Spot on. All the modern methods make players better athletes.

No one doubts that players are bigger and the game is faster. But given that players are now fully pro you'd expect such. The question of fitness is debatable, I think. If we could take an average the argument would certainly swing in SL's favour. But there are many stories from yesteryear in which ahead-of-their-time coaches successfully instituted formidable training regimes. Against such cases the gap may well be quite narrow or perhaps non-existent.

The point about rule changes is extremely important because a coach must tailor his training to squeeze the absolute maximum from the rules. Forty years ago Rugby League was a far more specialised sport. Which meant it would be senseless to concentrate solely on size, speed, athleticism and fitness in training.

Keiron Cunningham will go down as one of the greatest players of the modern age. A tremendous physical specimen gifted with pace, power, size, agility and an eye for the line. But if Cunningham could somehow be transported back in time to the 60s how many coaches would take him in exchange for their possibly slow and overweight first choice number nine who understood the complex technical skills of hooking a ball (crucial for any side wishing to retain possession), not to mention the black arts of scrummaging? My guess is - none.

I'm somewhat cynical about the word "innovation" as it sounds a bit too close to "progress" - and not all progress is necessarily good. Older fans of the sport have often criticised today's game precisely because of its lack of specialisation with far too much time devoted to physical training and far too little spent on basic and role-specific skills. I think this is a perfectly valid criticism. Moreover, I'd argue lack of individual specialisation has made RU's goal of attracting top League talent that much easier - but that's another issue.

It's comforting to think changes made to RL over the past two decades have somehow made the game "better". We've certainly got a different game on our hands. But it's nonsensical to argue [ienjoyment[/i levels have somehow increased because of these changes.

You can't compare the game to the 1950s/60s. In that era people were much less mobile, so local RL clubs did not really compete with the big soccer teams for crowds. For many in Warrington, going to Manchester or Liverpool to watch soccer on a Saturday was simply impossible, hence the big crowds at RL for games that also kicked off on Saturdays at 3pm. The glamour that attached itself to soccer from the early 60s onwards came along just as ordinary folks were acquiring cars and therefore getting more choice as to how to spend their leisure time and money. I would guess that disparity in wages (between RL and soccer ) also accelerated in this period,taking talent away from rugby.

Overall the playing standards are now higher than I recall ( I started watching in 1967 ). watching old video of the Challenge Cup Final in 1974, for instance, I'm struck by the apparent lack of organisation and seemingly 'off-the-cuff' tactics. Fun to watch, but we were soon taught a 1980s lesson by the Aussies as to why that wouldn't cut it in the late 10th Century.

what's the quantifiable measure to apply the comparison to, though? even spread of championship/cup winners? national side success rate? crowd levels (peaks & troughs, as opposed to averages?)? number of clubs going bust/in to administration?

To try and say whether RL is "better" during any particular era is entirely subjective and a matter of your own opinion, which would be heavily influenced by what you deem to be 'better'.

Surely a better question to be asked would be: What could we do to improve the on-field competitiveness across the board in Rugby League.

An additional question could be: How can we make Rugby League more commercially successful at all levels?

Sounds good. When I've finished comparing the book I'm reading to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles I'll have a crack at it.

I have watch rugby league for 45 years or more and i have loved every minute but apart from the stars of yesterday I don't want to go back to watching the old games, give me super and summer rugby league all the time thanks

Of course it's subjective. As are any number of other questions we ask in life the answers to which depend entirely on opinion - yet, decisions are still made (often on the strength of one person's rhetoric above another's.)



Aren't you just replacing one subjective question with another? In any case it doesn't automatically follow that increased competitiveness (which is measured, not to mention agreed upon, how?) will bestow untold benefits on the sport. It sounds plausible. But there are any number of additional factors (economic, training, development etc.) that all need to fall into line as well.



Was the game "commercially successful" when were pulling 100,000 fans into Odsal? Serious question, BTW.

What "standards" are you judging though?

Again, we are certainly bigger and stronger. Probably fitter. But insofar as specialised skills are concerned (which were an [iessential facet[/i of the game) modern players are entirely lacking.

