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.

Oh cry me a river.

This isn't about young people bashing (though Im intrigued by your comments - agism is a problem that blights society and shows ones ignorance) the whole thread is about if ref's lack balls.

One question which from anyone (irrespective of age) should elicit the response of yes.

Ive never said skill levels are higher now. What I said (perhaps you should put your reading glasses on) is that other aspects of the game such as speed, size and strength have increased meaning that the players of today would probably nullify any extra skill players may have had.

As for playing on mud/sand or grass - you clearly didn't see the pitch at the start of the season.

But then Im just a youngster right. What does my opinion count as

This I wouldn't particularly dispute, though as has been said, comparing old and new is very difficult - too many variables.

Would a skillful player in 1970 be as skillful now with all the extra bulk players carry as well as getting jumped on by 17stone + forwards every week? I dont have the answer, just a rhetorical question really.

Guess this does lead into another set of questions though (and very OT). Why aren't todays players as skillful (if people believe that to be the case)? They have far more support now in terms of training, fulltime, nutriotion etc.... Is it down to coaching? Is it bacause other sports attract even more attention and therefore RL is picking from a smaller pool of kids?

Personally I'd say they are just as skilful but are not encouraged to demonstrate that skill and flair by taking risks in games. It's also a full time living for these players now, if you lose your place because you've tried something that didn't come off it's also your livelihood at stake and potentially tens of thousands of pounds in lost income.

The defensive line speed also limits your opportunities to express yourself as an attacking player - at first receiver you no longer have five seconds to look up, analyse the situation and pick the appropriate pass.

I think at least part of it is due to the fact we eulogise players, and remember only the best of the things they did rather than all the bad stuff (although there are counterexamples-Garry Sprake for instance).

We'll remember Danny for being a great finisher, creative genius and top tryscorer, not for the tackles he's missed, wrong decisions made or the times he's knocked-on with the line at his mercy. So in 20 years when we see our stand off doing those things, we'll be saying 'oh only if we had McGuire, he never did that, he was something else'.

I don't think the game is less skillful now, just that we remember the great bits of skill we saw and forget the rest. Danny's try (set up by Donald) in last year's playoff against Catalans will stay with me for a very long time. A fantastic piece of play, and one of the best tries you'll see. But he still f****d up on occasion, and it's good to remember that when trying to compare players from different eras.

A number of reasons.

The game is different. The emphasis, now we have full time athletes, is on speed, strength and size. The 10 metre rule has changed the way the game has played meaning a different set of skills are needed to break down a defence.

Also, as Andy alludes to, error rates are scrutinised much more closely and, given the size and power of the lads playing today they have to be a bit more conservative about completion rates.

Of course today's players could be as skillful if were required but, then again, of course yesteryear's players could be as big, fast and fit as today's if they were full time.

What I'd like is to see today's athletes playing in a similar fashion to yesterday's players.

Today's game is all about discipline, possession, completions and territory.

I'd start by re-introducing competitive scrums (where possession isn't guaranteed to the the non offending team - encouraging risk takers to return, where the penalty for losing possession would be potentially halved) except competitive scrums in League disappeared for a reason. They were a bleeding disgrace and a blight on the game.

It happened in the last ten minutes of the Saints-Cas game, when because of playoff maths both teams *had* to keep scoring. It was the best rugby I've seen this season.

I take it that you don't like the said gentleman, then.