@ Dunbar and Maximus Decimus.

Just a pity you couldn't sign him within the salary cap.

Comparing the 2009 GB team with, say, the 1970 GB team, can never be anything more than an entertaining argument, but out of fairness, imagine

Dutton
Smith, Hynes, Myler, Atkinson
Shoebottom, Hepworth
Hartley, Fisher, Watson
Thompson, Laughton
Reilly

with the same full time training, conditioning and backup that the 2009 team have. I was brought up around the likes of these players: from a very early age they played many hours a week, and sometimes many hours a day, of touch and pass rugby, where the focus was to work a gap in the defence with footwork, passing, timing and deception skills. They were hard lads from a hard past, playing rugby at a time when almost every lad in their town played, and competition for advancement was enormous. They had to be good to stand out. The best of them were filtered through challenging junior and open age amateur leagues to reach club level. They could all pass accurately, catch anything within reach, and tackle their opposite number by themselves, if needed - if they couldn't, they simply did not get very far. The 1970 GB team would not have been as big as the 2009 team, but would, I suggest, match or surpass them in most other areas.
Whether the spectacle on show was inferior or not, is a different issue, mostly a matter of personal taste.
(By the way, I have no idea of the 13 from 2009 who would have to face the GB team that lost to Australia in the 1970 World Cup final: anyone feel like suggesting a line up?)

Apologies for drifting away from the main point of the thread.

It wasn't that signing that took us over the salary cap.

I did the same thing (ESPN Classic?) and, to take it further, the standard was terrible. Both offensively and defensively. Neither team playing that day would even hold down a place in SL, let alone compete internationally.

Wally Lewis was the only player who really looked like he would have done a decent job were he playing now. Having said that, the wingers, particularly Offiah and Gill, would probably be just about as good as what we've got now. The rest were well below in pretty much every area you could name. The skillsets were terrible, with almost every pass thrown from standing and most being either inaccurate or slow. Ball retention was also pretty poor and the defences were a shambles. Add in the lack of fitness and general lack of athleticism, and it didn't make for a very high standard game (by modern standards, at least).

Because the players weren't full time professionals they weren't built as big and were often faster, especially the wingers.

In today's game Offiah and Gill would have had to bulk up considerably or they wouldn't stand a chance.

They were both built much bigger than Penny though and, whilst they would've needed to bulk up more, it would be much easier for them to adapt to today's game than it would've been for just about everyone else.

Some great posts on here in response to BK. I have lost the will to debate with him so thanks to those of you who have the energy and patience. Anyone who watches pre-professional era RL cannot fail to notice how much better the game is now. All the arguments about great players have been discussed and discussed well.

I'm surprised that none of the anti-competition cap haven't pointed to the fact that we haven't beaten the Australians since Super League or the salary cap like we were obviously doing before profesionalism, ignoring the fact that the Australians went professional as well.

My main argument is we havent beaten the Aussies since the year we went to two divisions.

RL had one big league - we regularly beat the Aussies

Split the leagues, we stop beating them...coincidence? I think not