Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

Has Rugby League Improved since the early 70's

Phil Clarks point

  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#1 Brigg Rover

Brigg Rover
  • Coach
  • 1,987 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 09:29 PM

On Boots and All Phil states the game underwent great change in structure in the early 70's and benefitted from it and moved on.

 

I wonder if this is true?

 

And on what basis do we judge if it has improved?



#2 steef

steef
  • Coach
  • 1,480 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 09:47 PM

I started watching in the mid eighties and the game is bettet now than then. The only thing i don't like is the demise of my club oldham.
"surely they've got to try somthing different now, maybe the little chip over the top?2


http://www.flickr.com/photos/stufod/

http://www.facebook....156268557729980

#3 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,347 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 09:56 PM

I suspect he was referring to the fact that divisions (and therefore P&R) was introduced in the early 70s, a couple of earlier attempts had been short lived after they caused big drops in attendances.

 

The previous system was failing and a divisional system, long wanted by the top clubs, and hated by the smaller clubs was seen as the answer.



Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#4 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,398 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 10:29 PM

I suppose you should define "improved."  After all there were (are) those who like(d) competitive scrums.  There are those who liked the challenge at the PTB.  I recall Mick Naughton (a former ref)  walking through two opposing front rows and kicking their legs back.  The game was just as fast as it is today, but not for as long a periiod.  There were a lot more scrums, and consequently a lot more penalties and a lot more stoppages, but between the stoppages were passages of very open play.  Fev slaughtered Bradford at Wembley in 1973 with some very attacking football, one of the tries was on the opening montage of Grandstand for years. Fev possessed some very skilled backs, like Steve Nash, but they also had some very hard scrummagers in Les Tonks, Keith Bridges, Vince Farrar and Jimmy Thompson.


"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#5 Evil Homer

Evil Homer
  • Coach
  • 450 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 11:28 PM

I suspect he was referring to the fact that divisions (and therefore P&R) was introduced in the early 70s, a couple of earlier attempts had been short lived after they caused big drops in attendances.
 
The previous system was failing and a divisional system, long wanted by the top clubs, and hated by the smaller clubs was seen as the answer.

And then the sport was pretty much dead for the next 20 years.

#6 koli

koli
  • Coach
  • 172 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 07:26 AM

72/73 was I think the low point in terms of attendances since the war.Gates gradually improved from then on and began to rise more sharply in the late 80s/early 90s.
Was that due to the introduction of promotion/relegation ? I don't think so .More a combination of limited tackles bedding in and general return to watching live sport (soccer gates reached their post war lows in the late 70s I think).
A lot of people- my dad for instance-drifted away from regular attendance in the late 60s/early 70s as they felt they were watching a different game than the one they'd grown up with and relative to the late 50s/early 60s it was just not as good.

#7 Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior
  • Coach
  • 5,238 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 11:15 AM

i have been watching the game for 50 years, and in my opinion the standard of play is generally now higher than it was then, just before super league came into existance the game as a whole was on it's backside with falling attendances and ramshackle stadia. the only thing that irks me is the over reliance on antipodean players at the expense of promising young british players,
"Why is Napoleon crying ?" said one sailor to the other, "poor ###### thinks he's being exiled to st helens" came the reply.



https://scontent-a-l...276002364_n.jpg

#8 Middleton Bull

Middleton Bull
  • Coach
  • 2,698 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 11:27 AM

I suppose you should define "improved."  After all there were (are) those who like(d) competitive scrums.  There are those who liked the challenge at the PTB.  I recall Mick Naughton (a former ref)  walking through two opposing front rows and kicking their legs back.  The game was just as fast as it is today, but not for as long a periiod.  There were a lot more scrums, and consequently a lot more penalties and a lot more stoppages, but between the stoppages were passages of very open play.  Fev slaughtered Bradford at Wembley in 1973 with some very attacking football, one of the tries was on the opening montage of Grandstand for years. Fev possessed some very skilled backs, like Steve Nash, but they also had some very hard scrummagers in Les Tonks, Keith Bridges, Vince Farrar and Jimmy Thompson.

