]

I love this. Every time Mike ends up in an argument it's get the dictionary out, make himself look like a literary genius and throw in as much science as possible to convince the masses that, as he's such a clever chap, he must be right and the world of Rugby League is more entertaining than it ever was.

A common theme throughout the posts is to berate the quality of Rugby League in the past. Quality is not the issue here. Entertainment is. If all I wanted was quality, I could go and watch a sculptor creating a statue of the Virgin Mary for eighty minutes. It isn't. I want to be interested in what I am seeing, excited, even.

There is continual reference to the ball hitting the deck every few tackles all those years ago. Have you watched any games this year? I've never seen the ball hit the deck so much as over the last few months. The difference is, now they are hitting the deck for no reason other than players cannot execute a simple short pass, or keep hold of it during the tackle. At least, in the past, the ball went to ground at the end of an attacking passing movement.

The simple facts are that the modern day game involves less passing, less risk taking, less ball handling, less invention, less off loading and virtually no thrilling passges of play. The game involves more defence, more one man rugby and total predictability.

In short, the game has gone from being an attacking sport to a defensive sport. If you get your thrills out of trying to strangle the life out of the opponents rather than beating them by producing better quality, open football, then fine, but don't try and insult my intelligence by claiming that it's all selective memory and the game has never been more exciting to watch. It might be better if you tried arguing with someone who hasn't got twenty years worth of contemporary written records that negate the possibility of selective memory.

You appear to only see one side to "quality". Quality isn't just attacking, quality is defending too.

And quality defending means better quality attacking is required. In SL at the moment, the good defences are on top. It has happened before in the NRL, but the balance is forever changing and some of the attacking rugby in the NRL this season was breathtaking, far better than the apparently halcyon days of 90s league in the UK.

You seem to have an incredibly rose tinted memory of the past. Some of the games were just as dull and duller.

Give me games like Aus/NZ the other week and Leeds/Saints over the last few years over a 40-36 scoreathon any day.

I can't speak for DD but certainly i am not for one second suggesting games have to be scoreathons to be exciting.

Some games from the past were dull but they were a minority compared to two thirds of games being dull last season

I love good defence, conceding 0 to me is better than scoring 60. But i don't really agree that defences are on top, not when it is being exaggerated by slowing the attack down to make it easier for the defending team.

As I said, "quality" is not the same as "entertainment". I'm not a complete village idiot. I am aware that the quality of defending is significantly better than it ever has been.

I have never said the "quality" used to be better but the "entertainment" was. It's nothing to do with rose tinted spectactles. Anyone can see that the game has evolved into a very different game than it was ten years ago. Anyone can see that the predominant tactic has changed to ploughing it down the middle and securing territory. Anyone can see that the flair half backs, centres and wingers have all but disappeared. Anyone can see that long range tries are largely a thing of the past. They are stone wall facts. The game is different.

The brand of rugby that was formerly played is very different than now. I enjoyed free-flowing, attack based Rugby League, with teams looking to score whenever possible. I'm not a fan of conservative, safety first Rugby League.

I have my own written reports of every game dating back twenty years. Those reports signify my love of the game. They talk enthusiastically about the entertaining day that I had. They don't anymore. So at least I have some contemporary evidence to back me up.

Maybe it's you who has a distorted version of events rather than me.

There were low scoring games in the past you know? A look at things will tell you that there were significantly less points per game on average in the period between 1990 and 1993 than there was in the period between 2006 and 2008. The 4-5 and 8-8 games against Wigan though still involved people trying to move the ball about.

The Australia-New Zealand game was more more like that kind of era. The close games in Super League of late don't even resemble the same sport sometimes.

Didn't want to sound condescending, I've no doubt you've watched more RL than me (I'm 2icon_cool.gif. But I remember watching some truly horrible games during winter rugby. They were not all about throwing the ball about, there was lots and lots of "up the jumper" dour rugby, as the conditions demanded it.



I personally find the brutal defense based games far, far more entertaining. Give me the big shots of the Aus/NZ game over length of the field tries due to poor defence. Plus, long range tries may be a thing of the past at Saints due to a lack of pace, but they certainly aren't at Leeds for example.

Going back 10-15 years, who were these flair half backs you speak of? I'd rather watch Tomkins and Eastmond at 6 and 7 than people like Tony Smith and loose forwards playing 6 like we saw then for GB.

Is, for example, Eastmond any less exciting than a young Sean Long?



Fair play



Maybe you were a different person 20 years ago to what you are now? Maybe RL played a more important part in your life?



I would expect so, given the games were played in the depths of winter in often terrible conditions.



As do the close games these days.



The Australia-New Zealand is more like this era because, well, it IS this era.

In response to FeartheVee

Didn't want to sound condescending, I've no doubt you've watched more RL than me (I'm 2icon_cool.gif. But I remember watching some truly horrible games during winter rugby. They were not all about throwing the ball about, there was lots and lots of "up the jumper" dour rugby, as the conditions demanded it.

There were horrible games because of the weather, yes, but it may be worth noting that we have had considerably more rain at games in the Friday night era than we ever had during the Sunday games in winter. I can honestly say, especially since St. Helens Town moved in, the pitch has been more of a mud-bath in the early and late season months than it ever was during the winter months in the late 80s/early 90s.

I personally find the brutal defense based games far, far more entertaining. Give me the big shots of the Aus/NZ game over length of the field tries due to poor defence. Plus, long range tries may be a thing of the past at Saints due to a lack of pace, but they certainly aren't at Leeds for example.

I'm sorry but if you find big hits more entertaining than teams playing with the actual ball then maybe you should start watching boxing or bloody WWF.

I would prefer to discuss it with someone who actually goes to the game.

Of course the game has changed and not for the better.