I think if you look at what makes a good RL player:

Talent
Skill
Size
Strength
Fitness
Speed
Determination/dedication



Probably missed some off but that should do for a start.


The first one you are born with. As a working assumption let's assume players of 30 years ago and current players are equal.

Skill- skills have improved in todays game - forwards offload more and generally have more in their lockers than those of yesteryear. Backs - debatable- call it a tie

Size - There were 13stone forwards around back then. Go figure. Todays players are much bigger

Strength- men against boys. Our under 21's are probably stronger on average than the pre-Fairburn team.

Fitness- Not even worth mentioning. Suffice to say a game of touch rugby then 4 pints of Guiness is no longer the training schedule.

Speed - overall faster, but there were a few flyers back then. Call it a draw to avoid arguments.

Determinatoin/Dedicaton - Hard to evaluate. Gong for a draw here too.



However, one thing that is overlooked is technology. Today if there is a weakness in a players game, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be exposed.


Most if not all serious games are recorded and video analysis of plays and players is a key part of training.

Therefore any "flaws" in a players game are constantly identified and acted upon.

The key effect of this is to improve the player.

Another couple of players to mention that I would love to have seen in a Saints shirt

Dean Bell and Paul Hulme - 2 great, hard but fair players.

Some of those 14 stone forwards, John Barton, Brian Edgar etc were 17 stone plus.
They were fit as the majority had physical manual day jobs. Some of the tales about John Barton, Brian McTigue and Frank Collier strength whilst working down the pit were unreal, but true as they came from people who worked with them (I'm sure twosevenzero and Jukesays will know what I'm on about)

Dick Huddart was as big and faster then any back row forward playing today.

To dismiss players of the quality I have mentioned on before is ludicrous, particularly as you admit to never have seen them play.

In reply to the original post I never hated Radlinski. Seemed like a top bloke who gave everything he had for his home town team and didn't have a malicious bone in his body. Farrell seemed to up his game against us and his last 2 years in a Wigan shirt must have been as inspirational as it gets in terms of having someone lead from the front.


[sizeStill rather have Scully and Wello but that's for another discussion.....[/size

[sizeStill rather have Scully and Wello but that's for another discussion.....[/size'"

Ellery Hanley for me

Kevin ward
Alex Murphy
Vince Karalius
Van Vollenhoven

and I actually saw them play, too

Ahh right I see now, Leeds are a big club, but we won more than them so that doesn't suit your argument so you forget them.
Judging by your argument your going to tell me next that Saints are the only club you class as a medium sized club. To even call us a medium sized club shows that your arrogance holds no bounds, to tell me that Hull are bigger, displays that you may be an idiot. If You wish to continue this argument please tell me who you, the great Brett Kenny would consider to be medium sized clubs. I would like to wager that it's only clubs that suit your argument.

Players like McTigue or Murphy would rip modern day defences apart.

Murphy was like a bullet over 20 yards.

Mac was not only an 'hard man', but was extremely fleet of foot and a real ballplaying forward.

There are no 'top drawer' players at the moment unfortunately, and I include Australia in that statement.

Sean Long......................

is a w@nker is a w@nker ....

i have never liked andy farrell but he was one of your best players

here is one for ya

if you could sign back 3 players you had from 5-10 years ago who would they be

mine would be for saints:
tommy martyn
darren albert (makes dallas look like a slug)
paul sculthorpe