: Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:30 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

AJ,
To highlight it even further you have missed Bateman, Ellis and Goulding off you list.

And probably Many More! TBH I Couldn't think of Many More for the Current GB Team!

Yeaman??
Raynor (Probably should have out him in)
And then a Whole Host of untested players who IMHO wouldn't bridge the gap at all.

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:21 pm  

Connolly?? Newlove??? Powell??? P- lease! They may have good for their clubs but they were poor for GB/England. Senior, Gleeson, McGuire, and even Burrow have performed better than they did at test level. Even Edwards (again, class in a dominent Wigan team) did nothing at test level (apart from deck Bradley Clyde.

And Davies is Welsh!

On top of that, just how bad would have been all those years ago if wern't able to bring in the best Union backs over like now?

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:22 pm  

Jukesays wrote:

Please go Back And Read again!

The elite players produced by this competition are no nearer (And IMHO further away) from their Southern Hemisphere Counterparts than they were 15 years ago!

SL and it's supposed increased competitiveness would prepare our players better and produce better results in the ultimate test, International Rugby!

Has it done that???? I won't insult you be giving you the answer as deep down you know the answer really.

It comes down to this

Success of the SL Competition and the success of the International team have almost NO bearing on each other!
This has been proved in the Premier League and in SL IMHO.

The Premier league is the "Best" League int he world supposedly but are the National team any better than they were in 1990???
Are they Hell !

Are the players in the current international team any better than their predeccessors at both sports??
Are they Hell !

Would the GB team of 90/92 beat the team of today??
Course they would! and if you fool yourself otherwise and talk about fitness then basically all your saying is that whatever team Saints/Leeds/Wigan have in 20 years they will be better than the current teams because their Fitter. They may be be, but they won't be Better!

Steadman
Hampson
Lydon
Offiah
Davies
Schofield
Newlove
Connolly
Deveraux
Powell
Hulme
Edwards
Gregory


V


Wellens
Sykes
Gardner
Senior
Gleeson
Calderwood
Smith
Burrow
Pryce
McGuire

Yeah, I know who I'm Backing!

I don't thinks it all as cut and dry as that, the game has changed an awful lot in that time, there no doubting that the modern players are a lot fitter and faster, who’s to say that the 80s/90s players could keep up with the pace of the modern game for 80mins.

Maybe they looked more skillful because they had more time on the ball (think Long, McGuire, Pryce in the SL compared to International).

And who's to say that we have a god given right to have the most naturally skillful players in the world, we could swap entire coaching and youth development systems with the Aussies but if the raw natural talent isn't there then we will always be second best.

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:25 pm  

Tony Soprano wrote:

I don't thinks it all as cut and dry as that, the game has changed an awful lot in that time, there no doubting that the modern players are a lot fitter and faster, who’s to say that the 80s/90s players could keep up with the pace of the modern game for 80mins.

Maybe they looked more skillful because they had more time on the ball (think Long, McGuire, Pryce in the SL compared to International).

And who's to say that we have a god given right to have the most naturally skillful players in the world, we could swap entire coaching and youth development systems with the Aussies but if the raw natural talent isn't there then we will always be second best.

But were they not just as fit?
Don't forget they played more game time, none of this 12 interchange rule.

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:32 pm  

odemwingie wrote:

Someone said on here the other week when we played Manly our half-backs and LF was Gregory, Edwards and Hanly, Leeds had the other week Burrow, Mcguire and Sinfield. That is a massive gulf in class.

You're halfway there. Gregory, Edwards and Hanley are a massive gulf in class away from your players currently occupying those positions.

The reverse applies to those from Leeds; their current 6, 7 & 13 are better than those filling similar slots back then.

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:34 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

But were they not just as fit?
Don't forget they played more game time, none of this 12 interchange rule.

You could be right and proving either is a pointless fog knitting exercise but IMO just from watching the game I think today’s players are fitter.

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:35 pm  

Jukesays wrote:

Steadman
Hampson
Lydon
Offiah
Davies
Schofield
Newlove
Connolly
Deveraux
Powell
Hulme
Edwards
Gregory

and yet, those guys never won anything at international level either. The current crop may not be much good (in your opinion) but in terms of achievements, they are on a par with every player you have listed there.

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:31 pm  

This is an impossible argument,

however i think it is apparent that we had more depth back in the day than we do now! And that was always seen as a problem back then.

I dont think past players are 'better' than modern day players, however it would be interesting to see someone like Hanley, with all the modern day methods.

One thing i think is true though, is that as a whole the 'skill level' is down on the 80/90's

We as a sport are still suffering from the bigger the better mentality of the turn of the century teams, with what is nothing more than a second row in each position, and a scrum half/stand off who can play a bit.

The sport has gone backwards in my opinion in skill, however it should have improved due to summer rugby meaning we didnt have to play on muddy pitches in the middle of winter.

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:42 pm  

saints35 bulls0 wrote:

and yet, those guys never won anything at international level either. The current crop may not be much good (in your opinion) but in terms of achievements, they are on a par with every player you have listed there.

And How Many of our players are coveted by the Aussies Down Under????

Not Many!

Back then they would Have snatched our hands off for a dozen of our players!

: Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:04 am  

Jukesays wrote:

And How Many of our players are coveted by the Aussies Down Under????

Not Many!

Back then they would Have snatched our hands off for a dozen of our players!

SL players earn far more playing in SL than they would to play in the NRL. 20 years ago it didn't matter because the seasons ran at separate times of the year