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.