It's a different game with some significantly different rules shaping the contest.

The modern game is much more a battle of possession and territory, in part because the scrums are virtually uncontested and more or less guarantee possession to the non offending side. That promotes a safety first, conservative approach where possession has to be protected almost at all costs. That has produced a breed of automaton players incapable or unwilling to chance their arm. They are generally dissuaded from trying anything with any risk attached, unless it's in the dying stages where caution has to be thrown to the wind. Hence the five drives and kick approach we see for 90% (guessing) of each game in SL.

I don't mind the way the game is played, I've adjusted to it over the years and still enjoy it but I find it a far less skillful game to witness.

Well put and an opinion I share.

Indeed, borne out by coaches obsession with completion rates.

I disagree.

Clearly the rule changes have had a big effect, but fitness, technique and tactics have been just as important if not more.

I watched the 78 cup final between leeds and saints the other and noticed how many tackles were one on one and how many were around the chest area and upper body. But also how few actually went to ground. In this day and age that kind of defence would be blown away via offloads(which is one area of skill which has unarguably improved imo) but also the size, speed and strength of the players these days mean that kind of tackle would be brushed off.

I believe that some of the skills of 20-30 years ago were only useful because of the poor quality of fitness, technique and tactics and they wouldnt work today not because of the rule changes or a more defensive strategy but because players defensively are better and space is harder to earn.

I dont disagree the strategies are more negative, but i think we go in cycles where an attacking tactic gains prevelance so a defensive stragey is needed to combat it, that defensive strategy then gains prevelance so an attacking strategy is needed to to combat it, that then gains prevelance and so on. Right now i think we are seeing more attacking play and we are at the start of an attacking cycle

The snail eating, garlic stinking surrender monkey that the RFL employ is the biggest invertebrate to enter a professional rugby pitch.

Keith Senior wouldn't have half as many medals to sell if he had played in the 70s.

If my auntie had a cock she'd be my uncle - ...and your point?

If Keef had played for Leeds in the 70's he'dve had an absolute hatfull of medals as there was a lot more competitions to accumulate medals from.



At least know you're history before you spout $hite you hampton.

What would you know about medals?

Rape badges don't count.

Spot on.

Originally introduced for technical offences I remember the lively debate about the application of the Sin Bin for foul play. Not all were in agreement as they though it would encourage referees to duck out of red cards. For me it could have been introduced entirely as a way of dealing with the late head shots on John Holmes that blighted the game.
There is the assumption amongst younger posters to assume that skill levels have increased over the years. What has happened is that ball control is probably better (a negative influence from down under I think), but skill is timeless. If some of the players I saw (many at the end of their careers admittedly) had been able to play on grass rather than sand and mud, and with a ball covered in fly paper, I think we would wonder what the heck was going on.

I was once involved in a match at college with Allan Agar (Richard's dad for younger viewers) and although he was never rated close to an International cap (and at this point he was around his mid thirties and coaching at Featherstone) he ran rings around a bunch of young fellas who thought they could play a bit. With ball in hand he was a magician and the thing was every club had one of those in the halves (and he was British) and most of the top sides had a couple more .... in the pack.

Oh cry me a river.

This isn't about young people bashing (though Im intrigued by your comments - agism is a problem that blights society and shows ones ignorance) the whole thread is about if ref's lack balls.

One question which from anyone (irrespective of age) should elicit the response of yes.

Ive never said skill levels are higher now. What I said (perhaps you should put your reading glasses on) is that other aspects of the game such as speed, size and strength have increased meaning that the players of today would probably nullify any extra skill players may have had.

As for playing on mud/sand or grass - you clearly didn't see the pitch at the start of the season.

But then Im just a youngster right. What does my opinion count as

What i think you're missing mate is that the past players would also have the benefit of F/T training thus gaining the size ,strength and speed whilst still holding their natural skills.
The guys of yester-year were P/T players and most had full time jobs and trained after work on a night if you could of had the same facillities etc etc afforded to those players they'd be too good overall imo for todays stars.
That does'nt detract from the talent of todays RL players i just think the past players and especially HB's had more natural skill.

This I wouldn't particularly dispute, though as has been said, comparing old and new is very difficult - too many variables.

Would a skillful player in 1970 be as skillful now with all the extra bulk players carry as well as getting jumped on by 17stone + forwards every week? I dont have the answer, just a rhetorical question really.

Guess this does lead into another set of questions though (and very OT). Why aren't todays players as skillful (if people believe that to be the case)? They have far more support now in terms of training, fulltime, nutriotion etc.... Is it down to coaching? Is it bacause other sports attract even more attention and therefore RL is picking from a smaller pool of kids?

