Re: The SL Experiment : Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:14 pm  

thepimp007 wrote:

Sorry dont agree with that JJ. That Wigan team for me wouldnt get near this 2005 saints side

Paul Wellens
Ade Gardner
Jamie Lyon
Willie Talau
Darren Albert
Paul Sculthorpe
Sean Long
Nick Fozzard
Mick Higham
Paul Anderson
Lee Gilmour
James Graham
Jon Wilkin

James Roby
Keiron Cunningham
Mike Bennett
Mark Edmondson

Cant see it myself and this Wigan side 2002/2003

Kris Radlinski
Brian Carney
Gary Connolly
Jamie Ainscough
Brett Dallas
Julian O'Neill
Adrian Lam
Terry O'Connor
Terry Newton
Harvey Howard
Mick Cassidy
David Furner
Andy Farrell

Paul Johnson
Simon Haughton
Stephen Wild
Ricky Bibey

difference in quality is massive for me

Agreed that on paper and what they achieved in that era was pure class. But we never saw those teams play an 80min structured game as is RL now. Don't get me wrong that era with those two sides with the Bulls and Leeds thrown into the mix was my favourite era of RL.

We will never know and we can only speculate but even though those were class teams. I still think the fitness and the structure of modern day RL would beat those. The games back then were a lot more free flowing and more play what's in front of you. Defensive lines weren't as tight or structured as they are now which freed up a lot of space. You just don't get that now :/

Re: The SL Experiment : Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:20 pm  

I disagree. Back in the day, I saw some of the dourest, hardest defence I have ever seen, and basically little has changed, teams could be exceptional at defence, average or useless. And could vary from game to game, like now.

The Bulls, or Saints, of the early SL days would have paggered any UK team of today. This is just because they happened to have a wealth of great players, all happily playing at the same time, something which has always been rare.

Re: The SL Experiment : Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:28 pm  

I would certainly have liked to have seen 2001 or 2003 Bulls with today's fitness levels and training facilities. Would be a beast of a team.

Re: The SL Experiment : Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:51 pm  

The problem with structured play to the level we have now is akin to playing Top Trumps. There is no surprises and perhaps this is why crowds are dropping. Doubt we'll ever see a "Wide to West" anytime soon.

[Bulliac]

Re: The SL Experiment : Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:02 am  

Most comparisons between eras are pointless since the rules change endlessly.

Every rule change alters the balance between the attack and defence, and this either 'opens up', or makes the game 'more structured', depending on whether the change makes it easier, or harder, to attack or defend. The game has always fallen between those two stools, trying to reward good play whilst not becoming like basketball and devaluing try scoring by scoring with every attack. to be honest I don't see an answer to the problem.

Re: The SL Experiment : Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:11 am  

Bulliac wrote:

Most comparisons between eras are pointless since the rules change endlessly.

Every rule change alters the balance between the attack and defence, and this either 'opens up', or makes the game 'more structured', depending on whether the change makes it easier, or harder, to attack or defend. The game has always fallen between those two stools, trying to reward good play whilst not becoming like basketball and devaluing try scoring by scoring with every attack. to be honest I don't see an answer to the problem.

That's what I was trying to say in a way but you explained it a lot better! It used to be more open now it's more structured. Teams great in one era could find themselves unstuck in another era. The different fitness levels would also play apart too. And how the defensive line is set up. But we shall never know who would prosper in different eras. I am at least thankful that I was born in 1995 and managed to see and remember the late 90's and early 2000's where there were 3 fantastic world class teams competing for SL.

[Bulliac]

Re: The SL Experiment : Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:34 am  

Bulls Boy 2011 wrote:

That's what I was trying to say in a way but you explained it a lot better! It used to be more open now it's more structured. Teams great in one era could find themselves unstuck in another era. The different fitness levels would also play apart too. And how the defensive line is set up. But we shall never know who would prosper in different eras. I am at least thankful that I was born in 1995 and managed to see and remember the late 90's and early 2000's where there were 3 fantastic world class teams competing for SL.

That's very true.

As we all know, every time the RFL bring out a new rule to change some perceived problem in the game, the coaches immediately start to make plans to counter it. When it comes down to it, that is their job. If the rule makes it harder to defend the coaches will always find a way round it and the cycle continues. I guess that we eventually get back to where we started...

Re: The SL Experiment : Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:51 am  

Bulliac wrote:

That's very true.

As we all know, every time the RFL bring out a new rule to change some perceived problem in the game, the coaches immediately start to make plans to counter it. When it comes down to it, that is their job. If the rule makes it harder to defend the coaches will always find a way round it and the cycle continues. I guess that we eventually get back to where we started...

Perhaps the RFL should concentrate on running the game as a whole instead of messing about with the rules constantly. A lot of people would settle for having existing rules applied.

Re: The SL Experiment : Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:18 pm  

And I also don't buy this "fitness" thing. people seem to assume that teams back in the day were far less fit than currently, but they weren't. Even in the days when we were part time, the players that were expected to run about were I'd say not much different from SL fitness. Forwards were a different matter, as their role has changed greatly, but the pack didn't need to be supremely athletic, it just needed to be fit enough to steamroller the oppos.

I would bet a lot that one of those teams moving to full time and having a full pre-season with modern methods would be every bit as fit. Can't see any reason why not.

Moving on to the SL era, I'd bet a lot (if it could ever be proved one way or another) that the all-conquering Bulls teams were as fit as any current SL team, and anyway, half the fitness is in the mind, to prove which you only need to recall (if you can stand the pain) some of the many debacles our superfit full-time modernly honed heroes have put up against a succession of part-time painter and decorators etc.

My firm belief is that skill and ability is mainly what's needed, if a player has that, then he'd make it in any era. To borrow just a couple of examples from another sport, i don't believe that George Best or Paul Gascoigne, to name but two, majored on "my body is a temple", yet were still among the best players on teh planet, however superfit opposing defenders may have been.

[Bullseye]

Re: The SL Experiment : Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:44 pm  

I've no doubt that players of the past would be just as good now or even better with access to modern training methods.

That said FA I'd say in terms of strength players (backs and forwards) were much less strong than now. In terms of "fitness" I'd probably agree there's not much difference in the backs but there definitely is in the forwards.