Sadly i suspect that Ellery would be inside centre for the English RU team if he were in his prime today.

And players back then had an equally extensive skill set - albeit in different areas of the game.

They are certainly amazed by the athleticism, size etc. But those are the areas which we have chosen to concentrate on at the expense of others. You also forget to mention that older players, whilst marvelling at improvements in specific fields, also lament the loss of specialised skills that were essential in, say, contested scrums.

The fact that you think old rugby is bad tells me you have no appreciation or understanding of the nuances of the game that were important to fans back then and judge it purely by today's standards. Which is no judgement worth listening to.

I mean, if you could somehow prove fans enjoyed the game less back then you might have some kind of a point.



There is no point of comparison here. Rugby league in the sixties was a different sport, with different priorities that were appreciated as much as any that have taken precedence today.

Apart form the obsolete "art" of scrummaging, what were they? They weren't running, passing, tackling, catching, organisation, tactical awareness.

Why do you think it's at the expense (except the obselete irrelevant) of other skills? Rather than as well?



Now you're sounding like a unionite (if the contested scrums didn't do it) - "if you don't like it, it's because you don't understand it."
Look, watch the game from those days. Watch the modern game. The ability of those past players to run, pass, evade, tackle, catch, was far far less than what we see now.


If I had ever tried to make a point that people enjoyed the game less back then, then I might have tried to prove that. But I didn't, so I haven't.



Why have you moved to talking about "appreciation" ? How much people then appreciated the sport was never in question. What you asked though, if those fans could be transported to the modern day to see our modern game, what would they think? I would assert that they would be nothing less than amazed at the skill and ability of our modern players.

I agree with you in terms of what your statement is saying but given the amount of RL shown on the BBC pre SL and the viewing figures for such on that basis SL is much less improtant in the mindset of the UK public.


As for the arguement at hand, each has its own plus & minus points from each fans pov.
Aspects of SL that I dislike that make it worse than yesteryear(IMO of course):
Tackling round the neck incessently, the wrestling/fannying around at the play the ball
Not playing the ball with your foot properly
Forward passes
Offsides at scrums never enforced, packing down not enforced, 10m at the ptb not enforced
Attacking play is much more predictable, sometimes boring even if done at speed, low risk attacking strategies are the norm
Hardly any wingers have guile, it's mostly about power/athleticsim, barring a few players the halves are as dull as watching paint dry coparatively
Interchanges (too many & should be 4 permanent subs)
referees unpredictability & choosing when to apply the laws of the game which is so random that fans are incensed
You can't have a decent bit of biff without the officials getting all twitchy
On report
The disciplinary committee
There's no characters in the game, players cannot interact with the referee in a jokey way for fear of reprisal.
Did I mention that the officials are pants and the RFlL couldn't market water in the Sahara desert?

This might sound like a one sided arguement but it isn't, there's porobably loads of things I didn't like about the old days, however I feel I was more content watching rugby league back in the 70s/80s than I am now even with the fine tuned athletes we have today and the speed of how the game flows. But for me there's too much wrong with the game as I watch it week in week out that bugs the hell out of me ( & other fans alike) yet simple application of the rules would resolve some of the problems in a short space of time.
I've watched a lot of old time stuff and yes the 50s/60s/70s is far more entertaining and varied.

I'm with Richie. Some of the defence in the 'good old days' was laughable. If you watch games from the 70s, the tackling and running with the ball are laughably soft in comparison to today. That's why old-fashioned ball handlers could play the way they did - the defence would stand off them (sadly a bit like england tend to do with Aussie halfbacks). If you look at NRL Grand Finals from the late 80s/early 90s the defensive lines are worse than they are in SL today, and the intensity isn't there.

To reverse, mugwump's argument, if you put Cunningham into RL in the 80s or earlier he would have been seen as the most destructive prop ever. He would never have needed to be a hooker. Bring a hooker from the contested scrum era into today's game and where, exactly, would they play? The answer is amateur RL at best. The one skill they had - hooking - has gone, never to return.

Bottom line is people tend to remember the good old days fondly - and I have no problem with that, I do it myself. But it does tend to add a rose tint when comparing to the modern game. Any player even from less than 20 years ago would have to be trained to modern levels to avoid looking anything like a complete numpty.

...now hat's just silly. Such a sport would never catch on