The game is fitter, faster and more powerful than it was in 2006. 1996 is another era entirely.

Poor choice of words from me there. Agreed that it is definately fitter, faster and more powerful.

Has it improved skills? And by that I mean the skill of drawing defence, passing, moving etc. I don't think it has. I think the game has lost some of the shine since players became more athletic.

Overall it'd be difficult to tell - but Martin Offiah on twitter last season was absolutely adamant that players back then were earning a lot more money than they do now. He knows, because he's seen the contracts (I guess by virtue of having been a player himself, and now being a player agent negotiating the contracts).

Whether that was true at all clubs, or even between all players at the top clubs who were paying out more than they could sustain in player wages, it would be difficult to say without the disclose of facts & figures from the players involved - and let's face it, why should they be inclined to do so, and what right would we have to ask it of them?

The defences have improved dramatically in terms of being organised. I love watching old clips of Gregory and Edwards dropping the shoulder and chiming through the line, but could they do it so often now with less gaps to run through and less unfit props to take advantage of?

I think some of the ball handling of today is sometimes breathtaking, the way Warrington and Wigan move the ball can be lightening fast. BUT, I think some of the older players were much better at reading the game, they seemed to have a better 'RL brain'.

It takes us back to that old question... how good would the legends of the past be with the modern training and fitness programmes. Hanley was a freak but if he was playing now he could be bigger, stronger, fitter but still with his ability.

Interesting example - I would argue the opposite, that Hanley would be less effective (rather than more) in today's game.

He would, because the defence would be more structured.

That is why the likes of Slater and Tomkins are so special. To be able to cut through teams who are so well organised is just sensational. Slater would of had a field day back in the 80'.

Yes. I do.



Oh, at least a decade or so ...



So we were on the cusp of going from one club dominating the domestic game in the top flight to another doing so by virtue of financial collapse? Whereas what [ihas[/i happened is that (if you will) the trophies have been shared out rather more widely and Wigan have survived – see Odem's very good post on that – and other clubs have caught up; the playing field [ihas[/i been leveled out at least somewhat. We haven't gone from a situation of one club dominating to another doing so.



I'd largely agree with this. And there will be much about the question of whether the game is 'better' that will be subjective. Personally, I'd say that, by and large, it is better. I think more games where the outcome is not obvious is a help. I think there is increased – and increasing – intensity. Summer rugby has been good, in my opinion (see – I'm making it quite clear where I know I'm being subjective

), for a host of reasons, including better surfaces on which to play fast, running rugby. With the exception of mud wrestling, I don't want to see any of 'my' sports played in bogs.



And fair enough again with this. It's impossible to disagree.



Now on this, I'm rather less in agreement. First, because we simply don't know. So many things could happen – or not. But you see I also think that, in saying: "we'll still have a few clubs dominating" you're falling into a trap of not really acknowledging that "a few" is actually massive progress from where we were a decade or so ago. Perhaps that's also the way it happens in team sports universally? I wouldn't swear to it, but I cannot think, off the top of my head, of a team sport where there is not a situation of a certain group of 'elite' (if you will) clubs dominating for X period of time.



We weren't winning them by the pot load beforehand ...

One might also add that nutritional and training knowledge have developed and he might be even bigger and stronger now.

Better is bait subjective, obviously they are fitter and stronger as full time v part time, but in my opinion the game was a better game to watch years ago.

If you go back 25 + years we didn't have just a few dominating , we had different clubs winning things all the time , so is the game better now than 15 years ago ? , yes , better than 30 years ago ? , NO

So true we dont want to return to the dark days of 1 club domination , but we wont ever get to the way it once was which was better than now

Either way , it is what it is , and people will either choose to spend their money watching it or not

Its difficult to make a real comparison, as we are looking at semi-pros and full time pros and a winter v summer game. We all have our opinion, but unfortunately we are not the ones who can make a real difference to how the game is played. We are all, also, guilty of looking at things through rose tinted glasses and saying "things were better when I was young". As a 70 year old I'm as guilty as anyone else of this, but would much sooner see athletes (which is what the modern players are), playing tghe game on good, hard surfaces. Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

It's easy to claim SL is a roaring success comparing it to one of the worst periods in modern RL.

Surely if we hope to achieve anything we should be measuring ourselves against the time when British RL was at its finest (50's/60s)?

Let's see how [ithat [/iargument stacks up.