I can name some but I don’t see the point. You clearly aren’t a fan of impact players, which is fine by the way it’s not a criticism of you but me naming some won’t change your mind.

Re balance perhaps we did but it was successful. I would much rather a SW type style that was consistently winning trophies and beating our nearest and dearest rivals than a free-flowing, no idea what we’re doing style we adopted last season which resulted in us being torn to pieces by Saints each time we played them and in reality we were never really serious contenders for the SL trophy.

I’m not convinced Lam has the credentials or ability to strike that balance. We have the players to do it but it’s the coach where the biggest question mark is for me.

Good post mate. The irony with Lam is all he claimed to improve has gone backward. We're not getting free-flow rugby; we're getting a disorganised mess.

I actually do see the advantage of 'impact players' At times the teams energy can drop if the other team is getting on the front foot or if they've seen a lot of ball. Impact players (for example Rob Burrow) added energy, speed at a time when the oppositions forwards energy is dropping. I've seen games changed with an impact player comes off the bench.

What about other sports? I suspect there are moves from NFL, NBA and NHL which could translate, plus obviously RU

Why complicate matters when you can look back and see ready made set plays from the great teams of the 90's that would work today?

Its all about sending defenders the wrong way and at the wrong men. What worked to confuse defenders back then will mostly still work today.

This is one of the reasons i wanted the club to bring in Andy Gregory to work with our half backs. We need somebody that can think outside of todays robotic structure obsessed setup. Thats not to say throw the modern game out of the window but merge the old and new together and get the best of both worlds.

I disagree

It has evolved but the skill level has decreased, that comes from grassroots and how the game has been watered down. We were full time for most of the 90's and had a massive fitness superiority to most clubs and also competed and beat full time aussie teams also. The players in the 90's has 2 subs and that was it but the forwards now with rolling subs are fitter with outside backs doing a lot of their work? Give over. Players in the 90's were bigger and maybe not as fit as a guy 2 stone lighter were fit enough to do the job. Its not looking back with nostalgia, its looking back with facts and opinions and reasons.

I must say that last year we were in transition. We lost a lot of world class talent - including coach and back room staff. We were never going to roll on and win trophies this year. At the beginning most people were happy with mid table, and to me, I think we out performed. Next year ( hopefully) we’ll have better players in and 2020 will be the poo or bust season for Lam. That’s my thoughts anyway.

But you haven’t given any facts, just a nostalgic opinion. Nor have I given any facts but an opinion and an educated one at that.

You think skill level has decreased whilst I in the contrary think it’s increased. I do believe it’s ludicrous to suggest that skill level has decreased since the 90’s. Players now are much fitter, agile and skilful than they were in the 90’s in general.

You keep labouring the point about substitutes; that’s utterly irrelevant. The game has evolved, changed. Boxing used to be 15rounds and before that unlimited rounds, does that mean the game has gone? Absolutely not.

I’m sorry but I completely disagree with everything you’ve said. The game is far more skilful now than it used to be.

again I disagree, players now are clones all similar size. In the 90's they were all specialists. The skill level has decresed due to grass roots for me. You now dont play a full 13 a side and full rules until about under 13's so cant have proper positions. it used to be full rules 13 a side from under 7's. Half backs in the 90's were all more skillful than they are now. Not as big granted but more skillful. Singers werent as big but were faster and more agile. Bradford started the trend with having nearly everyone over 16 stones and its now the blueprint of the game. My point about subs is irrelevant? How many props play 80 minutes now compared to the 90's?

The game has evolved. It learns from what works and implements it. While the games and plays of the 80s may look more skilful they're really not. In the last 10 years we've seen some amazing creative play and feats like no others from acerbating wingers diving for the corner, speedsters, and the most creative halves.
Just look at the likes of Thurston, Slater, Cronk, Inglis, Shaun Johnson, RTS and tell me they're not specialists in their positions.

All in Aus who have a different approach to youth setups. It was more skillful to score as a winger before as you had to beat the man and corner flag, now you just have to beat the man. How are they not more skillful the plays? If they look its because they were......the most creative halves? really?

In the last ten years we've seen the removal of the corner flags thus enabling half decent wingers to look like world beaters with their jazy dives in at the corner, 90% of said tries would have been disallowed ten years back so I wouldn't call any of that more skilful or evolved, Also I would love to see a list of these most creative halves your talking about because I can't think of any, Finally nobodies talking about the NRL so why bring it up to try and prove a point

As Brian Clough once said

Well meet up, have a chat and then both decide I was right!
Simples