It’s a good debate but in the end it’s pointless (but fun). It’s just impossible to know really, today’s players are so much stronger and faster and the rules so different it’s like two different sports. Would the players of yesteryear even have the time and space to demonstrate their skills and instinct? That’s the question that can’t be answered I’m afraid.

excellent topic. can,t help but think,most of the forwards in the 60,s would have been sent off in the first 20 minuits,lol

Or collapsed in a heap

Hi guys, some details to take on board, the four tackle rule came in before the six tackle rule in December 1966. There was no hand over if you were caught on the fourth tackle, it was a scrum down. However, provided you kicked the ball & it bounced before it went into touch you/your team got the put-in & open side head - advantage to the scrum half, only the hooker could strike when the ball hit the floor ? Scrums were contested by push weight & holding the opposition. The ball had to come out behind the 2nd row. The hooker had to put the ball in straight & with no upward motion ! Naturally scrums could be a lottery & some refs were poor at controlling the whole scrum rules giving penalties regularly ! Props & hookers + 2nd rowers got caught with "feet-up" this giving away a penalty, continued offending resulted in being sent off, which did not always happen.
Take note that wakefield became double champions under the four tackle rule Don Fox being the master kicker to touch line kicking torpedo screw kicks just above the players height & the ball rolling into touch nearly always beating the winger & able to roll the ball into/before the corner flag, scrum to wakefield, further four tackles. Scrum position always square to at point of entry & 10yards in. So if the ball went into touch 1yard from the try line then the scrum tunnel was 1yard from the line not as currently ! Emphasis was on attacking play.a
This the game had speeded up considerably and remember each side was only 5yards from a play the ball point, 10 yards apart. Only two substitutes per side per game.
They were part time players but rarely did the main teams/players & special players have heavy full jobs other than players working in the pit's
I still think that a human being then brought into current day diets, full time training would be every bit as fit as the current players.
The Australians were the first to start the six tackle rule as their game then being so sterio type could not create attacking play. RFL here adopted six tackle rule in 1972 ! Ball being handed over to opposition if caught with the ball, no scrum. At first there was alot of aimless kicking & panic kicking. Thus the game you see now has been tweaked & teams + tacticians all play the same way same tactics, awaiting mistakes.
However I still get a thrill when players like our Tom scores spectacular tries.
Up the Trin.

Lots to admire about the game of yore - but equally, it was often a spectacle of unrestrained thuggery, which has thankfully pretty much gone, bar the odd moment of madness; that's very definitely a good thing.

But - I don't disagree that the game has slowly become more formulaic and robotic; with players FT pro, super-conditioned to be strong and fast, and coaches creating a structure that incentivises low risk, high yield plays over high risk, low yield plays - and that's to the detriment of off-the-cuff, skilful players, who just react to what's in front of them; and consequently, it's less entertaining to watch.

Having been involved in the junior game a bit in fairly recent years - it did strike me that even at that level, it was very difficult for youth coaches to develop smaller, skilful players, when their peers were involved in a win at all costs league structure, that favoured big lads barging their way to the try line. Consequently, it's hard to see where the next generation will come from - even in recent years, players like Briers, MaGuire, Brough and Long seem to be a dying breed - hence my defence of players like Richardson and Williams; I want to see more of them, not less.