Personally I'd say they are just as skilful but are not encouraged to demonstrate that skill and flair by taking risks in games. It's also a full time living for these players now, if you lose your place because you've tried something that didn't come off it's also your livelihood at stake and potentially tens of thousands of pounds in lost income.

The defensive line speed also limits your opportunities to express yourself as an attacking player - at first receiver you no longer have five seconds to look up, analyse the situation and pick the appropriate pass.

I think at least part of it is due to the fact we eulogise players, and remember only the best of the things they did rather than all the bad stuff (although there are counterexamples-Garry Sprake for instance).

We'll remember Danny for being a great finisher, creative genius and top tryscorer, not for the tackles he's missed, wrong decisions made or the times he's knocked-on with the line at his mercy. So in 20 years when we see our stand off doing those things, we'll be saying 'oh only if we had McGuire, he never did that, he was something else'.

I don't think the game is less skillful now, just that we remember the great bits of skill we saw and forget the rest. Danny's try (set up by Donald) in last year's playoff against Catalans will stay with me for a very long time. A fantastic piece of play, and one of the best tries you'll see. But he still f****d up on occasion, and it's good to remember that when trying to compare players from different eras.

A number of reasons.

The game is different. The emphasis, now we have full time athletes, is on speed, strength and size. The 10 metre rule has changed the way the game has played meaning a different set of skills are needed to break down a defence.

Also, as Andy alludes to, error rates are scrutinised much more closely and, given the size and power of the lads playing today they have to be a bit more conservative about completion rates.

Of course today's players could be as skillful if were required but, then again, of course yesteryear's players could be as big, fast and fit as today's if they were full time.

What I'd like is to see today's athletes playing in a similar fashion to yesterday's players.

Today's game is all about discipline, possession, completions and territory.

I'd start by re-introducing competitive scrums (where possession isn't guaranteed to the the non offending team - encouraging risk takers to return, where the penalty for losing possession would be potentially halved) except competitive scrums in League disappeared for a reason. They were a bleeding disgrace and a blight on the game.

It happened in the last ten minutes of the Saints-Cas game, when because of playoff maths both teams *had* to keep scoring. It was the best rugby I've seen this season.

I take it that you don't like the said gentleman, then.

Its always a can of worms comparing era's. I enjoy the game as much this year as I did when I started watching (circa 1986) but it has certainly evolved. The one thing which has noticably changed is the speed of the game, a natural progression from the introduction of the 10m rule. Inevitably players skills have had to adapt to the new style of RL, and the traditional 'roles' of certain positions have been morphed into a generic all round player.

Add to that the switch to summer (and 'faster tracks' as Stevo would say) encouraging top of the surface rugby, full time professionalism enhancing players abilities and we now have much fitter, faster and harder players than ever before. By harder I don't mean how good they are in a brawl, I mean how much impact their bodies can take.

Not so sure if they're more skillful though. The last time we got anywhere near the Ozzies in a test series ('92 tour down under) we had guys like Schoey, Ellery, Edwards, Davies, Steadman, Platt, Gregory, Offiah etc, guys who were in touch with the old style of RL and had genuine skill in a particular role. Non of the above could start the game at loose forward, move to stand off then finish at hooker but that wasn't really necessary, which was suprising given there were only 2 subs back then.

Since the SL era, we have gone backwards at international level which to me suggests skill levels are not what they used to be. Sadly (for us - although I must admit it is fantastic to watch) the Australians have developed to the faster nature of the game whilst keeping some of the more traditional skills associated with the different roles

Not many modern games are won by teams playing purely on adrenalin and emotion, a lot more emphasis now on game plan and structure.

That I can agree with.

The thing I always remember from my youth watching Leeds in the late 70's/early 80's was the propensity for launching and scoring long distance tries.....brilliant to watch. Some famous international GB tries too through the 80's. It was different then. Today's game is all about taking few risks, field position and the lottery of a high kick into the corners. I still enjoy it...and Leeds still have recently had that inclination/tendency more than most to launch/score long distance tries 'off the cuff' (indeed it seems to be [itheir[/i game plan

). However, there's no doubt the skill levels have not generally kept pace with today's faster heavier impact game. Some games today can be very tedious with the relentess forward drives and an aimless kick. (Although I concede I might be conveniently forgetting some of the appalling scrum dominated matches in the depths of Winters past: maybe they should have switched to Summer a long time ago under the then existing rules.).

Quite possibly, although I'm pretty sure that the modern prediliction for three man tackles, lying on, wrestling etc creates just as many gruesome spectacles as did the shambolic contested scrums yesteryear.

True....And no doubt we'll see that in all its desolate glory tomorrow.