Has the standard dropped? Or has the game changed in the way it is played. You put the 2016 Wigan Champions in the era of 2005 rugby league and they would blow everyone else out of the water, due to superior fitness and more open play. Alternatively you put one of the big teams of that era, say 2003 Wigan Warriors into this era of more structured rugby, they would get torn apart. Even by some of the mid-table teams now.

Quite possibly



I'm not sure! But if it was it backs up my point about the disposable income. Less disposable income means people cannot afford the regular prices. This shows that there is still desire to watch, if the price is within the working class families disposable income then they will show.

Don't agree with that. The big teams early 2000s played some very open stuff, and smaller teams couldn't cope. Saints of early 2000s were the master of stuff like that and would blow the modern Saints team away (IMO). However I do agree you have to take the league as a whole - the team that went down this year (Hull KR) are probably stronger than Cas when they went down in 2006.

If you want a quick comparison on then vs now, looking at the World Club Challenge in the early 2000s vs now where English teams were regularly competing and winning - to the past couple of years have been embarrassing. Can't agree that teams that are getting paggered by NRL teams now would have beaten teams that were holding their own a decade back.

NRL has changed a lot to be fair too in the past 10 years. So it's still an unfair comparison :/

The reason we could beat the NRL teams back then is because we played an open brand of rugby rather than to a structure. Wigan are the best UK team in terms of playing a structure but man the NRL teams have that nailed down. It would take a very good performance from Wigan to win the WCC playing structured rugby or a Cronulla team not being overly interested and using it as a warm up!

And in the early 2000's it was only us who were consistent with the NRL teams, the others either got smashed or won by a mere point or try hardly on par in one off game:

2000: Melbourne 44-6 St Helens
2001: St Helens 20-18 Brisbane Broncos
2002: Bradford 41-22 Newcastle
2003: Sydney Roosters 38-0 St Helens
2004: Bradford 22-4 Penrith
2005: Leeds 39-32 Canterbury
2006: Bradford 30-10 Wests

We haven't won a WCC convincingly since 2006 and Leeds did a great job in 2012 over Manly. Honestly the all conquering 2015 Leeds side who got battered 38-4 against North Queensland would have been better suited playing the NRL teams of the early 2000's. But it's a different era. Both leagues have changed so much and the game itself is so different.

When I said more open play I didn't mean the 2016 Wigan played more openly than the 2005 teams. Rather that the game in 2005 was much more open than it is now, so the likes of Tomkins, Charnley etc would be able to exploit this more freely and with superior fitness would dominate the league. Watch highlights of matches from back then, especially the 2001-2005 era and you'll see just how open the field is compared to games now a days. But as you say as well the league as a whole is stronger.

Makes me wonder if the NRL is on steroids

Sorry dont agree with that JJ. That Wigan team for me wouldnt get near this 2005 saints side

Paul Wellens
Ade Gardner
Jamie Lyon
Willie Talau
Darren Albert
Paul Sculthorpe
Sean Long
Nick Fozzard
Mick Higham
Paul Anderson
Lee Gilmour
James Graham
Jon Wilkin

James Roby
Keiron Cunningham
Mike Bennett
Mark Edmondson

Cant see it myself and this Wigan side 2002/2003

Kris Radlinski
Brian Carney
Gary Connolly
Jamie Ainscough
Brett Dallas
Julian O'Neill
Adrian Lam
Terry O'Connor
Terry Newton
Harvey Howard
Mick Cassidy
David Furner
Andy Farrell

Paul Johnson
Simon Haughton
Stephen Wild
Ricky Bibey

difference in quality is massive for me

Agreed that on paper and what they achieved in that era was pure class. But we never saw those teams play an 80min structured game as is RL now. Don't get me wrong that era with those two sides with the Bulls and Leeds thrown into the mix was my favourite era of RL.

We will never know and we can only speculate but even though those were class teams. I still think the fitness and the structure of modern day RL would beat those. The games back then were a lot more free flowing and more play what's in front of you. Defensive lines weren't as tight or structured as they are now which freed up a lot of space. You just don't get that now :/

I disagree. Back in the day, I saw some of the dourest, hardest defence I have ever seen, and basically little has changed, teams could be exceptional at defence, average or useless. And could vary from game to game, like now.

The Bulls, or Saints, of the early SL days would have paggered any UK team of today. This is just because they happened to have a wealth of great players, all happily playing at the same time, something which has always been rare.

I would certainly have liked to have seen 2001 or 2003 Bulls with today's fitness levels and training facilities. Would be a beast of a team.

The problem with structured play to the level we have now is akin to playing Top Trumps. There is no surprises and perhaps this is why crowds are dropping. Doubt we'll ever see a "Wide to West" anytime soon.

Most comparisons between eras are pointless since the rules change endlessly.

