Quote: Jukesays "I'm not sure where you get any of that from and how it relates to my post?
Where did I say anyone has to accept that today is better, you dont have to accept anything.
Your saying in essence today's players and structures are more about brawn over skill? I'm not saying any different.
Just that today's players HAVE to be fitter/stronger etc to be able to compete.
If they dont they will be blown away by what may be a less skilful player but who is better physically, mentally, coached etc.
The amateur game is/was littered with players who had more skill than some of their professional counterparts, but other areas of their game/preparation wasnt up to it.
Lots of people are saying we want to see more creative half backs, fine, the game itself isnt demanding that you have to be less skilful just that tou have to be super fit and fit into structures that the game/coaches demands.
It's quite simple, if more players are fitter, stronger, faster and they all perform well within a good organised structure there will be less opportunities for the other team to exploit.
That's not decrying the skilful players who may find it harder to bring down structures harder than their previous counterparts, it's just harder.
F1 (not really a fan), but are we saying Stirling Moss, ayrton Senna, James Hunt are better/more skilful than today's drivers?
Their asset (The car/technology) demands that they drive and perform in a certain way. I'm sure F1 fans may say that the old sport was better with more passing and excitement, but they would get blown away in today's races.
Golf, Jackn Nicklaus is the Gaareatest
But he wouldn't have won as many majors today as he did back then. He had that something that separated him from his counterparts of that era. Modern players have taken what worked and made it better and there are now More Better players. It may not be quite as exciting in some ways and the game itself has had to change to make/give some of the technology advances in the game less impact (longer holes and more complicated hole design).
Snooker - More better player's in the game, players could go out and try to play like Alex Higgins, but theyll get exposed and their deficiencies exposed as the more professional players of today's game would expose those deficiencies better. And yes it may be less exciting, yes it may only be better to watch today for those who want to get involved I the more technical aspects (not like me and you and the average fan). But it is.
Today's game isnt as exciting for me, its individual stand out players arent as exciting (Because the gap between the best and the worst isnt as great).
But unless we can develop the game where we all decide not to "Over coach" players or have game plans that let players play then advancements in coaching, game plans, structures, fitness, strength etx will keep ploughing ahead.
Individual players will always rise to the top in one way or another, but just being the best player at 16 and not buying into the other assets of the game isnt enough.
What would the Wigan team of the 90s do to the Wigan team of the 60s?
Individually the Wigan team of the late 50s/60s in Boston/ashton/sullivan/ Davies/Bolton/parr/Mctigue/Evan's/Ashurst etc had some of the best players the games produced
But the advances in all areas of the game meant that the 90s team would beat the 60s team comfortably.
Although the advancements maybe haven't come as far in the same time theyve still advanced.
In the 70s the British game carried on playing the game as it had in the 50/60s and whilst the Aussies (Jack Gibson, wheres CP Wigan these days) carried on moving forward we didn't and weve still not caught up.
The aussie game itself though suffered in some ways, the risk free structured game was labelled as boring by a lot in the early 80s (check out some of the scores in the Aussie GF's or read Monies book).
But those teams and players, even though the game may have gone risk free and structured, showed how far it had advanced when compared to best we could offer whobhadnt advanced.
I agree that the game itself may need to look at more ways of increasing excitement through changes in rules etc. And I believe a further reduction to 6 substitutions would help, keeping the game moving and less stoppages to increase fatigue factor etc would let some of the more skilful.playwrs flourish.
Anyway, just getting in Manchester Victoria and it's been a thoughtful train journey. As I say I'm not saying today's players are "Better" than their counterparts of yesteryear, just that the advances in lots of areas give them advantageous to be Better and that although the spectacle itself may not as exciting etc the full time professionalism and the advancement year on year leads to it being harder and harder to exploit deficiencies as there are less and less.
Merry Xmas everyone (it may even be new year by the time you've finished reading this).'"
Some good points taken onboard and I think we broadly agree. I think we're we probably don't entirely agree is that I think we have gone way ott on fitness and structure at the expense of individualism and skills.
Could it be that improving players skills other than defending is a lot harder and more time consuming than fitness work etc? Do coaches take the "easier option"?
In a nutshell I just want a bit more excitement from the game ideally with fast open competitive rugby. I don't want 42-38 games I love a tight physical game but a tight physical game with the odd moment of genius or superlative skill that you wait to get back to the pub to regale about.
As I've said on previous posts the game historically works in cycles so I'm hopeful the day of the wrestle and incessant 5 drives and a kick won't last forever. I'm not convinced about LM but more than happy to be proven wrong that he can instill/allow a more attractive style into our game
