Modern day player or Rugby League Great?

Question

It may just be me, but I thought I'd ask just in case.

As a rugby league fan (not fanatic) I am increasingly disturbed by the comparisons made between modern day players and those of yester year. Being the centenary year for RL there has been plenty of nostalgia and replays of the games greatest moments.

Call me crazy but I don't think these old heros were that crash hot. In fact quite the opposite. I believe the vast majority of them would struggle in todays proffessional competition. Sure due to the growth of the support the players have a lot more resources and facilities to be stronger, more skilled and fitter without the burden of having a regular job. But is that reason to exclude them from praise. Sonny Bill would of been unstoppable 40 years ago, as would Gaz or Scotty Prince. I think its time for these old blokes to stop patting themselves on the back and realise they are not in the same class as todays players and its only going to get worse.

Answer 1

Ya talking thru ya hat mate, todays players are spoiled brats who spend half the season out injured.

Answer 2

2 shae

Answer 3

To state the bleedin' obvious we comparing players from different times.  Certainly if we look back at some of the games of yesteryear they some times look a little lame and they might well have been by today's standards (except for the scrums).  However I think that if they greats of then, had been bought up under today conditions - training regimes, nutrition, professionalism etc they would still be standouts.  As would the current crop if you put them back in time to play under those conditions.  

They are greats because they were the very best of players of the their time. So the comparison between the eras for is pointless.  Better just to accept the greats are still great whatever the era.  

However there is one comparison I would like to see.  Put some of the current crop of players and put them in a real scrum that was actually contested and see how they go.

Answer 4

I guess the only way to answer this is to ask - would you say Don Bradman and Garfield Sobers were better cricketers than say Ricky Ponting and Andrew Symonds? You could argue that as the modern player is fitter, faster - bowling is quicker now, fielding better etc, then Bradman played against joke opposition (not like todays players playing against Zimbabwe) and his record is therefore rubbish. Even though it is statistically shown it would take about 100,000 test cricketers before someone equalled his average

Symonds is definitely stronger, fitter, faster than Sobers - so therefore he is the better player. Has to be - how dare people say otherwise. They both bowled medium pace and spin, plus batted - so Symonds - the best alrounder ever as you can't give it to a bloke who played over 40 yrs ago.

Ohh - thats right you forget skill, and think because they mass produce the athletic now due to training techniques, and try and make forwards all 6 3, 120kg machines that tackle and do hit ups that they are more skillful. You are also saying that Sterlo would not cut it anymore, Cliff Lyons did well playing even though he chained smoked - shouldn't have happened - as all around him were fitter. In Rugby Union - Mark Ella would not have made an impact because - why - he had skill, vision speed and is considered the best 5/8 Australia produced.

Also these guys played 80 minutes. Now they claim forwards need a rest, they are tiring. They have mass produced a person to perform for 20 minutes, then collapse for a while. They are becoming like the American grid-iron player. Good athletes for a short burst - so they must be the best.

Answer 5

Not a bad question, but you can't compare different eras.

Besides, show me a player that has the vision of Sterling or Lewis that's playing the game today?

Answer 6

i agree with the question

Answer 7

I hate comparing performance based on era, its to hard to do. Technolgies, methods etc change. You cant compare lap times from Bathurst '67 to Bathurst '07 and say that the drivers back then couldnt cut against todays because of the slower lap times when it is the equipment that is that decesive factor.

Dont forget "in the good old days" the players use to have    9-5s and couldnt spend all day training (not that some of the players these days take advantage of that, seem to be more intrested in booze)

And do you think SBW would play 70 minutes of football with a double fractured  jaw ( re: John Sattler)

Answer 8

Yes, but what you have to realise is that today's professional competition was shaped by these guys. It, and the game, wouldn't be what it is today without what the greats contributed to it; that's why they're so great. The good players today have most probably shaped their game on how the old blokes played, and even if they claim to have not been influenced at all, they would have played set pieces that were worked by those guys.

What you're saying about the professionalism of the game is probably true. I think they would acknowledge it themselves that would struggle in today's game; but as for class, you can't compare them to modern players. It was a different game back then and their achievements should be taken in the context of their era; it's unfair to say that a player 70 years ago is less class than a current player as there were different banchmarks set, a different group of players and game.

Anyway, I'm sure half the boys in the comp now wouldn't approve of playing 75 minutes caked in mud...

Answer 9

i only need to give a few examples

unlimited tackle rule

john sattler playing with a broken jaw

garry jack picking up his teeth and putting in his sock

mal meninga coming back from 3 broken arms

shane webke playing with broken arm in cast

the older players also did not have interchange or blood bin or massages etc etc

impossible to compare as rules change etc and you just like me were not there to see the older guys play

Answer 10

The old heros would run through the modern day players & their ball skills & off loading will be too good .

Answer 11

Absolutely! I asked two very similar Questions last week, and was booed from Geringong to Toowoomba!

Yes there were Legends back than, but SERIOUSLY they wouldn't last in todays modern era, with the SPEED and power generated by todays footballers, who are 'athletes' not 'fighters'.

My father was a tough 2nd Rower for Parra Presidents Cup and Reserves, they were far tougher (so was life in general), but compared to today, their just not as fast, skilled or well trained. Legends from 50 years ago would struggle to make Reserve Grade in the modern game!

Answer 12

Pros and Cons for both... The older guys did it tougher and took a lot more of a beating. None of ya fancy high tech stuff they have these days. Like staples, hyperbaric chambers etc etc... where would SBW and Gaz be without modern medicine?

There are too many variables - Grounds, Sports Gear, Rules and even the football has changed so much that comparing the two is very sketchy. You can mention legends but you can't really compare them. But saying that these legends wouldn't survive in the modern game is a joke, they'd have all the same benefits of the modern game / training / facilities and would be just as good / if not better.

Answer 13

Having been around for quite a while, let me assure you that those players you seem to dismiss as also rans, were tougher than today's namby pambys. Those players got fit the hard way, by hard work & real training, not an hour in the gym when it suited them. I'd like to see Lockyer or one of his contemporys come up against players of the past, such as Boyd, Langlands or Fulton for a few examples. As for SBW, don't make me laugh! He would have been putty in the hands of some of the forwards of yesteryear. So would Willy M. You speak as a know all youngster with no real knowledge of the game.And they didn't spend all their time drinking & brawling in nightclubs or pubs.