I have watch rugby league for 45 years or more and i have loved every minute but apart from the stars of yesterday I don't want to go back to watching the old games, give me super and summer rugby league all the time thanks

Of course it's subjective. As are any number of other questions we ask in life the answers to which depend entirely on opinion - yet, decisions are still made (often on the strength of one person's rhetoric above another's.)

What "standards" are you judging though?

Again, we are certainly bigger and stronger. Probably fitter. But insofar as specialised skills are concerned (which were an [iessential facet[/i of the game) modern players are entirely lacking.

Having been born in 1981 I honestly couldn't answer that question What I would say is that that was one game in the entire season, how were the rest of the crowds at those times? What was the annual turnover of the RFL member clubs? Were any of those clubs actually profitable, or did they all rely on financial backers to bankroll the operation? When you're looking at historical accounting records, should the sums involved be adjusted for inflation, or should they be presented directly from source, with accompanying national average wages for the periods being compared? (edit: maybe also include the relevant periods' unemployment figures as a % of the available workforce)

To me commercial success and crowd figures don't tie up hand in hand, of course higher support gives you the opportunity to turn over more money and reap higher profits, but it doesn't guarantee it.

[iEntirely[/i lacking?

So there is entirely no specialisation between the game played by, say, Lee Briers and Gareth Ellis? What about Sam Tomkins and Gareth Hock? Could Wigan interchange them during the game?

Some of your earlier posts made a lot of sense, this 'no specialisation' nonsense is entirely that however.

I doubt Hanly would be a LF in tdays game, but I reckon he'd be a revelation at centre or SO today.

Hanley is the finest British rugby player I have had the privilege to watch live and ranks up alongside Wally Lewis and Andrew Johns as one of the best players of the last 30 years or so

But it is an interesting question about how effective he would be in the modern game. He was almost the ‘prototype’ modern League player with immense athletic ability and talent but I think it is fair to say that this differentiator would be less now that all the players are that bit stronger and faster. Also, the game has changed so much – one of the most famous of Hanley’s tries was the length of the field effort down the right wing for Bradford beating man after man on the way. But I have to say, I don’t think he could score that try if it was today as the whole team now scrambles in defence much better (partly due to extra conditioning, partly better coaching)

However, having said that, Hanley would still be a great. He had already changed his game when he played for Leeds and his work rate was exceptional. He would bring that to SL plus a unique ability to beat the tackle. I think he would definitely be a loose forward in the modern game and he would be a great one

As a coach, trust me: skill levels are far higher than they have ever been.

What's the relevance of my, or anyone's, coaching methods?

It isn't the method he is querying , it's how you are comparing them to the past he is questioning

Watching the game, or footage of the game from ye olden dayes.

So its your opinion as a ' viewer ' rather than a coach

I am also a RL coach , as I am sure are many others on these boards

As a viewer of ye oldene dayes and a coach and viewer of the modern day.