Who is greater ;Lomu or Jonny Wilkinson?

Question

Don't call me luv.

Answer 1

Jonah is my pick. There has been no one who could do what Jonah could have done yet. Johnny is a good player but there have been very influencial numbers 10s before and there will be more to come, but Lomu.... No one is close. Habana is fast and so is Jason Robinson, but both do not have the strength to topple multiplue players in a single run.

Lomu gave rugby the fame it has today. In some parts of the world people have heard of Jonah Lomu, but never heard of Rugby. Go figure...

Answer 2

i`d lyk 2 c lomu take a drop kick nd i`d lyk 2 c wilko try nd rUn through lomu!!!MUNSTER RULE!!!!!!!1

Answer 3

lomu was the greatest ever.

Answer 4

LOMU !!!! Easily!!  Shame on you for putting the two names in the same sentance !!??!?!?!

Answer 5

They are two different types of player with different skills, Wilkinson is a fly half, so has good pass, tackling, place kicking and kicking skills. While Lomu was a winger and was very quick, tackled well and could evade tackles.

Personal i think Lomu was the best player, it did help that he was 6ft 5 and probaly around 120kg.

Check both players profiles on wikipedia

Answer 6

No disrespect to Wilko, but how the feck can you compere these two players???????

One is good at kicking, 3 points max......... the other was good at attacking and scoring tries and when he was tackled, the tackler came off worse........5points........

In all fairness, Lumo is a WORLD legend, Wilko is England's saviour!

Answer 7

Lomu was somewhat one dimensional...he didn't have much of a kicking game, was mediocre in defense, wasn't considered a particularly smart player, and he wasn't a great passer...he was just a great runner.  

That said, if he's one dimensional...then what a dimension!  His game clearly had weaknesses, but his strong points of his game have never been matched.

Wilkinson, as a flyhalf, had a lot more things to deal with and did them all well.  What's more, he was unusually good in defense for a flyhalf.  

One more thing to consider is what they meant to their teams.  Without Wilkinson, there's no way England wins the RWC in 2003 or reaches the final (or semifinal...maybe even quarterfinal) in 2007.  Without Lomu, New Zealand would still have finished in 2nd place in 1995 and in 4th in 1999.  Wilkinson was far more important to his team than Lomu ever was.

Of course, part of that is an artifact of depth on their respective teams, and part of it is the relative importance of various positions.

Answer 8

neither greater

Answer 9

What a STUPID comparison!!

Answer 10

lomu.

wilkensen can kick but without that hes ****. when lomu was in his prime he was unstopable with the ball

Answer 11

ok this is a bit of a silly question, but i do have somethig to say, more in relevance to Debs7405's comment about how long Lomu lasted.  Obviously luv, you don't follow the sport too much, so allow me to enlighten you a little.  Understand Lomu was a more dynamic player, but after the 1999 world cup, he had to have a kidney transplant because his cuts wern't healing as fast as normal, and it was determined one was failing.  As if that wasn't enough, there was some kind of nerve problem, which had him in a wheelchair for a few months, with doctors saying he was not going to walk again.  Well he proved them wrong, and hes actually playing rugby at a lower level back in NZ.  Frankly I know I couldn't come back from that, and as much love as I have for Jonny (I'm English) I doubt he would come back from that kind of injury (God Knows he has alot of practice lol) At the end of the day, both are amazing players, I do enjoy watching Lomu clips more tho, so I guess I answered the question in that

Answer 12

Jonah Lomu

Answer 13

Jonah Lomu has raised the profile of the game immensely.  People in America had heard of Jonah Lomu before they had heard of the game rugby.  I think that speaks for itself.  Just think to yourself, would I rather be watching Jonah steaming down the touchline, fending off players and running over them when they dared to stand in his way, or Johnny Wilkinson drop kicking the ball.....yawn.  Gimme Jonah any day.

Answer 14

nelson mandela

Answer 15

Jona Lomu is a legend in the rugby while Johnny he wasn't that good this rugby world cup missing some kicks and he justwant to party with the prince. Go Lomu Go All Black 2011

Answer 16

Apples and Oranges really. Lomu's a Winger and Wilkinson's a First Five Eighth. Totally different positions so they can't be fairly compared.

Answer 17

No comparison, both totally different players.

Answer 18

LOMU WAS DA MAN!!JOHNNY IS OK BUT NOT IN THE SAME CLASS!

Answer 19

How long did Lomu last.

Answer 20

No Contest - Johnny is the BEST (simple as that)

Answer 21

Its hard compare two players that has so much talents but experience wise Lomu, Sure jonny make some incredible kicks but his kicks could only goes as far  but lomu...oh man...strength, speed, experience, all of this makes lomu practically the Pele of Rugby..Jonny Wilkinson is still...a bit...young...more like umm..Christiano Ronaldo.....(does all this make any sense??!!!) But no doubt Jonny 's Kicks can do some damage to the opposition.

Conclusion: Lomu...before the freaking kidney problems~

Answer 22

Different yeah but Lomu for sheer guts

Answer 23

Jonny Wilkinson is nothing...Lomu is nothing......We got the best..Habana

Answer 24

JW by a mile.

He pretty much single-handed won the world cup in 2003 and got a poor team to final in 2007.

Ask Lomu to show you his World cup winners medal!

But to be fair you are comparing two different dudes!

Answer 25

Bryan Habana - he would've easily beaten Lomu's record if SA played a more open game in the final - there's still more to come from this exceptional player!

Answer 26

Neither. It is without  adoubt I. Because on EA Sports Rugby 2002 I am REALLY good, I mean REALLY good, no kidding.

Answer 27

can't answer that two different types of player

Answer 28

Its gotta be the worlds great shame about his career  got cut short so quickly

The Answer Jonah Lomu

Answer 29

I say Lomu, because rugby is about scoring tries beating the opponent, Wilko just gets the extra points I'll say. I think the try should have more points like 9 maybe. If not we will have finals like the last one with no tries. I think Wilko is a great player, he has also good passing and defense, but his potential is the kick to the posts compared to other players. He has the best kicking to the posts ever but thats not the "essence" of rugby. Lomu played the "essence" of rugby. And it was a lot mental because I've seen similar phisically players like Wendell Sailor which made no impression at all...

Answer 30

Do you mean greater in weight?

Answer 31

Lomu