I never said you did.
You named half a dozen relatively recent half decent decent players I named 2 older players trying to open up up the the debate.
I won't debate again

Sorry Jukes I don't get your argument.
Are you saying we just need accept that today is better and that's it?
I'm not a yesterday man but I believe today's players in terms of skill are way off the mark. All muscle and no brain driven by conservative coaches.

I think coaches have been totally overrated in the past and in the present. My main complaint isn't necessarily against bigger players but brawn always in front of brains

I know I'm old fashioned but I know what I like and 17 athletes with shoite for brains doesn't float my boat. I want a half back to say to the coach and play what they see.

My favourite coach was Graeme West who today would probably be laughed at but then again which team could go to Australia with no props and beat them comprehensively?
I just dislike structure. The more I see the more I dislike.
Why can't full time more learned coaches come up with plays to turnaround disciplined defences?

Im not negative just challenging today's standard.

Like I said nobody was talking about the NRL so those do not count as for the rest apart from Hastings

Long, Deacon & Paul played 2 seasons out of the last 10 years and Briers played for 3, Hardly an convincing response, Where are all the creative half backs that have played for the majority of the last decade, Surely you could give us a list of at least 6

I'm not sure where you get any of that from and how it relates to my post?
Where did I say anyone has to accept that today is better, you dont have to accept anything.
Your saying in essence today's players and structures are more about brawn over skill? I'm not saying any different.
Just that today's players HAVE to be fitter/stronger etc to be able to compete.
If they dont they will be blown away by what may be a less skilful player but who is better physically, mentally, coached etc.
The amateur game is/was littered with players who had more skill than some of their professional counterparts, but other areas of their game/preparation wasnt up to it.
Lots of people are saying we want to see more creative half backs, fine, the game itself isnt demanding that you have to be less skilful just that tou have to be super fit and fit into structures that the game/coaches demands.
It's quite simple, if more players are fitter, stronger, faster and they all perform well within a good organised structure there will be less opportunities for the other team to exploit.
That's not decrying the skilful players who may find it harder to bring down structures harder than their previous counterparts, it's just harder.

F1 (not really a fan), but are we saying Stirling Moss, ayrton Senna, James Hunt are better/more skilful than today's drivers?
Their asset (The car/technology) demands that they drive and perform in a certain way. I'm sure F1 fans may say that the old sport was better with more passing and excitement, but they would get blown away in today's races.

Golf, Jackn Nicklaus is the Greatest
But he wouldn't have won as many majors today as he did back then. He had that something that separated him from his counterparts of that era. Modern players have taken what worked and made it better and there are now More Better players. It may not be quite as exciting in some ways and the game itself has had to change to make/give some of the technology advances in the game less impact (longer holes and more complicated hole design).

Snooker - More better player's in the game, players could go out and try to play like Alex Higgins, but theyll get exposed and their deficiencies exposed as the more professional players of today's game would expose those deficiencies better. And yes it may be less exciting, yes it may only be better to watch today for those who want to get involved I the more technical aspects (not like me and you and the average fan). But it is.

Today's game isnt as exciting for me, its individual stand out players arent as exciting (Because the gap between the best and the worst isnt as great).
But unless we can develop the game where we all decide not to "Over coach" players or have game plans that let players play then advancements in coaching, game plans, structures, fitness, strength etx will keep ploughing ahead.
Individual players will always rise to the top in one way or another, but just being the best player at 16 and not buying into the other assets of the game isnt enough.

What would the Wigan team of the 90s do to the Wigan team of the 60s?
Individually the Wigan team of the late 50s/60s in Boston/ashton/sullivan/ Davies/Bolton/parr/Mctigue/Evan's/Ashurst etc had some of the best players the games produced
But the advances in all areas of the game meant that the 90s team would beat the 60s team comfortably.
Although the advancements maybe haven't come as far in the same time theyve still advanced.

In the 70s the British game carried on playing the game as it had in the 50/60s and whilst the Aussies (Jack Gibson, wheres CP Wigan these days) carried on moving forward we didn't and weve still not caught up.

