Oh so now you’re once again changing the rules of the debate? Fancy that.

Of course you won’t. You tried to put words in my mouth by naming two players who I never even mentioned.
When I called you out on that you went hiding.

If you’d debate what I said rather than what you want me to say, it would be a different story.

No, im saying that most of the players you list have retired and replaced with modern day robotic halfbacks.

I think as you look back over the decades players in the past had more space and time to showcase their skills. I’m not saying they were any more or less skilful than today’s counterparts they just had the opportunity to show it.

Just as an example if you watch back games from the late 80’s early 90’s the play the ball was far quicker, defences were not set and it showed.

I don’t buy the argument that past players couldn’t play today, they would fail miserably if dropped them straight in but if they had the same conditioning, nutrition and professional Set up rather than a cup of tea and a slice of orange at half time they would be fine. If today’s players hopped in a time machine it would be men v boys for the same reason.

We always remember the past with fondness, I guarantee in 20 years we’ll be saying they don’t make players like SOL or Sam T anymore.

If we want creative freedom & space for the players who have the skill to exploit it then we need to adjust the rules to give it to them.

Your argument is daft and over complicated as usual.

You say the game has moved on but that is exactly the problem. It has moved on, to something worse. Why do you think the interest in the game is on the decline? Its because people are bored at matches. People dont want to give up time and spend money to watch 2 teams repeating the same structures over and over for 80 minutes until a mistakes allows one team to get the upper hand. They want to be entertained, they want to see players run plays that are exciting to watch.

The game peaked in the 90's when coaches such as John Monie had teams playing with elements of the modern game mated with the best bits of the past. His teams played tight and structured but would open up and run set plays when the time was right. This is the kind of style we should be aiming for.

I disagree. Ive been watching a lot of old games recently and the PTB was very slow most of the time. Holding down was far more tolerated back then. In fact, a defender would have to go to sleep on the attacker for the ref to blow for a penalty. The RFL tried to clean this area up and made it worse IMO. Now you have 26 dive machines throwing themselves on the floor milking penalties. Very ugly to watch. Id rather have more holding down with the attacking player fighting to get up rather than fighting to stay down.

Ok - Here Goes

No1 - If you cared to read my post you'll find that on numerous occasions I state that the game isn't as exciting as it used to be (But you seem intent on having a pop so lets get to it).
You state & admit that the game moving on is the problem, so your agreeing it has moved on???
That's all I was saying - Whether we like it or not it's moved on and the best defensive techniques and structures, the best physical conditioning & Tactics are being implemented - And in another 30 years they'll have moved on again!

Now then - What makes you think that getting Andy Greg back in to teach someone how to do a run around or whatever 80s/90s move you thought was brilliant back in the day would Work now?
Do you not the think that the greatest rugby league minds in the world are working as we speak on breaking defences down and if it were that simple they'd have done it? You don't have a monopoly on Open minded thinking you know.

You say my argument is over complicated (And daft) but that's the issue.
The game plans/structures today are so much more complicated and intricate that it's much harder to play against than it used to be.

I'm not saying todays game is better
I'm not saying todays players are more exciting/better as individuals etc or have more skill

I am saying, as You agree it seems, that the game has moved on - And if people/coaches/the game use the best ideas and cut out the things that don't work than it only stands to reason that things get better - It just may be that they are all cancelling each other out.
So instead of 1 person running under 10 seconds and being the best in the world we now have Dozens of athletes running under 10seconds
Carl Lewis was the first Automatic timed athlete to go under 10seconds in 1983 and although there were others (Not including Ben Johnson) who occasionally lowered it by the time we got to the 2012 Olympic final 7 Athletes were under 10secs - Ergo Athletes are getting Better
But IMO Carl Lewis is still the Greatest Athlete - He just wouldn't win if he were transported at his peak and performed to the level he did 30 years ago in todays races.
Give him 20 years of the advantages of the modern day athlete and yes there's every chance he would

Your answer seems to be go back to what worked 30 years ago and make it work now
And whilst there may be elements that may or could work I am sure they are being used in their modern day ways and tweaked to fit todays game.