Having been born in 1981 I honestly couldn't answer that question

What I would say is that that was one game in the entire season, how were the rest of the crowds at those times? What was the annual turnover of the RFL member clubs? Were any of those clubs actually profitable, or did they all rely on financial backers to bankroll the operation? When you're looking at historical accounting records, should the sums involved be adjusted for inflation, or should they be presented directly from source, with accompanying national average wages for the periods being compared? (edit: maybe also include the relevant periods' unemployment figures as a % of the available workforce)

To me commercial success and crowd figures don't tie up hand in hand, of course higher support gives you the opportunity to turn over more money and reap higher profits, but it doesn't guarantee it.

[iEntirely[/i lacking?

So there is entirely no specialisation between the game played by, say, Lee Briers and Gareth Ellis? What about Sam Tomkins and Gareth Hock? Could Wigan interchange them during the game?

Some of your earlier posts made a lot of sense, this 'no specialisation' nonsense is entirely that however.

I doubt Hanly would be a LF in tdays game, but I reckon he'd be a revelation at centre or SO today.

Hanley is the finest British rugby player I have had the privilege to watch live and ranks up alongside Wally Lewis and Andrew Johns as one of the best players of the last 30 years or so

But it is an interesting question about how effective he would be in the modern game. He was almost the ‘prototype’ modern League player with immense athletic ability and talent but I think it is fair to say that this differentiator would be less now that all the players are that bit stronger and faster. Also, the game has changed so much – one of the most famous of Hanley’s tries was the length of the field effort down the right wing for Bradford beating man after man on the way. But I have to say, I don’t think he could score that try if it was today as the whole team now scrambles in defence much better (partly due to extra conditioning, partly better coaching)

However, having said that, Hanley would still be a great. He had already changed his game when he played for Leeds and his work rate was exceptional. He would bring that to SL plus a unique ability to beat the tackle. I think he would definitely be a loose forward in the modern game and he would be a great one

As a coach, trust me: skill levels are far higher than they have ever been.

So can you give us a brief outline of your coaching methods from say 1932, 1948, 1953, 1967, 1974, 1988, 1995.....

What's the relevance of my, or anyone's, coaching methods?

It isn't the method he is querying , it's how you are comparing them to the past he is questioning

Watching the game, or footage of the game from ye olden dayes.

So its your opinion as a ' viewer ' rather than a coach

I am also a RL coach , as I am sure are many others on these boards

As a viewer of ye oldene dayes and a coach and viewer of the modern day.

Skill levels are higher in facets of the game we've chosen to concentrate on. So dropped into a scrum in the sixties Keiron Cunningham would be right up at (or near) the top in terms of size, power, fitness etc. But given the rules of the game which dictated a high degree of specialisation (requiring years of experience to master) he'd be a weakness. In those days hookers were fundamental to keeping possession of the ball. More than one team lost a Challenge Cup Final because it couldn't field an experienced hooker. Sure, with ball in hand Cunningham would be a real handful. But you could imagine a clever number seven such as Murphy having an absolute field day kicking the ball into touch knowing full well his total lack of scrummaging skill would result in scrum after scrum being lost.

OK, so we've lost some of the RU legacy skills no longer relevant to the game.
KC would just play another position, in the same way that if he'd gone to RU he wouldn't throw the ball in at lineouts.

The irrelevant skills have been made up many times over by improvements in relevant skills.

I've got to be honest and say that the one skill being lost from the game that I don't lament is scrummaging. Like (I assume) everyone else here I watched the 'classic challenge cup final' replay from 1978 on BBC4 not all that long ago. And my immediate reaction to the scrums in that game were not "Oh man, that's awesome, I wish we had competitive scrums in modern RL", it was "What an absolutely shambolic god-awful mess, I'm glad we don't do that anymore".

I say scrap the scrum. It is useless in my opinion. It is just a way of starting the game up again, this could easily be done with a tap. It is very rare you see a set play from a scrum nowadays as well. Just get rid.

I'd have to agree that the scrum is a joke. Get rid - a complete waste of time.

My view on the game today is that I think the players are a bit too athletic and getting a bit too big. Too much emphasis on strength and conditioning which means I think we end up missing a lot of the smaller and more intelligent players we once used to see. This isn't just a problem in league - the same has happened in yawnion.

One area which I think has been left to rot since the game went to summer is at International level. Is this just a phase or is this a serious decline in the international game? Do any of us still care about beating Australia?

? Tomkins, Burrow, Robinson, Mcguire, Brough, etc?