semantics, he meant an era with lingering, substantial traces and aspects of the older era.

Personally, I (sorry LG !) think Lomu would have dominated even today, but obviously not as much as back then. I don't want to start this debate, because it's not even like it's got different interesting interpretations, but a 120kg winger who had tremendous natural strength, like, beyond the pure mass, a great nose for the game and incredible body control and balance along with good footspeed...plus let's not forget the company around him, the AB's....that dominates in any era. BUT, yeah, not *that* much.
I don't think there's too much to add...guys are way bigger, and everywhere, and defenses are tighter than ever easily...
 
In the 90s Lomu was running over 12st players. These days the average weight of backs is probably about 15st. I remember when Ireland played NZ years ago, the Irish targeted Lomus wing with kicks in behind. It was an easy territory gain for Ireland. Also they put 16st Shane Horgan on the wing to mark him and Horgan was big enough to nullify Lomu's attacking threat. So Lomu was the weak link in the NZ team that day.
 
but on other days, he would score with 5 Frenchmen on his back.
 
ABs2011 said:
Mmmm, what do you mean by this exactly? Lomu played from 1994 to 2003 - that is almost entirely in the pro era. I get the feeling you have only just watched highlights of Lomu's career, would that be fair? Along with many other, I watched Lomu's career from when he was playing Number 8 for Wesley College, then for the NZ Sevens team, before bursting onto the scene. The guy was an absolute freak. I'm not sure many people that saw him play wouldn't agree. Sure he had some defensive deficiencies, and he was not a complete player, but in terms of what he brought to the game, none of that mattered one but because he was simply SO good. If I could make a world team from past and present Lomu would be the first guy on my list.

Also, players are getting bumped off al the time still, its generally about talking technique, not the size of the tackler. So I;m not sure there's much of an argument to be made there.
Click to expand...

I saw almost the entire Lomu's career since he dressed the black jersey. I remember seeing him several times in NZ Sevens, for example in Mar del Plata 2001. To my Lomu is the most overrated player in the rugby history, people who don't closely follow rugby, love him, they always say: 'Lomu is the best rugby player forever'. Yes, he was a good winger, he had power but wasn't a complete player. I started playing this sport as a winger, it's the position that requires less knowledge of the sport. If you have a great athlete from the NFL like Adrian Peterson or Vernon Davis, who never played rugby but want to take advantage of their excellent athleticism, you must put them on the wings, and he will not be involved in the rucking, he will not be involved in mauling and others things.

I never would picked to Lomu as my first choice, If I could choose between all players in history. Who the hell can pick a winger as the first player on his team? For me the most important positions are a front row, a second row and a loose forward. The backbone of a team: 2 or 3, 4 or 5, 8, 9 or 10 and an outside back IMO.

I prefer a player like Tana Umaga, who I consider better than Lomu. I never would picked to Lomu as my first choice, not even think he's among the top five ABs in NZRU's history. Really, even I would say I prefer Christian Cullen before Lomu, a much more complete player with more skills. Do you think that Lomu is better than Tana Umaga? Really??? To my Tana Umaga is 10 times better player than Lomu.
 
Last edited:
Once again you missing their point, and by some distance.
Lomu is arguably the biggest, fastest, strongest and most explosive player ever - those factors combined
To say Lomu is overrated as a winger in his time, farkid lad, you on something?

Hugo Porta was not selected for his ability to run over people or tackle them off; neither should Lomu be concidered for his ability to do a dropkick or intercept a ball, to wear the "complete player" tag, what bull**** is that?

Lomu never scored against the Boks as he was marked by the likes of Joost vd Westhuisen, James Smalll and Japie Mulder.
He deserved that attention as he was that frightening a prospect. And when Japie Mulder said he was freak of nature, I would not disagree
 
Conrad Smith said:
I saw almost the entire Lomu's career since he dressed the black jersey. I remember seeing him several times in NZ Sevens, for example in Mar del Plata 2001. To my Lomu is the most overrated player in the rugby history, people who don't closely follow rugby, love him, they always say: 'Lomu is the best rugby player forever'. Yes, he was a good winger, he had power but wasn't a complete player. I started playing this sport as a winger, it's the position that requires less knowledge of the sport. If you have a great athlete from the NFL like Adrian Peterson or Vernon Davis, who never played rugby but want to take advantage of their excellent athleticism, you must put them on the wings, and he will not be involved in the rucking, he will not be involved in mauling and others things.

I never would picked to Lomu as my first choice, If I could choose between all players in history. Who the hell can pick a winger as the first player on his team? For me the most important positions are a front row, a second row and a loose forward. The backbone of a team: 2 or 3, 4 or 5, 8, 9 or 10 and an outside back IMO.

I prefer a player like Tana Umaga, who I consider better than Lomu. I never would picked to Lomu as my first choice, not even think he's among the top five ABs in NZRU's history. Really, even I would say I prefer Christian Cullen before Lomu, a much more complete player with more skills. Do you think that Lomu is better than Tana Umaga? Really??? To my Tana Umaga is 10 times better player than Lomu.
Click to expand...

Conrad, my question to you (which you have not answered) was regarding your comment that Lomu had the advantage of playing when rugby wasn't professional. This is factually untrue. As I said he played almost all of his career during the pro era, so why say otherwise? Seems you don't have your facts right.

Regardless though, it is pointless to rate him based on anything other than what he achieved in the era he achieved it in - it is all relative after all. There is no point trying to judge Lomu based on how you think he would have gone in the current era or a different era to what he played in. Chris Lewis's winning time in the 1984 Olympics would have got him 8th in London 2012. Does that take anything away from his achievements? Of course not.

Look I don't want to get into a debate about how good Lomu was or wasnt, it is subjective after all. What you can say about Lomu is that he did things on the rugby field year after year that no player even came close to matching. He scored freakish try after try at the highest level of rugby and he was often unstoppable. Gena_ZA has made this point to you very clearly above. No one has come close to Lomu in this respect since.

Not to mention the fact that calling Lomu "the most overrated player in rugby history" really just shows your true colours in terms of your rugby knowledge.

Tana was a very good player, arguably a great one, but there are many others who I believe have done the same things he did on the field. The same cannot be said about Lomu - that is my point.

On a side note, you do realize in terms of the "most important" positions on the park, you have literally named every single position on the field, and I quote you: "front row, a second row and a loose forward. The backbone of a team: 2 or 3, 4 or 5, 8, 9 or 10 and an outside back" except the position that your "first choice" player played ;)

Are you sure you've been watching rugby since the 90s? It certainly doesn't come across like that most of the time :huh:
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Al Bangor
New Super Rugby Teams Name Coaches
Replies
2
Views
1K
Groundhog
Groundhog
E
Super Rugby Atlantic
Replies
2
Views
362
Al Bangor
Al Bangor
4
NZ Herald: Super Rugby All Time Pasifika XV
Replies
3
Views
249
Umaga's Witness
Umaga's Witness
Dai Perk
Time for the USA question again...
2 3
Replies
55
Views
10K
jw_rally
jw_rally
TRF_Olyy
Aphiwe Dyantyi banned for four years
2
Replies
35
Views
9K
TRF_heineken
TRF_heineken

Latest posts

Top