CAMPO: Few modern Aussie players would've made it in my era

I agree with a lot of your sentiments here but the game has got faster and the players that are going around now are a lot bigger and stronger. I remember seeing Vainga Tuigamala carry you on his back 20 metres and score a try. Back them a winger like him was a freak. A few years later Jonah Lomu burst on the scene. Nowadays half the sides going around have beasts like that in their side. You couldnt handle the big boys back then and you wouldnt be able to now Campo.

Spot on sheek. The game has become a job. The players, coaches and interviewers all agree with you when they say "a tough day at the office". NO it's not an office with its connotations of a "dingy little office, with a stingy ray of sunlight...and the ceasless tramp of feet". We need more players like Clancy and Campo to thrill us with pace, accelleration and flair. Some NZ teams have it and some of their after-match interviews show it. No tired platitudes but honest enjoyment spoken with a smile. Aussie players like Cooper, Beale and Genia need to be given room to m ove by the big guys up front. Then we can all continue to marvel at our great game.

Great point rabbitz. I often yell at the screen whenever a deliberately slow ball is being hatched by the half. At games I end up chatting to mates. The long, boring eternity it takes for the big men to get into position is killing our game. The half waits ages for them to set up a pod or a mini-maul and they get the ball about a minute after the first tackle was made. What happens next? They lumber up their 3 paces into the defence and then we go through the same slow motion and we wait again. Some teams clear the ball quickly and those games are good viewing and must be enjoyable to play for the fit player. There are two ways of ensuring quick ball is encouraged: 1. go "old school" and bring back rucking. The hands-on-the-ball contest when the pill is on the ground will go away immediately. It will force teams to put more players into the ruck thus freeing up space for the attack. 2. give the ref the power to do as they do in mauls "Use it.... one..." "Use it 2"......then take possession away with a scrum. Additionally, teams who opt for more driving mauls will bring defenders into that danger zone again freeing up space out wide for the attack to target.

Good on you Campo. I thought about the last 1st class team I played for in 1963 - provincial level - we finished mid table. The two wingers both ran sub 10.6 100 metres. One centre was an Olympic hurdler. A reserve back had run the 800 metres in world class time. Most were Uni students. Half the forwards had completed the famous Comrades marathon in under the required time to gain a medal. Sure the fitness training was nowhere near the level of today but do not think that these were not superb athletes - even if they trained on meat pies and beer! People go on about how fast the players are today - better coached but not faster. I recall one Club player by name of Nash who ran 3 X 10second 100 metres in one afternoon at an athletic event. On a poor track. Habana would not have come within a Bulls' roar! The skills level were very high as well. The difference is in the professional approach and the intense coaching.

im waiting for him to blame rugby league/nrl again for the "ills" of modern rugby union........

I wish that the Video footage of more games did exist. I have persona lly witnessed a number of All Black, Wallaby abd Springbok training sessions. The intensity and focuss on skill development is quite remarkable. I think the game is 5 yards quicker now than in Campo's era. As he said they were amateurs, this is a truelly professional era and not comparable. Zombie.

Steve Larkham

problem is our rugby talent is spread too thin. Makes us look like we are lower in quality. Only grade and national when campo played as a state team would occasionally be cobbled together for a touring team. I think the players of today are better athletes but it is theri job so there is routine in what they are doing. How many tests ayear when Campo played? Maybe 4 or 5? How many now on top of Super series. Yould still argue Pocock, Genia, Cooper would make the team back then at least. Different game today as well

Much ado about nothing. Campo has always liked attracting attention to himself and this dumb article is no different - tongue in cheek or fishing regardless. Intentional tosh but still marinated with the arrogance he can't control. Nobody can take away his skill and exploits on the Rugby field. That isn't in question. A finer winger we haven't had. That doesn't make him anything other than that though. Hairlines may change as will girth but he will always be a tosser. A beligerent ageing struggling with dimished legendary status tosser, but a tosser nonetheless.

Thats true Nick but the game is played differently and while those theories were applicable then they may not be so now in many situations. Fact is there is far more defenders in front of an attacking line than ever before. So while Ella played on the tackle line and was able to put people into space, now there is less space to put people into. There is still some but not as much as in the 80s.

"the space given to both inside and outside backs today is far less" I think you'll find the running rugby theory of Mark Ella was based on not giving the opposition any space and the attack having very little space to work in. Read his book, you might learn that this theory is not just from that period but went many years back and is still applicable today......if you have the skills.

jeznez, I saw it. wasn't his best. but his tackle on Lomu when most others failed, was surprisingly good!

