A few things I remember from that evening before Gareth's Rohipnol kicked in was that the games from the early 90s were surprisingly fast, and pretty much as quick if not quicker than SL games now. The PTB was much quicker and there was less of an obsession with the ruck area. Teams lined up much deeper and had a greater variety of set moves with the ball often being switched or using runners running imaginative lines. It was a world away from SL where we see all the teams using the same dull set move.

At Division 1 level there's no doubt that defences were looked less organised at times but teams had to use skill to break them down rather than brawn. There's no doubt that kicking skills were better with players able to kick the ball further and make it stand up in goal more easily. At test level with defences more organised you'd expect a more sterile game but that wasn't the case. I think the game nowadays has gone from being skill orientated to brawn orientated, largely due to the introduction of the 10m rule. It's easier to train a big athlete to get a quick PTB and win a penalty than to coach skills. That is gradually changing but when you look at the lack of skilful British players in the game over the past 10/15 years you have to wonder about how the game has developed and what coaches have done.

The other thing that struck me was that just about every other play the ball back then would be penalised for foul play now. There was a sly dig in almost every tackle yet this very rarely led to a reaction from the player, ref or crowd. It seems over time we've become used to seeing less and less of this so now a player like Bailey gets a heap of attention for what would be nothing at all 20 years ago. While this may be fine in the hyper sensitive and PC world we live in it's far less entertaining.

It's a different game with some significantly different rules shaping the contest.

The modern game is much more a battle of possession and territory, in part because the scrums are virtually uncontested and more or less guarantee possession to the non offending side. That promotes a safety first, conservative approach where possession has to be protected almost at all costs. That has produced a breed of automaton players incapable or unwilling to chance their arm. They are generally dissuaded from trying anything with any risk attached, unless it's in the dying stages where caution has to be thrown to the wind. Hence the five drives and kick approach we see for 90% (guessing) of each game in SL.

I don't mind the way the game is played, I've adjusted to it over the years and still enjoy it but I find it a far less skillful game to witness.

Well put and an opinion I share.

Indeed, borne out by coaches obsession with completion rates.

I disagree.

Clearly the rule changes have had a big effect, but fitness, technique and tactics have been just as important if not more.

I watched the 78 cup final between leeds and saints the other and noticed how many tackles were one on one and how many were around the chest area and upper body. But also how few actually went to ground. In this day and age that kind of defence would be blown away via offloads(which is one area of skill which has unarguably improved imo) but also the size, speed and strength of the players these days mean that kind of tackle would be brushed off.

I believe that some of the skills of 20-30 years ago were only useful because of the poor quality of fitness, technique and tactics and they wouldnt work today not because of the rule changes or a more defensive strategy but because players defensively are better and space is harder to earn.

I dont disagree the strategies are more negative, but i think we go in cycles where an attacking tactic gains prevelance so a defensive stragey is needed to combat it, that defensive strategy then gains prevelance so an attacking strategy is needed to to combat it, that then gains prevelance and so on. Right now i think we are seeing more attacking play and we are at the start of an attacking cycle

The snail eating, garlic stinking surrender monkey that the RFL employ is the biggest invertebrate to enter a professional rugby pitch.

Keith Senior wouldn't have half as many medals to sell if he had played in the 70s.

If my auntie had a cock she'd be my uncle - ...and your point?

If Keef had played for Leeds in the 70's he'dve had an absolute hatfull of medals as there was a lot more competitions to accumulate medals from.



At least know you're history before you spout $hite you hampton.

What would you know about medals?

Rape badges don't count.

Spot on.

Originally introduced for technical offences I remember the lively debate about the application of the Sin Bin for foul play. Not all were in agreement as they though it would encourage referees to duck out of red cards. For me it could have been introduced entirely as a way of dealing with the late head shots on John Holmes that blighted the game.
There is the assumption amongst younger posters to assume that skill levels have increased over the years. What has happened is that ball control is probably better (a negative influence from down under I think), but skill is timeless. If some of the players I saw (many at the end of their careers admittedly) had been able to play on grass rather than sand and mud, and with a ball covered in fly paper, I think we would wonder what the heck was going on.

I was once involved in a match at college with Allan Agar (Richard's dad for younger viewers) and although he was never rated close to an International cap (and at this point he was around his mid thirties and coaching at Featherstone) he ran rings around a bunch of young fellas who thought they could play a bit. With ball in hand he was a magician and the thing was every club had one of those in the halves (and he was British) and most of the top sides had a couple more .... in the pack.