Every rule change alters the balance between the attack and defence, and this either 'opens up', or makes the game 'more structured', depending on whether the change makes it easier, or harder, to attack or defend. The game has always fallen between those two stools, trying to reward good play whilst not becoming like basketball and devaluing try scoring by scoring with every attack. to be honest I don't see an answer to the problem.

That's what I was trying to say in a way but you explained it a lot better! It used to be more open now it's more structured. Teams great in one era could find themselves unstuck in another era. The different fitness levels would also play apart too. And how the defensive line is set up. But we shall never know who would prosper in different eras. I am at least thankful that I was born in 1995 and managed to see and remember the late 90's and early 2000's where there were 3 fantastic world class teams competing for SL.

That's very true.

As we all know, every time the RFL bring out a new rule to change some perceived problem in the game, the coaches immediately start to make plans to counter it. When it comes down to it, that is their job. If the rule makes it harder to defend the coaches will always find a way round it and the cycle continues. I guess that we eventually get back to where we started...

Perhaps the RFL should concentrate on running the game as a whole instead of messing about with the rules constantly. A lot of people would settle for having existing rules applied.

And I also don't buy this "fitness" thing. people seem to assume that teams back in the day were far less fit than currently, but they weren't. Even in the days when we were part time, the players that were expected to run about were I'd say not much different from SL fitness. Forwards were a different matter, as their role has changed greatly, but the pack didn't need to be supremely athletic, it just needed to be fit enough to steamroller the oppos.

I would bet a lot that one of those teams moving to full time and having a full pre-season with modern methods would be every bit as fit. Can't see any reason why not.

Moving on to the SL era, I'd bet a lot (if it could ever be proved one way or another) that the all-conquering Bulls teams were as fit as any current SL team, and anyway, half the fitness is in the mind, to prove which you only need to recall (if you can stand the pain) some of the many debacles our superfit full-time modernly honed heroes have put up against a succession of part-time painter and decorators etc.

My firm belief is that skill and ability is mainly what's needed, if a player has that, then he'd make it in any era. To borrow just a couple of examples from another sport, i don't believe that George Best or Paul Gascoigne, to name but two, majored on "my body is a temple", yet were still among the best players on teh planet, however superfit opposing defenders may have been.

I've no doubt that players of the past would be just as good now or even better with access to modern training methods.

That said FA I'd say in terms of strength players (backs and forwards) were much less strong than now. In terms of "fitness" I'd probably agree there's not much difference in the backs but there definitely is in the forwards.

Fitness? or effort?
That saying that Sir Alex Ferguson quoted as being on a dressing room wall when he started in Paisley - "Hard work will beat Talent, when Talent doesn't work hard"

Isn't that, at least partly, why we had such a poor season last year? When it came down to attitude we were found wanting all too often.

Kinda my point, the old style forwards needed to be very heavy and fookin hard as nails. Like William Perry "The Fridge", they had no need of speed or endurance. The job they used to do has almost entirely disappeared, that's why you can't really make a fair comparison of forwards especially props.

Mind you, the excellent Ian van Bellen on occasion did show a surprising turn of foot, even if they did have to train him by putting hot pies on a table at the top of the infamous steps.

Too young for IvB, but my old man reckons he used to come on in a "cannon ball" type role - in fact he made it sound like he'd do 5 minutes before half time, and look bloody knackered after a couple of destructive runs. Kind of a better Lauaki, really?

And he could kick drop goals (or was that Gary)

I think that's true enough, though it should be remembered that most props, maybe especially 'back in the day', started life in the second row where they did need a little bit of speed, so maybe a little residual pace was left.

There was the story, true or not I don't know, but I suspect it may have been, of the coach who told his props that, if they got their name in the paper for anything in open play, they would be dropped next week as he, the coach, expected ALL their effort to be spent winning the ball in the scrum. Different game, different planet!

It was Ian, a left footer from 30-40 yards out which silenced about 20,000+ Hull fans at the Boulevard, not an easy thing to do, great night!!!

Hehe, I was there and it was just one of those moments! And here is the great man himself in action. Watched by the legendary Jimmy Thompson, who was in size nothing like props of the day, but was one of the best forwards it has ever been my privilege to watch, and a great leader of men. Pic from the excellent www.rugbyleagueheritageproject.com

Hehe, I was there and it was just one of those moments! And here is the great man himself in action. Watched by the legendary Jimmy Thompson, who was in size nothing like props of the day, but was one of the best forwards it has ever been my privilege to watch, and a great leader of men. Pic from the excellent www.rugbyleagueheritageproject.com

Wasn't he nicknamed Selwyn after Selwyn Froggitt

Indeed.

'Pint o' cookin'

Some less kindly disposed inhabitants of the Rooley Avenue terrace also used to dub him Ian van Beergut.