I don't have an issue with past players or coaches criticising, but it is especially important to remember that RL is quite simply a different sport to what it was even 20 years ago. When I started watching in 81 most coaches were of the "shout when we're losing ilk". I'm not sure any British coaches back then had a clue about fitness or how to coach skills or tactics. Mind you, the "physio" at Leeds then literally was an old bloke with a bucket of water, a sponge and for severe cases smelling salts.

Very true, Alex would,t have a clue about conditioning, player structures, game plans etc. All we can do is value his opinion and observations, KC does need some form of consultation though so he doesn't get bogged down in the best way forward.

Alex Murphy, the Kyle Eastmond of his time!

Whilst RL in Murphy's day was undoubtedly a different game - it's completely silly to think one of the finest scrum-halves and tacticians the sport has ever produced can't critically evaluate today's game.

But whilst Murphy is critical of Saints. It should be pointed out that he's equally scathing about the competition.

The truth of the matter is that Rugby League goes through phases when playing the percentages assumes greater importance than taking risks. A classic example would be the Australian game during the eighties when wingers were relegated to little more than an accessory.

I view the current situation as a failing of the game rather than any particular coach. All the new coaches in the world couldn't have addressed the lack of entertainment we saw in the eighties. Which is why the game itself was forced to intervene and switch to ten meters.

But given the far stronger position of the NRL these days (which for some reason remains pretty entertaining) I really can't see something as drastic taking place.

it's a little early to be saying Cunningham is a poor coach, it's his first year, he's an inexperienced coach. If he learns from his mistakes he'll be a good coach, if he doesn't then he'll be a poor one.

Powell was arguably worse than Cunningham at Leeds in the same position, now with more experience he's regarded like a second coming.

Isn't that the issue? Powell was unfortunate in getting dumped into the head coach role when Dean Lance left, but it was clearly way too early. Thank goodness he's been able to learn and develop into a good coach. I can't think of any examples recently where a player has successfully transitioned into coaching within a year or so. even if the long-term plan was for Cunningham to be Sts coach, surely it would have been better if he'd earned his stripes in the Championship first?

I can't agree with your opinion that the sport is failing. You only need to look at the rugby Leeds have been playing this season to know that the sport is alive and kicking if you play the right way. Hell, I'm a diehard Bulls fan and even I have enjoyed watching Leeds this season.

Warrington are struggling as a result of poor player recruitment, and yourselves are struggling as a result of a poor coaching appointment.

Castleford can be another example of a side getting it right. A squad that, on paper, doesn't look that great but the combination of an astute coach and a club philosophy has seen them become one of the most entertaining sides in the league.

For all the wailing about standards in SL, its worth reminding ourselves that crowds across the board (whilst maybe falling a bit in the last year or so) are way up on what they were through Wigan's dominant era for example, and completely dwarf those in the 70s and 80s. So whilst those of us that were around then may prefer the way the game used to be (I don't TBH), there are far more fans who have only known RL as it is in recent times.

Why cherry pick the 70's and 80's we use to have crowds of 30 000 + at one time for a league game. The standard of super league has been dropping for quite a few years now, intensity in matches have dropped, lots of time wasting, bad officiating and large parts of games in general are a bit of a bore fest for most teams. The number of Quality super league players is poor which is understandable with our poor salary cap ceiling and the RFL/Clubs messing up the grass roots level losing out on some of the sporting england funding.

For myself, I get pretty bored watching some of the SKY matches and we can include this years challenge cup final as well, most of this season with the saints we have been mediocre, its likely I'll not bother with a season ticket next year and will also cherry pick some of the SKY matches.

Sadly its all about hyping up a game to get the punters through the gates, when in reality for most of the time we don't get 80 mins of competitive action week in week out, the game has lost a lot of its entertainment value which is what Alex M is talking about.

One definite and one possible is no great evidence to support an argument. In any case, I think it's a more complex question. If I'm honest I'd say that this has been a pretty entertaining season in terms of close games. But I can't say I've been impressed by either the intensity or the standard of play across the board. I think a lot of this is down to some very mediocre halves spread throughout the league.

Great RL players would be great players in any era, regardless of weather they play the game now, or in the past. I do think the positions some players play, or played would be different because the skill set required in certain positions was very different then, and it's very different now.

As for the overall standard, I don't think the standards or skills have dropped at all. Where I think the game has changed is that players today have a lot less time on the ball, and less space to accurately execute there skills. When you look at the game from the 20th century what's noticeable is how 'broken' the defensive lines were, and how few players were involved in the tackle. Also, the likes of Andy Gregory used to crab across the field and looking for gaps, I think if he tried that so often in todays game he'd more often than not got smashed by the advancing defence. I'm not saying that he wouldn't have been a great player now, he was a very skilful player, but I do think he would have to adapt his game significantly to succeed, not to mention his lifestyle.

Personally, I love the game as much as ever. It's totally different to when I started watching it, but that doesn't mean it's not fun to watch. Granted there's some dross served up each week, but that's ALWAYS been the case in any sport.

How Rob Burrow must wish for the return of [ithose[/i days !! He would have gone down in history as an even better scrum half than Andy Gregory...maybe in fact as the greatest RL player ever

I'd agree that his appointment was a mistake, he should have learned the job elsewhere for me before being given a big job, but the club probably looked at Wane making a similar step up and succeeding.

Not quite the same though. Wane had been coaching (very successfully) at U17, U20 and U23 academy level for quite a few years before he was given the assistant and then head coaches job.

First team coach is very different to coaching the youngsters though. OK he will be able to observe the first team coach in action and pick up pointers but taking the top job and the buck stops at your door plus you have a lot more ego's to deal with were as the youngsters are generally raw and 'yes sir no sir' at such a young age. Football throws up many examples were a good number 2 doesn't always make a good number 1. Brian Kidd springs to mind.