Oh dear. I can see why Campo does it. It is so much fun watching you lot get cranky and have a bit of a rant.

yeah Rabbitz - gotta disagree big time. rux and mauls are tidier than they used to be. mauls are integral part of the game. mauls are about team work. often times we played a team that was bigger than us and we mauled better than them and won. prime example of the effectiveness of the maul was the canada tonga game at the WC last year. tonga were physically superior but were out smarted because they couldnt counter a maul. countering a maul takes team work and intelligence.

James, that Campo would be sooking about something else we can definitely agree on. And we weren't talking about the 80's but rather the 91 team. I can understand you'd pick the significantly stronger current props but having played a lot of front row I have to say their technique is far inferior to the older guys. At hooker Kearns matches Moore well in the physicality stakes - the guy was 109kg's and five percent body fat. Yes TPN is by far the more dynamic player but until he starts putting in 80 minute performances of high work rate his flashes of brilliance will not demand his inclusion. The second rows I will give you Horwill but Eales with identical height and weight measurements to Simmons of 2m 115kg stacks up in the power stakes and was a more skilful player and a better rugby mind - given identical height and weight they must have similar power so in this case the other skills stand out. In the backrow I didn't pick an openside, we agree on Willie and yes Coker is giving 9 kilos to Palu but Palu was coming back from injury and like Samo had a poor world cup - if we were genuinely picking a combined squad then moving Poido to blind side (or picking Higgers) and shifting Willie O to number 8 might be the more sensible play. We agree on 9, Cooper just out and out had a shocking WC - power being an issue aside he was hopeless, Lynagh as a former 12 would not have to have been hidden in defence. Horan and Little we can agree to disagree on but they were not small guys and cut it in pro-rugby later in their careers. Outside backs we agree on - if we pick for the modern era we take all three current players. I'd still pick Campo in the wider spaces of the 91 era due to him being our stand out player in that tournament. So front row - yes more power in the current side but significant scrummaging flaws, back row is also debatable but the number 8's of the current side both had week RWC's. You are correct that in general players today are stronger but in comparison to specifically the 91 team they struggle to stack up.

Look McCabe v Horan aside which i dont think we will agree on (i obviously think horan is a better more highly skilled player strength aside i just dont think he would compete as well as McCabe does in the modern game) - if you agree players now are stronger and bigger and spend more time in the gym then you cant say teams from the 80's could compete today. Not because they are more skilled or less skilled rugby players but because they cant compete size wise with the players of today. And by the same token if the players of today all spent less time in the gym and more time on soft skills the product would be different and Campo wouldnt be sooking everyday about this particular aspect of the state of the game. He would be sooking about something else no doubt.

James, I agree that overall players are more powerful now than 2000 when Horan stopped playing, but you are claiming that McCabe has an advantage over Horan due to his significant strength advantage, he was only a single kilo heavier and that is on a taller leaner frame. That is all I am pointing out. I have no idea what Horan's best bench press was but bench press is not a great indicator of useful strength on a rugby pitch - a much better indicator is best squat - don't know the stat for that either by the way. But given the similarity in weight and the fact that Horan was a stockier build I'd almost guarantee that Horan had better leg strength than McCabe does now.

Dear me. "To suggest he has significantly greater power surprises me". Look at the stats my friend. Players now on average are heavier, faster, stronger, taller and more powerful than 5 years ago. And considerably so five years before that and so on. This is across all posiitons. Including locks. And yes McCabe is one dimensional but the backs Horan came up against were smaller men than the ones McCabe is up against - there is less room to operate in and by convention he is always going to be more one dimensional than Horan - take Lomu out of the 90's and difference in strength and power is stark whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Read Gregans book (or any of the 90's players books or articles) on how the focus on training moved from skills to weights. I guarentee you that 95% of players in the modern era are more physically strong than their counterpart players of the older era's. And yes professionalism started in the mid nineties but size and muscle mass didnt instantly magically appear - that has taken time to appear and has ramped up considerably in the past 7 - 10 years.

Phil I only put this up in response to your post on Campo tackling Lomu, Campo's effort on Tuigamala that I pointed out at the 18 second mark was all I was trying to show.

I haven't been part of the brains v brawn debate I find it strange that you specifically point out Eales, Horan and Campo - I clearly stated that I would only pick Campo within his era but would take Ioane in the current one. Horan played until 2000, Eales to 2001 the professional era commenced in 1996, both these guys played well into the pro era. To suggest that you would pick Rob Simmons over John Eales staggers me. Horan as well had a complete game that stacks up very well against the one dimensional play that McCabe demonstrated in the world cup. McCabe is three centimetres taller and one kilo heavier than Horan - to suggest that he has significantly greater power surprises me.