The aussie game itself though suffered in some ways, the risk free structured game was labelled as boring by a lot in the early 80s (check out some of the scores in the Aussie GF's or read Monies book).
But those teams and players, even though the game may have gone risk free and structured, showed how far it had advanced when compared to best we could offer whobhadnt advanced.

I agree that the game itself may need to look at more ways of increasing excitement through changes in rules etc. And I believe a further reduction to 6 substitutions would help, keeping the game moving and less stoppages to increase fatigue factor etc would let some of the more skilful.playwrs flourish.

Anyway, just getting in Manchester Victoria and it's been a thoughtful train journey. As I say I'm not saying today's players are "Better" than their counterparts of yesteryear, just that the advances in lots of areas give them advantageous to be Better and that although the spectacle itself may not as exciting etc the full time professionalism and the advancement year on year leads to it being harder and harder to exploit deficiencies as there are less and less.

Merry Xmas everyone (it may even be new year by the time you've finished reading this).

After you name 10 from 80-90 who could play on the modern game.

Oh so now you’re once again changing the rules of the debate? Fancy that.

Of course you won’t. You tried to put words in my mouth by naming two players who I never even mentioned.
When I called you out on that you went hiding.

If you’d debate what I said rather than what you want me to say, it would be a different story.

No, im saying that most of the players you list have retired and replaced with modern day robotic halfbacks.

I think as you look back over the decades players in the past had more space and time to showcase their skills. I’m not saying they were any more or less skilful than today’s counterparts they just had the opportunity to show it.

Just as an example if you watch back games from the late 80’s early 90’s the play the ball was far quicker, defences were not set and it showed.

I don’t buy the argument that past players couldn’t play today, they would fail miserably if dropped them straight in but if they had the same conditioning, nutrition and professional Set up rather than a cup of tea and a slice of orange at half time they would be fine. If today’s players hopped in a time machine it would be men v boys for the same reason.

We always remember the past with fondness, I guarantee in 20 years we’ll be saying they don’t make players like SOL or Sam T anymore.

If we want creative freedom & space for the players who have the skill to exploit it then we need to adjust the rules to give it to them.

Your argument is daft and over complicated as usual.

You say the game has moved on but that is exactly the problem. It has moved on, to something worse. Why do you think the interest in the game is on the decline? Its because people are bored at matches. People dont want to give up time and spend money to watch 2 teams repeating the same structures over and over for 80 minutes until a mistakes allows one team to get the upper hand. They want to be entertained, they want to see players run plays that are exciting to watch.

The game peaked in the 90's when coaches such as John Monie had teams playing with elements of the modern game mated with the best bits of the past. His teams played tight and structured but would open up and run set plays when the time was right. This is the kind of style we should be aiming for.

I disagree. Ive been watching a lot of old games recently and the PTB was very slow most of the time. Holding down was far more tolerated back then. In fact, a defender would have to go to sleep on the attacker for the ref to blow for a penalty. The RFL tried to clean this area up and made it worse IMO. Now you have 26 dive machines throwing themselves on the floor milking penalties. Very ugly to watch. Id rather have more holding down with the attacking player fighting to get up rather than fighting to stay down.

Ok - Here Goes

No1 - If you cared to read my post you'll find that on numerous occasions I state that the game isn't as exciting as it used to be (But you seem intent on having a pop so lets get to it).
You state & admit that the game moving on is the problem, so your agreeing it has moved on???
That's all I was saying - Whether we like it or not it's moved on and the best defensive techniques and structures, the best physical conditioning & Tactics are being implemented - And in another 30 years they'll have moved on again!

Now then - What makes you think that getting Andy Greg back in to teach someone how to do a run around or whatever 80s/90s move you thought was brilliant back in the day would Work now?
Do you not the think that the greatest rugby league minds in the world are working as we speak on breaking defences down and if it were that simple they'd have done it? You don't have a monopoly on Open minded thinking you know.

You say my argument is over complicated (And daft) but that's the issue.
The game plans/structures today are so much more complicated and intricate that it's much harder to play against than it used to be.

