CBA going back over old posts but I remember Rogues posting the teams for the 95 WC Semi England/Wales and comparing it to today's options available for GB!

Forwards??? I'd agree we have a similar number if not slightly better options now.

Backs!!! Light years in difference!

If you don't recall the early SL, pre-cap teams - how can you expect anyone to pay attention to your assertions of falling standards in SDL?

Why not compare it to the pre CC 2000 World Cup shambles of a team? Was that the CC's fault too?

Fact is our problems relate to junior development and predate the CC introduction by a long stretch.

Thankfully, the juniors coming through now in the communist capped SDL look far better than we have had in the recent past.

It is obvious from your championing of Vila that you don't remember him and I imagine you have no stats for his missed tackles, errors, penalties, red cards and suspensions.

Another who has no idea. Check the line ups in 1996.

some of what u have said I would agree with but the highlighted part is bollox. What your saying basically is that the smaller teams stay small so the big teams i.e wigan leeds hull can just use them to give your youngsters a run out

What some of competition are you looking for then one like the scottish prem where only 2 teams can win !!!

CBA but I know that Tommy played in the 96 CC Final & He missed all of the previous season through injury & when fit he was the 1st choice 6 at Saints!

You don't know that at all.

Challenge Cup Final - Hammond stand off, Martyn on the bench.

Hammond played 29 out of 30 games in 1996.

You have no clue.

Did Tommy play in the 96 cup final????
Did Tommy miss the WHOLE of 95/96 Season (Trunkated Season or whatever it was called) through injury?

Was Tomyy, When Fit, 1st choice 6 at Saints???

And TBH wether Hammond played there or didn't play there for 1 season you don't seem to have answered How 11 of the team that you say would get mullered by Today's team (Even though you keep posting the 2006 team and comapring it to that) would still get in today's 17 without Weakening it and in most instances Improve it!

Yes, from the bench behind Hammond as per my team.



And?



Not in 1996, Hammond was.



Name them, and compare them to our current best in the same position.

So, let's get this right. Hammond was playing well enough in 1996 to keep Martyn - who many Saints fans rate as one of your all time greats and was then in his mid 20s - on the bench, and that's evidence of a decline in the standard of your team?

Oh dear.

You're just digging an ever deeper hole for yourself, I'm afraid.

I have already highlighted them previously.

Have a look yourself and tell me if ANY of those 11, if selected today, would weaken St Helens??????

You have no clue.'"

The opinions of a coach and fans often differ. Hanley wanted Tricky Trindall over Martyn, it proves nothing.

You just stick to convincing people that Vila, Pickavance and Anderson would be playing SL now, desppite not remembering them

You seem to conveniantly forget the other Dozen or so players that would get in to the side today!

I don't recall the fringe players (particularly some of the forwards) all that well, no. I admit that I'm not in a great position to judge whether a particular Saints fringe player of 1996 was better than fringe players now. But that's what most of us who argue against the CC do, we behave rationally and admit that we don't actually know everything.

Its better to do that than make claims that turn out to have no credibility, like the assertion that the players listed in the earlier post were NL1 standard or "rubbish". That can't be taken seriously and undermines your credibility on other issues.

I do recall players like Newlove and Gibbs for example, both were better than any current GB centres (though neither was as good as Gary Connolly, which underlines the talent deficit in the SDL of today) and together were better than any centre pairing in today's Soopah Doopah League.

Your 3/4 line, in fact your back line as a whole in 96 - which I do remember because it was a star-studded backline - was very much stronger than it is now and stronger IMO than the 2006 backline.

Prescott (22) would weaken the team compared to MoS winner Wellens.
Gibbs (25) would weaken the team compared to Gidley.
Newlove (24) would strengthen the team over Wheeler
Sullivan (27) would be incredibly ropey under any sort of high kick, which is a wingers job these days. On a par with Gardner.
Hunte (25) would strengthen the team over Meli
Hammond (21) would weaken the team compared to Pryce at 6 or Wilkin/Flannery at 13.
Martyn (24) on a par with Pryce.
Goulding (24) would weaken the team compared to Long.
Perelini (26) would weaken the team compared to the current 1st choice prop Graham (which is after all the direct comparison).
Cunningham (19) is still playing so don't see your point.
Joynt (24) would strengthen the team.

