Not sure what you are watching every week to come out with that statement. Couldnt' be further from the truth.

You are right on 1996. But between 2000 and 2013, the game was far far superior over here than what we have now, and of a much higher quality.

How do you measure standards?

How do you measure "what is good to watch" - it is a subjective measure.

I suspect we've all got different opinions. In my view the game in each era had good and bad features. These features made it better or worse to watch depending on your point of view. For instance I think the game now is less entertaining because of the obsession with the ruck.

Is the game at a standard now than ever? I think we need to agree what we mean before you can argue about it.

Technical competence of the players - today's players are incapable of being able to perform basic skills under pressure. Is there a kicker in SL with skill or vision of a Sean Long or a Paul Deacon?

the games gone away from skill sets to dominate g the wrestle/ruck.
only cad seem to have worked on attacking skills.
the game needs a balance, good defending is good to watch but do is exciting attack.
you see odd bits but nowhere near enough off your seat moments

For me there are two sides to the coin. An absolute judgement and a relative judgement.

I think as an absolute judgement I could accept (though I wouldn't personally agree with it) that the game has improved through the improvement at the bottom. More clubs are no.competitive in more games. My opinion would be this hasn't come from the lower clubs catching up but the top.clibs slowing down.

As a relative measure I can't even see it as a realistic prospect to say SL has improved relative to the NRL.i honestly dont. 5-10 years ago I think the top 2 or 3 clubs in SL could have held their own in the NRL. Maybe not challenged for anytging but been in and around. Now I'm not sure an SL dream team playing in the NRL would be a top 8 side.

I would bet there is more missed tackles per game now than there was in any season of the years 2000 to 2013. Defence hasn't improved for me at all. The poor attacking qualities of teams means they are not testing defences, and yet still simple missed tackles are made.

are there more missed tackles now,due to the games being more competative,thus causing more injuries.which then leads onto the need to blood more inexperienced/younger players.tony smith was interviewed on radio recently and said this is the most competative season since the inception of super league.i personally agree with him.i think this will be of benefit to the england squad when we take on the aussies & kiwis.

Competitive is completely different to quality. Go through any sport with a league, and you will find competitive performances from the same dumbed down rubbish. As Smokey says above, had the bottom teams got better, you might well have had a point, but all that has really happened is the top teams have lowered to match the poorer bottom teams.

Did you think the bottom sides were any good in the same period 2000-2013? so why do you think different now?

It will not aid the England team in the slightest. And as a consequence they will move to get more players around eligibility loopholes so that they can take players from the NRL, to make themselves more competitive.

you may be right,only time will tell.its all opinions.having more young english players,playing more games can only be a positive thing.just my opinion.

you only have to watch this game tonight to see the level of defence teams have these days.

What was Leigh's defence like in 2005?

I said game, not team, referring to both teams not just one. Both laughable.

Yes and Leigh are one of those teams in that game, so what was their defence like when they were last in SL just over a decade ago, or Wigan's that same SL season when they lost to us and Saints in consecutive weeks 70-0 & 75-0? Let's not forget they've got half a team out as most do nowadays which simply wasn't happening 5-10 years ago, hell in 2005 we lost one single player in Senior and it all went t*ts up for us.

What was Leeds attack like?

that's some revisionist e right there. Our centres in the 2005 grand final were an GB international and a Queensland and Australia rep. On the opposite side were an NRL winner and a player who go on to.win that years tri nations for NZ.

I note that the oval are proposing to spend 50 million on a ground re-vamp.

I know who our centres were in the 2005 GF, doesn't stop the fact that as soon as Senior got hurt our season and performances went downhill fast and his absence was considered the key factor. So we can hardly be dismissive of teams struggling with multiple injuries today and the affect it has on their performances when Leeds couldn't even cope with 1 injury back in 2005 and threw away a treble in the process.

according to andrew dunneman they lost because Smith flogged them every day in training. no rotation, no days off, no easy days. come grand final they had nothing left

As I said revisionist . Chris McKenna is a better 3rd choice centre than anyone has in SL today. We lost because we played a pretty good side that included Hape, Vianokolo, Harris, Deacon, Fielden and Peacock Robbie Paul and Adrian Morely. Not to mention Radford Vagana and Meyers

You couldn't put a pack together from every team in SL right now that could hold a candle to Bradfords in 2005. There are few if any centres in SL as good as Hape in 05 and there are even fewer halves of the quality of Harris or Deacon

Some on here think SL is a better standard than it was in those days.

It's not solely about the GF though is it because we lost 5 of our last 7 as soon as Senior got injured compared to 10 wins from the previous 11.

And I like most agree that the better teams were better then than today as the league has levelled out (the lower teams aren't as poor). The point is you can't properly compared the standard in 2017 using a game between two teams both missing 7/8 starters against a period that didn't see anything like those injury numbers. Just one injury affected Leeds badly (Saints didn't reach the GF too after Newton took out a couple of their guys including Long) so what would the standard of 2005 era been f those top teams were regularly playing minus 6/7/8 first teamers.

You have managed to disprove your own argument once again.

Your argument is that SL is better now because there is more strength in depth throughout the league. Your argument in favour of this is that in 2005 Leeds lost a GB international centre and replaced him with a Queensland state of origin and Australian international centre and it wasn't enough.

You further compounds your nonsense by highlighting St Helens losing quality players like Long and Sculthorpe and replacing them with Wilkin and Roby also weren't good enough.

Oh shut up with your usual babbling nonsense after you've read what you've want to read to have an argument.

Not once have I said SL is better now but you've just accused me of it. My argument is you can't properly compare the standards because of the very varying injury numbers teams had.

Read that last sentence repeatedly instead of making up something else in your head because I can't be bothered getting into one of your arguments because you misread and misinterpreted the point being made, that's your failing not mine.

ThePointscorer tries to shift the goalposts again.

here we go again