Why are you making a sarcastic post, to poke fun at an opinion that no one has actually opined?

2001 wigan and bradford packs

Joe Vagana, James Lowes, Brian McDermott, Daniel Gartner, Jamie Peacock, Mike Forshaw .

Subs: Paul Deacon, Shane Rigon, Paul Anderson, Stuart Fielden

Terry O'Connor, Terry Newton, Harvey Howard, Mick Cassidy, David Furner, Andy Farrell.

Subs: Paul Johnson, Chris Chester, Denis Betts, Neil Cowie

last thursdays packs

Hill, Clark, Sims, Currie, Hughes, Westerman.

Replacements: Dwyer, Westwood, G. King, Wilde

Richards, Roby, Walmsley, McCarthy-Scarsbrook, Greenwood, Wilkin.

Replacements: Amor, Vea, Thompson, Knowles.

I honestly can't see how you think ball retention was easier against that top group than that bottom one.

Come on, be serious. That 2001 squad is way way way more aggressive, and were afforded way way way more leeway.

And yes defences now are generally more organised, players are fitter, but that is counteracted by the fact those players just arent anywhere near as good as their counterparts.

So your inference here is that those saints and wire packs are more aggressive than the sum of their constituent parts. Thats seems...unlikely


except they were afforded more leeway re targetting the ball carrier and the ball itself because the rules were applied differently. There was more leeway regarding head-shots, the shoulder charge was legal, the game itself was more violent and aggressive.

Also you say, there was less focus on the wrestle and holding players up to delay the game in those days. But that should result in more dropped balls because more of the impact is on initial tackle.

But if you want to believe in the wonderful technical defence of Atelea Vea, Greg Richards and Jack Hughes ill leave you to it.

Super League standards started dropping well before 2011/12.

I'd suggest 2008/09 which coincided with the banking crisis and onset of economic slump. The economic crisis also impacted upon a frozen salary cap level which still exists today. Sterling which used to buy over 2.5 Aussie dollars slumped to only 1.5 Aussie dollars with implications for the quality and depth of overseas signings along with quality coaches from down under. The replacement coaches in the game were the likes of McDermott, Radford, Wane, Cunningham, Anderson, Chester, etc.

The RFL in their wisdom also decided around the time of economic crisis that 12 SL teams should become 14 SL teams in 2009 in a competition which struggled to spread an already wafer-thin talent base among 12 clubs. The absurd 14 team 'licensed' competition went out of its way to reward mediocrity with a Top 8 play-off system along with safety from relegation and its guarantee of a Sky handout for clubs ranging from the ordinary to utter sheissenhausen.

The playing standards in SL have fallen dramatically ever since along with a steady decrease in overall attendances. The attempt to halt the slide with this latest format has thus far failed to make any impression.

Ball retention was harder because those players were better, they were given more leeway in the tackle, they were more focused on a big initial impact rather than holding and wrestling and because they were allowed to shoulder charge.

You are also forgetting that players offloaded a lot more 10/15 years ago than now,

If you want to think you are watching some kind of tactical defensive masterclass from these players, if you want to think that, even though we have outlawed the shoulder charge, even though the focus on tackling has changed to slowing the ptb rather than impact, and even though players are offloading much less, they are committing many more errors because of wonderful defence you are welcome to.

Why is it unlikely? You agreed defences are better organised, quicker and fitter. That means they are up in your face a lot earlier and you have to deal with 3 players instead of 1 or 2. I'd rather take on Nigel Vagana on his own than 3 of the modern defenders that you so deride.

You're making my own argument for me. Yes they were going for a big hit. A big hit to deter the ball carrier (and his teammates) from running it in, it wasn't focused on dislodging or wrapping up the ball, hence so many more offloads. Today's defences are all about controlling the ball, to both prevent an offload and to slow the play the ball.

The impact is irrelevant unless it manages to hit a very small area on the body, just under the ball or perhaps the arm itself. Anywhere else then a larger impact doesn't really make much difference to ball retention. You're also making an assumption that the impacts were bigger/more powerful simply because a few people got knocked over. I'd dispute that given the GPS data we've had for several years now that shows the impacts only getting bigger.

You can continue to deride modern players if you wish but I'd rather look at the game and analyse it without prejudice instead.

That isnt aggression.

Exactly, its about controlling the ball. Why would a controlled tackle, where the ball is being controlled by both the defenders and attackers result in more ball being spilt?

I havent derided modern players at all. I'd agree our modern player are bigger, faster and stronger, i would agree that they defend more as a unit. I disagree they are more aggressive, and i disagree that they are responsible for the terrible ball handling we have seen from the top teams over the past few years.

Also im unsure what global positioning data will tell us about impact, i mean its great for pokemon but doesnt really tell us much about the g-force of an impact.

What i would say is that those players listed from 2001 are better players. They were better then and if playing today, with todays training etc, would be better. Not because of a rose-tinted view of the game then, but because the facts are, in 2001 the best players we produced played in SL, and clubs could afford to import better players. Now that just isnt the case. Our best play elsewhere and much of what we import strives for dross.

For the love of god, yes it is. Of course it is. It's an aggressive defence.


Are you really asking how, in a situation where the ball rather than the man is targeted more, that leads to higher rates of lost possession? Come on Smokey, you're not daft. There's no need for this to go on for 15 pages whilst you insist black is actually white.


Does this mean you think the size, speed, strength of players and their cohesion in defence has no effect on whether a ball carrier drops the ball?


The GPS packs the players wear give exactly that information.


I disagree that they were better players in 2001. If those players were put under the same defensive pressures as in 2016 they would've dropping just as much ball in my opinion. The game has changed, don't mistake an inferior spectacle for inferior quality.

no it isnt, its just fast. Ian Kirke was a pretty good defender, he was organised and up in a quick defensive line. Nobody would describe his defence as aggressive.

but the ball isnt targeted to be stripped, its targeted to be held. Why havent we seen the same ball retention issues in the NRL? And why arent we knocking balls loose left right and centre on the wcc if our defence has improved so much? also why do we see far fewer dropped balls in tight defence focused games like the GF?
No not really. To dislodge the ball there needs to be some sort of impact on it.

Im guessing you mean an accelerator or G-force sensor.

except they didnt did they. 37 year old JP didnt drop huge amounts of ball did he? There wasnt a noticeable fall in JP's ball retention over the years was there?

Aggressive defence isn't just hitting hard, like Him says, getting up off your line and taking space away is aggressive. And they still hit hard, there's just more control and technique these days.

Shit! (won't miss live attended games sorry to say)