I'm not saying todays game is better
I'm not saying todays players are more exciting/better as individuals etc or have more skill

I am saying, as You agree it seems, that the game has moved on - And if people/coaches/the game use the best ideas and cut out the things that don't work than it only stands to reason that things get better - It just may be that they are all cancelling each other out.
So instead of 1 person running under 10 seconds and being the best in the world we now have Dozens of athletes running under 10seconds
Carl Lewis was the first Automatic timed athlete to go under 10seconds in 1983 and although there were others (Not including Ben Johnson) who occasionally lowered it by the time we got to the 2012 Olympic final 7 Athletes were under 10secs - Ergo Athletes are getting Better
But IMO Carl Lewis is still the Greatest Athlete - He just wouldn't win if he were transported at his peak and performed to the level he did 30 years ago in todays races.
Give him 20 years of the advantages of the modern day athlete and yes there's every chance he would

Your answer seems to be go back to what worked 30 years ago and make it work now
And whilst there may be elements that may or could work I am sure they are being used in their modern day ways and tweaked to fit todays game.

Very easy to sit on a keyboard and keep trotting out the same line over and over again
We should copy what our heroes of the 80s/90s used to do and we would be the best again because they were the best then

Have you thought about taking that logic into the amateur game and coaching at that level?
I'm sure there are opportunities there for you to test out these theories
What I will say is that there are Thousands of Amateur & Professional coaches out there, all striving for that 1% Edge - Maybe they should all just go back to the 80s/90s DVD's and copy them?
Your original post said there are no teams today that could score a try like the 1st try in the 95 World cup final
Now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and presume you mean some other game as a kick to the corner and a winger in Rod Wishart who doesn't look like he grounds it is hardly a resounding endorsement of the game in the past.
You could also look at the disallowed try in the 1st half where Offiah breaks away and then is deemed in touch when he passes inside, He wasn't and only if we had a Video Ref to decide on both we may have been World Champs.

But we didn't have a video Ref - And to try and draw an analogy - although the Video ref can be a pain in the Arris and a lot of people deem it to be of detriment to the modern game it does in fairness get more decisions correct than we used to - So it's Better
And if we want to get rid of the Video ref and go back to a simpler day when a ref made his decision and we just got on with it and didn't scrutinise every decision Thousands of times and then criticise it a million times on social media then fair enough, but it won't happen, because things move on.

Same as if we want to throw the ball about, try different moves, play exciting rugby and not worry about the Risks then fair enough.
But the critics on here, Facebook etc will absolutely slaughter the coach/players when that Risky exciting rugby goes wrong and doesn't pay off. Other teams will also adapt and expose the problems with playing that type of rugby and exploit it.

I will repeat
I'm not saying the Game is Better to watch now
I'm not saying the players are better or more exciting to watch now

But the game needs to solve those problems by looking forward not back - Some of the rule changes including faster restarts and less substitutions will help a bit, but players are only going to get bigger/fitter/stronger/faster as a whole and as coaches spend more and more time evolving structures etc. it will get harder and harder to break these down.

Oh & BTW - I'm honoured that you think my arguments are over complicated & Daft
Given some of your posts in the past I would be horrified and worried for my own sanity if you agreed with them

Can't be bothered, Also it's my point to prove

Didn’t think you would somehow.

Shaun Edwards
Bobbie Goulding
Mike Ford
Andy Gregory
Iestyn Harris
Tony Smith
Deryck Fox
There, can't be bothered doing anymore, Any of those players at their best would boss it in the super evolved modern era super league
IN MY OPINION

No need to be so surly.

You seem to want to over complicate the matter again.

Just because most teams have adopted this boring 'stick to the script' approach does not mean it is now the only way all teams must play. Its junk thinking and narrow minded. What confused players years ago will still confuse them today. If there are 4 players running at you all at different angles and each one is in a position to receive the ball then it is still as confusing as it was 30 years ago. You seem to think that todays players are all AI controlled and can think faster than they did 30 years ago.

To move the game on you have to break from the mould. Good coaches are not afraid to try something different and evolve. Saints did it last year and played much looser and more like a 90's team under Holbrook and they had a superb season bar the CC final in which they just had an off day. Indeed, under Madge, we too played more like a 90's team and ran set plays when the time was right. Im not saying throw the whole modern game out of the window and play entirely like a team from 30 years ago, im saying merge the best bits from 30 years ago with todays game.