So 3 of your 11 would strengthen the side, a couple would be on a par with their 2009 counterparts, one is still playing and 5 would weaken the team.

If you were to do the opposite exercise for the whole of the 1996 17 compared to 2009, there would be a hell of a lot more than 3 that strengthened the team.

Ignoring your biase to prove a point as you are and tha 4 of your Comparisons that you say are weaker Would still get into your 1st choice 17 that means you agree that 10 out of those 11 would get a game in the current Saints team and wouldn't cause you a problem??

Are you telling me you would rather have a 32 year old Long compared to a 24 year old Goulding?
A 29 year old Wellens over a 22 year old Prescott?
A 33 year old Overseas Gidley than a 25 year old Gibbs?

You then say Perrelini would weaken the team over Graham!!!! Why Graham???? I can how you try to justify it by claimng 1st choice prop and all that but he would get into Your current Saints team end of!

Also look at the ages of them - All under 27 showing they had plenty mileage in the tank!

I'll tell you what, as Again I will stress my debate is not with the SC (Although as said previously I think it should be altered).

You show me some evidence that what we are watching today in SL is any better/closer to catching the Ausssies in terms of Quality compared to Pre Sl ie Where the National team were say 86 - 95 and then we can discuss further?

Show me the test match results and compare them, Show me the WCC results and compare them, show me something that will convince me that what I am watching is any Better than what I watched 10/15 + years ago!

Of course that should be the comparison! If not, then lets have a look the other way round, I'll even put Martyn at 6 for you and Hunte on the wing (even though Danny Arnold/Joey Hayes played most of the year on the wing)

1 S Prescott - Wellens
2 A Hunte - Hunte
3 S Gibbs - Gidley
4 P Newlove - Newlove
5 A Sullivan - Par with Meli/Gardner
6 T Martyn - Par with Pryce
7 B Goulding - Lance Todd Legend
8 A Perelini - Graham
9 K Cunningham - Same
10 A Fogerty - Cayless
11 C Joynt - Joynt
12 S Booth - Gilmour
13 K Hammond - Wilkin

14 A Northey - Flannery
15 I Pickavance - Clough
16 V Matatutia - Puletua
17 D Busby - Roby

1996: 3, Same: 3, 2009: 11.

You may disagree with a couple, but you'll be hard pressed to disagree sufficiently to conclude that the 1996 team is better than the 2009 team, and that's before even considering the quality of the back ups from the academy.

You're assuming that the Aussie game hasn't improved too.

The fact that we all reminisce misty eyed about players like Connolly who scored ONE try in his international career says it all.

And the fact that you have to Worry that he scored only 1 try in international rugby to divert away from what would be in, I would bet, Most people opinions that Connolly between 91-2002 was better than ANYTHING we have available to us now (Along with Newlove and many of the others you chose not to discuss earer) shows to me that you arent interested in DEBATE, only in proving yourself to be Right on the situation!

When in fact the truth lies somwhere between the two.

PS

Your comparisons in the 2 x teams are contrived to say the least! Considering you havent brough the ages of these players into it shows me something too!

What you are trying to do is compare a particular point in time and say that team/Player was better than it's counterpart at that particular point in time.
It doesn't work!

Your original statement (Forgive me if it wasn't you but it was a Saints fan earlier) said the 2009 team would "Muller" the 1996 team!

I still maintain that 11/12 of that 17 would get a game at Saints Now and not weaken the team (Maybe in someones opinion they may say Long was better than Goulding but in other peoples eyes maybe he wasn't?? Theres not a lot of difference IMO).

On the other hand 12/13 of todays 17 would get a game in the 96 squad and again not weaken the team etc.

One thing for sure, they wouldn't get mullered!

######################################################

Do me a favour and go back to the post about the 92 World Cup squad etc and please tell me if we have as many quality options as we did then?????

Bear in mind that in the early & middle years of SL the influx of Foregin players was far greater than what ot was Pre SL IIRC???
The Kolpac etc has had a major part to play I know but that in itself has Aided the quality of SDL that we watched whilst in reality did not help in the growth at international level which we surely are all after achieving???

Senior has been better (and undoubtedly more dangerous) in a GB shirt than Connolly IMO.



I thought we were comparing which was better, not which was younger.