 

You would have to bring that up (just two days away from its 40th anniversary) - I was just about getting over it!!!

 

I was 14 years old and it was my first trip to Wembley.  I had never looked forward to a game so much only to be desperately disappointed by Bradford's lacklustre display and ultimate whalloping - it was a long coach ride home.



#9 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,822 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 12:58 PM

And then the sport was pretty much dead for the next 20 years.

Where does everyone get the idea the sport was dead from the 70's till 1996.


Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#10 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,822 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 01:03 PM

72/73 was I think the low point in terms of attendances since the war.Gates gradually improved from then on and began to rise more sharply in the late 80s/early 90s.
Was that due to the introduction of promotion/relegation ? I don't think so .More a combination of limited tackles bedding in and general return to watching live sport (soccer gates reached their post war lows in the late 70s I think).
A lot of people- my dad for instance-drifted away from regular attendance in the late 60s/early 70s as they felt they were watching a different game than the one they'd grown up with and relative to the late 50s/early 60s it was just not as good.

Is there a coincidence that the period where you state the crowds started to improve also relates to the BARLA boom if so does this also indicate that a healthy amateur game at all levels (including pub teams) is good for the professional game.


Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#11 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,822 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 01:10 PM

I suppose you should define "improved."  After all there were (are) those who like(d) competitive scrums.  There are those who liked the challenge at the PTB.  I recall Mick Naughton (a former ref)  walking through two opposing front rows and kicking their legs back.  The game was just as fast as it is today, but not for as long a periiod.  There were a lot more scrums, and consequently a lot more penalties and a lot more stoppages, but between the stoppages were passages of very open play.  Fev slaughtered Bradford at Wembley in 1973 with some very attacking football, one of the tries was on the opening montage of Grandstand for years. Fev possessed some very skilled backs, like Steve Nash, but they also had some very hard scrummagers in Les Tonks, Keith Bridges, Vince Farrar and Jimmy Thompson.

I love watching the old games and still marvel at some of the ball handling skills and support play, I loved the old game but I also realise with the improved fitness things had to change, I'd like to think the rules today would suit my style of play :)


Edited by Marauder, 10 May 2013 - 01:11 PM.

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#12 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 6,039 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 07:17 PM

i have been watching the game for 50 years, and in my opinion the standard of play is generally now higher than it was then, just before super league came into existance the game as a whole was on it's backside with falling attendances and ramshackle stadia. the only thing that irks me is the over reliance on antipodean players at the expense of promising young british players,

 

The game is certainly faster and the fitness levels higher than in the past but i don't think there is the range of skills on display that there used to be for me.

 

I don't hardly ever see a halfback who could tie players in knots with dazzling sidesteps as in the past. Nor do i see creative ball handling loose forwards who had a range of skills, long passes, short passes, offloads, sidesteps and downright line busting brute force and who usually had an almost telepathic partnership with thier half backs.

 

I see an occasional dummy today but in the past there were backs who could fake defenders out of their socks with a dummy pass. I also don;'t see the top class centre play whereby defenders were drawn in and the winger was given an unopposed running start at the opposition.

 

See film of Ashton and Boston playing together for a supreme example of this art.

 

The said wingers do not have the body swerve, the raw pace and arrogance to beat defenders once given an opening either like Offiah, Robinson ior Vollenhoven could.Ryan Hall is the only current winger with proper finishing skills. Back in the day you didn't play wing if you couldn't finish in the corner.

 

The defensive skills are not that great either. Some of the excuses for tackilng hese days are laughable, waving at the shoulders. Jimmy Thompson and other great tacklers took them low and they didn't rumble 15 yards with three defenders draped around their necks like they do now.

 

Full backs used to be deadly tacklers and wingers aften got nailed and forced into touch or a break in the middle of the field was often snuffed out by a strong early tackle. It dosn't happen now. Brent Webb and Tomkins would never have been full backs.