Very easy to sit on a keyboard and keep trotting out the same line over and over again
We should copy what our heroes of the 80s/90s used to do and we would be the best again because they were the best then

Have you thought about taking that logic into the amateur game and coaching at that level?
I'm sure there are opportunities there for you to test out these theories
What I will say is that there are Thousands of Amateur & Professional coaches out there, all striving for that 1% Edge - Maybe they should all just go back to the 80s/90s DVD's and copy them?
Your original post said there are no teams today that could score a try like the 1st try in the 95 World cup final
Now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and presume you mean some other game as a kick to the corner and a winger in Rod Wishart who doesn't look like he grounds it is hardly a resounding endorsement of the game in the past.
You could also look at the disallowed try in the 1st half where Offiah breaks away and then is deemed in touch when he passes inside, He wasn't and only if we had a Video Ref to decide on both we may have been World Champs.

But we didn't have a video Ref - And to try and draw an analogy - although the Video ref can be a pain in the Arris and a lot of people deem it to be of detriment to the modern game it does in fairness get more decisions correct than we used to - So it's Better
And if we want to get rid of the Video ref and go back to a simpler day when a ref made his decision and we just got on with it and didn't scrutinise every decision Thousands of times and then criticise it a million times on social media then fair enough, but it won't happen, because things move on.

Same as if we want to throw the ball about, try different moves, play exciting rugby and not worry about the Risks then fair enough.
But the critics on here, Facebook etc will absolutely slaughter the coach/players when that Risky exciting rugby goes wrong and doesn't pay off. Other teams will also adapt and expose the problems with playing that type of rugby and exploit it.

I will repeat
I'm not saying the Game is Better to watch now
I'm not saying the players are better or more exciting to watch now

But the game needs to solve those problems by looking forward not back - Some of the rule changes including faster restarts and less substitutions will help a bit, but players are only going to get bigger/fitter/stronger/faster as a whole and as coaches spend more and more time evolving structures etc. it will get harder and harder to break these down.

Oh & BTW - I'm honoured that you think my arguments are over complicated & Daft
Given some of your posts in the past I would be horrified and worried for my own sanity if you agreed with them

Can't be bothered, Also it's my point to prove

Didn’t think you would somehow.

Shaun Edwards
Bobbie Goulding
Mike Ford
Andy Gregory
Iestyn Harris
Tony Smith
Deryck Fox
There, can't be bothered doing anymore, Any of those players at their best would boss it in the super evolved modern era super league
IN MY OPINION

No need to be so surly.

You seem to want to over complicate the matter again.

Just because most teams have adopted this boring 'stick to the script' approach does not mean it is now the only way all teams must play. Its junk thinking and narrow minded. What confused players years ago will still confuse them today. If there are 4 players running at you all at different angles and each one is in a position to receive the ball then it is still as confusing as it was 30 years ago. You seem to think that todays players are all AI controlled and can think faster than they did 30 years ago.

To move the game on you have to break from the mould. Good coaches are not afraid to try something different and evolve. Saints did it last year and played much looser and more like a 90's team under Holbrook and they had a superb season bar the CC final in which they just had an off day. Indeed, under Madge, we too played more like a 90's team and ran set plays when the time was right. Im not saying throw the whole modern game out of the window and play entirely like a team from 30 years ago, im saying merge the best bits from 30 years ago with todays game.

You growl at the prospect of bringing Andy Gregory in to help but last year, how many times were we camped in the opposition 20 unable to score and not looking likely to score? We were crying out for a set play and didnt have one.

Don’t think any you listed are a patch on...

Thurston
Cronk
Lockyer
Pearce
Etc.

This is coming from someone who’s fav all time 7 is Andy Greg.

I think people are easily mislead. The game has moved on. It’s so much faster, bigger bodies playing at such a pace. Decision time is way less; the ‘run around’ and other individual plays no longer work against such players.

Thesedays our halfbacks are as big as forwards from the 80s and have way more skills. For example Mitchell Pearce, a 7 is actually bigger than his father who represented Aus as a forward.

If you transported a young Andy Greg in a time machine to 2019; he’d be creamed and stopped in his tracks before he could try a run around.

Sport evolves, as each team, league strives for success and an edge over their opposition.

Who cares, Jesus, Why can't you get your head round the fact we are talking about the state of Super League the frigging NRL has naff all to do with it

You have raised a fair point there IMO. A very good post but for the last paragraph. I get the nostalgia and the thinking behind it but in reality he’s been out of the professional game for a long time. I just don’t get this desire to bring back players of old to coach because they were half decent (in the case of Gregory he was far more than half decent and likewise to LSOW he was my favourite 7 too), the game has changed, they’ve been out the pro game for far too long to be effective IMO.