Quote: Itchy Arsenal "I know that none of them are English.
Are you saying that Andy Gregory isn't better than any 7 playing today in SL or that Jonathan Davies wouldn't be the best FB?
Also give me Offiah or any winger with sheer pace flying down the wing anytime before any acrobatics.
Everything in the past was not great far from it but neither is everything today perfect. I think today coaches are under pressure to deliver almost immediately as they are appointed and this can lead to safety first tactics.
I do believe in cycles and that emphasis will change to a more attack minded type of play underpinned by solid defence.
The 1970's in general was pretty turgid and it needed the 1982 Invincibles tour to give the English RL a kick up the backside maybe the next World Cup will be won by an open brand to give us another kickstart.
I actually think that the 2020 season may be pretty decent with a few teams making some good improvements to their squads and hopefully a more competitive league. This could lead to more teams trying some old, some borrowed and hopefully some new plays to give the sport a bit more than 5 drives and a kick.'"
You touch on the 82 invincibles
6ft plus wingers
6ft plus centres
Back rowers with the speed of our centres and wingers.
Their fitness/strength etc played a major part in them being light years ahead of us.
It probably took 15/20 years for us to catch up on that.
With regards to individual players then rightly or wrongly Andy Gregory would need to fit in to the game plan and structures far more than he had to in the late 80s early 90s, same for Davies or any individualistic type player.
I'm a liverpool fan, but the games changed so much and is so much faster now and tactically/professionally advanced of the game of the mid 80s that this liverpool team would murder the team (in football) that I idolised.
Peter schmeichel was asked after the 99 champions league win to draw a comparison with the 68 team, he said theyd win 10-0, he was right.
And that's not to decry as I say the players of the past etc, but things move on and decade after decade as another roster said, coaches, players learn from things of the past and implement change to improve. That doesn't mean that the game is a better spectacle, but the better players then could expose the weaknesses of the lesser players/teams far easier then they could today.
Would I like to go back to the game of the 80s/90s early 00s then probably yes, but if we want teams and the game to improve then coaches will implement better structures, better individual coaching plans etc and overall each team will be "Better" so to speak.
Of course Greg/Hanley/Edward's/Davies/offiah/ Schofields of this world were exceptional players, and given all the advances that today's players are blessed to have then yes, they could equally be better than the currently players by the same amount they were back then. But they would have to do it within the constraints of today's methods and the fact that ALL players are coached/trained to that level and have the same advantages.
That has equalised a lot of the natural differences that players have and that back in the day separated a lot of the players..
Back on topic with regards to coaching and "Moves".
I'm not saying modern versions of "some" of the old stuff may be able to be used in certain ways, but to simply suggest that we use the same moves and/or get players of the past to come in and coach today's players to be as good as they were is completely lacking in understanding of today's game. I've sat with coaches st a very high level (and people who know me know how and why) and the detail that goes into today's coaching and game.l plans and structures is unbelievable and way ahead of anything that the Joe average fan like me or pretty much all of us on here would like to acknowledge.
That doesn't me we cant have opinions, but theres a reason those guys are in those positions and were not.
