OK, so we've lost some of the RU legacy skills no longer relevant to the game.
KC would just play another position, in the same way that if he'd gone to RU he wouldn't throw the ball in at lineouts.

The irrelevant skills have been made up many times over by improvements in relevant skills.

I've got to be honest and say that the one skill being lost from the game that I don't lament is scrummaging. Like (I assume) everyone else here I watched the 'classic challenge cup final' replay from 1978 on BBC4 not all that long ago. And my immediate reaction to the scrums in that game were not "Oh man, that's awesome, I wish we had competitive scrums in modern RL", it was "What an absolutely shambolic god-awful mess, I'm glad we don't do that anymore".

I say scrap the scrum. It is useless in my opinion. It is just a way of starting the game up again, this could easily be done with a tap. It is very rare you see a set play from a scrum nowadays as well. Just get rid.

I'd have to agree that the scrum is a joke. Get rid - a complete waste of time.

My view on the game today is that I think the players are a bit too athletic and getting a bit too big. Too much emphasis on strength and conditioning which means I think we end up missing a lot of the smaller and more intelligent players we once used to see. This isn't just a problem in league - the same has happened in yawnion.

One area which I think has been left to rot since the game went to summer is at International level. Is this just a phase or is this a serious decline in the international game? Do any of us still care about beating Australia?

? Tomkins, Burrow, Robinson, Mcguire, Brough, etc?

Do *you* think Keiron Cunningham - at the height of his career - could perform in a contested scrum against a similarly experienced and talented hooker back in the sixties? I don't.



In the modern game it's entirely possible for one player to play - and perform reasonably well - in any position that doesn't exclude his size. Throughout his career I've seen Paul Wellens play full back, wing, centre, second row, scrum half, stand-off and - I think - hooker.

And Wellens is hardly the exception. Just about every club has players who can adapt to four, five or even six positions.

These skills are only "irrelevant" because you are looking at them outside of their context. If we could build a time machine and bring fans of sixties league - who appreciated the intricacies of specialisation, the tactical possibilities etc. - forward are you naive enough to think they'd prostrate themselves in wonder?

This reminds me of arguments I've had with fans new to boxing who think all modern fighters MUST BE light years ahead of their predecessors because they pump iron, eat broccoli and drink protein shakes.

Hell yes! More than anything else in the sport. I've been waiting 30 years to witness it and every year I wait will make the moment all the sweeter. Here's hoping it's the World Cup Final

Well you did say "specialist skills" rather than "obselete skill"




Which shows just how skilled the modern player is. Almost ever player has an extensive skill set.

Indeed those from the 60s would. They would be amazed by our modern game (as a few of the older posters have said) as I'm amazed by footage of the old game as how bad it was. The skill set, capability, athleticism, tactical awareness, and organisation are indeed light years ahead of the old game.

It's only in sports where we can't get a direct measure of era vs era we have this idea that the old eras somehow had something better about them. When we can make a direct measure, e.g. in athletics, we can see quite clearly the progress made.

I'm usually very calm when watching the sport, whether it's SL, the team I coach, the amateur club I work with, or even players that have graduated from my team. But when it's against Australia, that's when I get really emotional about the game. I'm sure Australians are nice people, but I f****** hate them when they're their national team.

The basis of this thread was obviously Bradford's recent troubles, but i don't believe the mess they're in or the similar woes Wakefield faced last year are down to the state of just rugby league only but the way clubs from all sports have mismanaged since the millenium.
In football we all know the plight of Leeds United, Portsmouth have gone from FA Cup winners to 2 administrations in around 4 years, even Liverpool of all teams were looking dodgy just over a year ago. In cricket some counties are paying the price for chasing Test matches and doing their grounds up to achieve that.
Owners of sport teams have horribly managed clubs hoping for success or just plain not had a good balanced structure in place.

I think that comment alone sums up the answer to the question about the game itself.

As to if the game as a business has improved? Probably. There was the comment earlier about the 100,000 attendance at Bradford. That must have brought a smile to the accountants face that day, but how much would he be grinning if he'd been able to include advertising and sponsorship deals into that figure?

The game as a whole is on a slide. I still doubt that it's anything to do with SL/Sky/Lewis/ineptness of the RFL, but a wider range of things - Sundays are no longer a day with little alternative to a local game of RL for one thing - but the one that concerns me most is touched on earlier - that of the media appeal of football eclipsing our game. I don't think there's anything we can do about that now, we had our chance at the creation of SL, but unfortunately you can shout as loudly as you want but if the media choose to ignore you then there isn't anything you can do about it, other than to grumble into your ale.
As one of the contributors to the RL Fans book from a few years back, I contacted many of the RFL's clubs chairmen for opinions on why the media ignored us. No one had a conclusive answer, but the general opinion was 'We're not football'.


Finally, when I first started using this forum, the suggestion that scrums should be scrapped would have got you lynched. Thankfully, we seem to have moved on from there....

I'd agree the lack of national media exposure can harm the game - but I don't think that's really the crux of the matter, I'd say that all RL clubs are in catchment areas more than big enough to sustain them if they can get sufficient interest within those catchment areas and you don't need national newspapers and TV news channels to do it - local newspapers and advertising should be the first port of call - perhaps if the stadiums currently in use were more regularly anywhere close to their capacity, it might make the national media sit up and take a bit more notice.

Pre 1996, Rugby League was a game played by teams along the M62 that got very little attention from the national media and was only ever in the public spotlight when the BBC showed the Challenge Cup Final.

Thanks to ESL and SKY TV...

Rugby League is now a game played by teams along the M62 as well as a unsupported team in London and a French club. It gets very little attention from the national media and is only ever in the public spotlight when the BBC show the Challenge Cup Final.