Then how can you say that standards have dropped if you can't compare players from different time periods? Of course you can, especially over such a relatively short timescale.



I said the 2006 team would muller them and the 2009 team would beat them, both of which I still believe to be true. The 96 team wouldn't get out of it's own half against the 2006 pack.



I'm not saying we do. What I am saying is that any perceived decline in playing standards relevant to that period has resulted from poor junior development from the early 80s onwards (with the 6/7 year olds of 1980 making up the bulk being the pitiful team of the 2000 World Cup). This has nothing to do with SDL or the CC, it is poor junior development. In fact, I would argue that the juniors coming through and overall standard has improved since the inception of SL (1996 to today), but that standards at the inception of SL were undoubtedly poor compared to the early 1990s.

Thankfully, there appears to be some genuine young talent coming through the revitalised junior ranks of a lot of clubs (with your own Sam Tomkins labelled as the best young player since Edwards?)



Not trying to be funny mate, but I don't quite understand this point? Can you reword? If you're saying an influx of foreign players has hindered young English players I agree 100%. Thankfully this is now also being addressed by the "British trained" rule, which is a welcome development.

We can harp back to the 90s all we like but the fact of the matter is, we won nothing then either. The only way to genuinely compete with the Aussies (without bolstering the team with the best RU players) is to get the junior development nailed, and have them progressing from the academy into a genuinely intense and competitive league.

There are tentative signs that SL is becoming close enough to offer a genuione challenge to young players at the top clubs and I am optimistic that this will help breed better GB players in the medium term.

I am glad that your confident!

I am saying that providing opportunities for the youngsters and a conduit for them to come through can be done with or without SC.
What must be done is to find a Path for these youngsters to progress them to the Top Level whilst not setting SC levels that Hinder this Production line!
If Saints do bring through 5/6/7 juniors at once will they stay at 20 years of age and play for 20k a year of their lucky???? Bearing in mind the clubs have existing contracts etc for more experienced players!!!!!!

The SC should exist with a Weighting to encourage Homegrown & Youth development players.
The SC should also exist Whilst alowing clubss who have done things Well On & Off the field i.e Leeds (Not Missing Saints out here but picking Leeds as they have come a long way in SL on & Off the field.) to exploit this.
The SC should encourage clubs to "Grow" and bring in revenue and be allowed to use that revenue as much as they want i.e 50% of Turnover on players wages to an Upper Limit for example.

What I am saying is that the SC has not improved standards in this country in any way as the only way it can help is to make each club in the competion more even, that does not mean they are any good!

The SC should exist in a way that allows development of clubs & players in tandem whilst providing good incentives for Club developed, British youth to make it's way to the Top Level.
Some of these issues are being put right, but not all.

On the playing front I still do not agree that the Quality of player/Play we see week in week out is any better than we saw 5/10/15+ years ago.

We didn't win anything prior to SL and haven't since.
Prior to 1996 we came in with around 1 win in three v the Aussies.
Now it's around 1 in 14.
The only win I can remember recently is the 1996 victory at the SFS where Mason belted Fielden and cleaned out Sean Long. Longy returned after half time with a bandage round his head and went on to win MOM.
When was our previous win to that v the Aussies?
We don't have the quality players now that we had then and it's daft to suggest we do.
First time I saw GB our 2 shirt was worn by Billy Boston, 3 shirt Eric Ashton. Does anyone seriously suggest that in the last World Cup Gardner and Gleeson are true successors to Boston and Ashton, never mind Fox and Shenton?
The RFL and SL have never come to terms with Union going professional. Wigan's top five try scorers Boston, Offiah, Lake, Norgren & Ring all came from Union. Don't know too much about Saints but Van Vollenhoven was on the wing when I first saw them. And which SL winger today is better than Tom Van Vollenhoven? I believe Saints all time points scorer is Kel Coslett. Vollenhoven & Coslett didn't come through Blackbrook & Pilks!
We are missing a massive amount of talent now Union players no longer come to League and every GB team had former Union players in it until the SL era.
The drop in talent to me is dramatic and only radical change and improvement to the RFL and SL can bring this about. This means also a change and improvement in personnel at the very top of the RFL and SL .

Fieldens not been in the same in any of the 13 seasons since to be fair