 

The one area the game has vastly changed is the attacking kicking. Back in the day there was none so, needless to say the game is better a that in the present.

 

As they say the past is viewed through rose tinted specatcles but for me some of the skills of the past wwere far superior than those of today.



#13 ELBOWSEYE

ELBOWSEYE
  • Coach
  • 262 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 07:51 PM

I have played and watched over the last 40 years and your judgement will always be based on your age when watching the game. from my own opinion the game is vastly improved, skills evolve to the game thats played.The comment on wingers is comical, the wingers now are far better finishers in the final Quarter but dont have the pace of other eras

#14 gavin7094

gavin7094
  • Coach
  • 253 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 08:40 PM

Players are fitter, stronger and have more tattoos than ever before.  They would be, they don't go to work all day and can spend all day taking steroids and body-building.

But it depends what you mean by 'better'.  Yes in the 70s it was played in ###### grounds in front of smaller crowds, on average, though not necessarily at the smaller clubs (York got 4000 occasionally then - 1000 is a dream now).

But in the 1970s they didn't get to within 30 yards of the line and simply boot it into the air, let everyone jump up and knock the ball to the floor, leaving the referee to decide if it's gone forward or a try has been scored (Warrington) (which simply has to be the worst development of the modern game?  Does anyone actually enjoy that?  Seriously?).

Wingers used to run and swerve and step and dummy and change pace and feint.  Now they catch it and put it down or hit and spin at best.  Their main job seems to be to take it up in their own 20.  Boring.

Props used to catch and pass and pop the ball off their chest to a supporting runner and actually bumped into people!  Now they wrestle a bit and go off after 20 minutes.  Boring.

Everyone on the field seems to be almost the same size.

Don't believe the hype.  Buy some DVDs of old games, sit back and enjoy the skills that were on show and be critical of this nonsense that rugby league was rubbish then and everything is glorious in the world now.



#15 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,829 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 09:22 PM

The game now is worse to watch since real scrums and the 5m rule.

Too many blowouts and less skills

Edited by Lobbygobbler, 10 May 2013 - 09:23 PM.


#16 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,347 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 09:31 PM

This posted elsewhere  in another debate, may help. or not, the debate.

 

The chart shows aggregate attendances from 1977 to 2011 for all divisions plus the total.

 

AggregateAttendances.jpg



Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#17 Scuuba

Scuuba
  • Players
  • 23 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 09:52 PM

To me it seems like the introduction of more and more South Sea islanders to the game has had a profound impact on the style of play and the amount of power in the game too. It's also been mirrored across the game globally with bigger and bigger players creating a more explosive style of rugby. The older footage, which is all I've got too base my opinion off, seemed less heavy in collisions and players seemed leaner and less muscle bound. I think that the need to 'bulk up' has been partially pronounced due to Pacific Island players being naturally bigger guys.

 

Again, I don't have any first hand experience of the 60's/70's, but it seems to be a game of terrific athletes now. Big, fast, powerful guys who have been on high performance programs since they were 12 or 13 and eating all the right foods to help their gym programs. Great for the man in the stand, but maybe more about the individual player nowadays and less about the institutions (clubs) then it used to be? Some of the soul has been sacrificed on the alter of money/entertainment.



#18 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,625 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 10:03 PM

It never rained in summer either
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#19 jpmc

jpmc
  • Coach
  • 577 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 11:03 PM

Where does everyone get the idea the sport was dead from the 70's till 1996.

I'm afraid its another case of, if you say it enough times then you convince yourself and others that it must be true

#20 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,735 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 06:32 AM


Where does everyone get the idea the sport was dead from the 70's till 1996.

I think that's because a good number of us on here do not have your level of experience, commitment and involvement in the amateur game. I guess most of us are just thinking of the situation at the top level between the mid 60s and early 80s

Edited by JohnM, 11 May 2013 - 06:35 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users