Amobokoboko
Waikato Junglist
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,724
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
On what base do you define greatest? Fastest, most tries or creating chances.
Greatness ins't a measure of an amazingly skilled player... To me it's more a measure of the man himself and the contribution he's made to the sport.
eg. Colin Meads, arguably the greatest All Black ever, in his prime wouldn't match up to any decent Lock by todays standards... And thats not surprising considering today they are full-time payed athletes.
Be careful what you say. Cymro doesn't agree with that point of view. I just see the difference in play between matches nowadays and matches played 30 or 40 years ago. Not just in speed, but in all aspects the game has changed. There is no way those players would be outstanding players today. Not that it's an insult, like Cymro wants us to believe, but just a bit of prove that the game progresses constantly.
It's normal that in today's rugby, players are more complete than they were 30 or 40 years ago. The sport has changed drastically, it turned pro 16 years ago and hasn't been the same since.
On what base do you define greatest? Fastest, most tries or creating chances.
Yeah some of those players are old but what I was really getting at was Jonah. Im reading on this thread that Jonah would be nothing these days because peoples belief in 'latest is greatest' and if thats what you believe, thats what you believe.
If Jonah would be nothing these days because of blah blah blah then so would be Christian Cullen, he'd be nothing too. Or is there different standards if the player happens to be one of your favourites?....
Like I said Im not a believer in 'latest is greatest'. I believe a 20yr old Cullen and a 20 yr old Jonah would do well in todays Super Rugby. Thats what I believe.
Its just funny to me to say for example...'Oh Cullens my favourite player, hes the man but hes not as good as Mills, CJ or Beale 'cos they've had the latest trainning'.
Agree with this, first part sums it up perfectly.
Ah here we go, a post full of assumption, wrong assessment and trying to take the high horse
You are the one who just said that the great players of the past are not good enough, we don't know for sure but the way you make it out these players are not good enough to live up with the so called 'modern greats'. Just remember ... through these greats the game has developed without them, the game would not be what it is today. Also if you read what I said you would understand what dan the man said is completely what I agree with.
See what dan the man said
Also Nick, I have seen little or no one say what I said about the old school players getting pro training on this board before. So its not an argument that happens all the time.
And luckily my view on this topic is not made purely by what has been mentioned before in this particular thread, I've discussed this many times both on this forum in the past, and with mates. So it's an argument that is often brought up, in fact I remember you brining it up last time you jizzed your pants over Gareth Edwards...Im going to turn this around. What about the likes of Howlett and co back in the games of yester-year without the professional training, youth system etc that all the modern players have had, would they have been able to have coped with the game?
I want to see who the greatest winger is or was and then learn from what they do. Please say who they play/played for
Jesus guys we've had this discussion before ...Ryan Giggs is the greatest winger of all time.