You growl at the prospect of bringing Andy Gregory in to help but last year, how many times were we camped in the opposition 20 unable to score and not looking likely to score? We were crying out for a set play and didnt have one.

Don’t think any you listed are a patch on...

Thurston
Cronk
Lockyer
Pearce
Etc.

This is coming from someone who’s fav all time 7 is Andy Greg.

I think people are easily mislead. The game has moved on. It’s so much faster, bigger bodies playing at such a pace. Decision time is way less; the ‘run around’ and other individual plays no longer work against such players.

Thesedays our halfbacks are as big as forwards from the 80s and have way more skills. For example Mitchell Pearce, a 7 is actually bigger than his father who represented Aus as a forward.

If you transported a young Andy Greg in a time machine to 2019; he’d be creamed and stopped in his tracks before he could try a run around.

Sport evolves, as each team, league strives for success and an edge over their opposition.

Who cares, Jesus, Why can't you get your head round the fact we are talking about the state of Super League the frigging NRL has naff all to do with it

You have raised a fair point there IMO. A very good post but for the last paragraph. I get the nostalgia and the thinking behind it but in reality he’s been out of the professional game for a long time. I just don’t get this desire to bring back players of old to coach because they were half decent (in the case of Gregory he was far more than half decent and likewise to LSOW he was my favourite 7 too), the game has changed, they’ve been out the pro game for far too long to be effective IMO.

We’re talking about the quality of RL today versus yesteryear. That’s the whole point to my last post. If you don’t like my posts feel free to Ignore them.

Whereas I like your posts. They’re funny.

Over complicated, daft and now surly.
I'll let you crack on, go and get Greg and I'm sure adrian Lam will love having him involved. We can always go and get Gary Schofield as well?

PS
If you think Madges rugby was off the cuff then I suspect you may be trying to shoehorn something into fit into your argument.
Madges team were so good because they were far more organised, structured, stronger, fitter etc. They then used those advantageous and played off the back of it.
If you think they sat down and watched a few videos of the old days and then just copied then then your in a stranger world than I thought. There were "Moves", and tactics Madge employed allowed Roberts/Tomkins to play off the back of it when the time was right.
If they werent so dominant in the other areas of the game they wouldn't have been able to do that.
That's what this team is missing, the dominance and structure in lots of other areas in the game to demoralised the opposition.
The attacking part of the game.will improve off the back of that.
But if you dont tackle well, defend well, kick well, hold onto the ball well, run harder and stronger than the opposition then you'll find trying to play rugby under the backdrop of that is far far harder.

I have been Christmas grocery shopping all day in Barrow, I apologise for any saltyness

Enjoy your Xmas mate. And let’s hope for a good 2020 in cherry and white

Show me where i said Madges team played off the cuff. I didnt, you are trying to put words into my mouth. I said they ran set moves. Whether or not it was around Roberts or Tomkins makes no difference, they had set plays which involved various ways of confusing defenders and creating openings rather than this single idea of swinging the ball left to right along the line.



I have never said dont have structure and dont try to dominate the opposition with the basics. I have merely argued for some entertaining set plays and more variety to our attack at the right times. The easy way to do that is look at some of the stuff teams of the past used to play and shoehorn them in to the modern game. Since Andy Gregory was a master at pulling off set plays then it would be a good idea to have him try to recreate some of them with the current team which they could then use when we are stuck on the opposition line and the usual left/right ball swinging is not working. You seem to be comparing apples and oranges and coming up with bananas. Your argument seems to be that nothing will work other than what we are doing now because most teams play the same way.

I accept i used the term off the cuff instead of set plays incorrectly.
Point still stands, it was done within structure and after gaining dominance in other areas of the game.

As for me trying to put words into peoples mouths I think you need to have a look at your own posts first.

Let's get back to the initial point.
You think watching DVDs and implementing plays from the 80s/90s in tandem with getting Andy Greg back to oversee some of this is the way forward.

I dont

Well leave it at that?