Quote: Jukesays "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.'"
Sorry Jukes I don't get your argument.
Are you saying we just need accept that today is better and that's it?
I'm not a yesterday man but I believe today's players in terms of skill are way off the mark. All muscle and no brain driven by conservative coaches.
I think coaches have been totally overrated in the past and in the present. My main complaint isn't necessarily against bigger players but brawn always in front of brains
I know I'm old fashioned but I know what I like and 17 athletes with shoite for brains doesn't float my boat. I want a half back to say to the coach and play what they see.
My favourite coach was Graeme West who today would probably be laughed at but then again which team could go to Australia with no props and beat them comprehensively?
I just dislike structure. The more I see the more I dislike.
Why can't full time more learned coaches come up with plays to turnaround disciplined defences?
Im not negative just challenging today's standard.