Yeah, the team with 13 players

The Point my Friend, is that 15 or so years ago we had far more Quality players vying for International jerseys (certainly in the Backs that's why I highlighted them) than we have now!

IMHO they were also closer to their Aus Counterparts!



Whatever the

was for I'm not sure but if you would like a resoned debate then expand your thoughts a touch further if that's possible???

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!