Jump to content

RL is in the best shape it's ever been


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Dunbar said:

If Josh Addo-Carr and Miaka Sivo (for example) can score tries like these today, why would Hanley, Offiah and Robinson not be able to?

 

You’re showing a highlight reel of one score after another. In no way can a snap shot give a proper comparison from one era to another.

I said previously, there are “sporadic moments”, that’s what you have shown. There simply isn’t the volume, nor the openness in general play, that can elevate individuals to become stars, that is household names to the general public.

17 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

It’s an awful, awful argument and he’s backed my point up. There’s some superb tries scored. Regan Grace’s hat trick vs Leeds last year was a case in point. I’m still shocked seeing a replay when I’m at Saints when Tommy Makinson dives in at the corner. The same for Tom Johnstone and the various other wingers now acrobatically diving in the corners. Some of the stuff the likes of Jackson Hastings, Aidan Sezer and Jake Connor can do with a ball in hand or on their foot is exceptional. The content is there. That’s before your funnies or oddities. Except we don’t harness that content and push it out across the channels.

The whole “we had players that average people had heard of” argument is based off a very different era. Fame, in its many guises, and how you get it, is very different  from the 90’s and we haven’t evolved with technology in the way others have and we’re paying for it now.

 

Tommy Makinson has scored 138 tries in a decade of top flight RL.

Regan Grace has scored 63 tries in five years of top flight RL.

 

In the 86-87 top flight season, Hanley scored 63 tries.

In the 88-89 top flight season, Offiah scored 60 tries.

Both Hanley and Offiah have done in one season, that Grace has taken five. Another season for either, and they’d match what Makinson has done in ten.

16 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

This ' public fame ' thing is from a very different time , when essentially we had 2 channels showing sport , so obviously our ' stars ' were on show , having 90% of our sport now behind a paywall in a sea of sport from the world over makes it much different , we desperately need to win a WC , when that will happen , I'm not sure if I'll ever see it 

And again, I brought up the England RU team to refute this point. England vs NZ, 2018 RUWC semi-final, live on terrestrial TV, all eyes on England, they win, yet there was not one solitary individual that stood out for the public to grab hold of, for the media to write about. None.

There is not a singe current RU player in England, the home of the sport, that is known to joe public. When you make something infinitely harder for individuals to stand out, they will remain anonymous. And given (as you allude to) that there are more options today, more media, so less focus, it’s insane that a sport has only made it HARDER for individuals to stand out than a time when there wasn’t as many options.

On the field. Lomu could not do today, what he did back then. Not a chance in hell. Likewise Offiah, Hanley etc.

In contrast (as other sports have been mentioned by Dave to suggests it’s not just a rugby thing)...in football, Messi CAN do what Pelé did. He just broke Pele’s scoring record for a single club (Messi with 645, Pelé had 644...Budweiser sent a beer to every gk Messi scored against). Cristiano Ronaldo is within 7 goals of being the highest scorer in international football (103 goals for Portugal).

And in RL it’s not just the difference in scoring as I said, it’s the non scoring stuff too. The creativity, the off the cuff play, previous characteristics of English RL, before adopting the attritional, brutal Aussie stuff with the latest import being the wrestle. The maverick that was Garry Schofield routinely laments this, and he’s right to.

18 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

There’s clutching at straws and then there’s this as a counter argument. 

I’ve just highlighted the differential in scoring. The manner of scoring (and general play) is indeed crucial. Klose (top scorer at World Cup) is largely unknown, so how you do it matters. Ronaldo (whose record he took) became the most famous sportsman on the planet precisely because of the manner of his play. This video doesn’t show any goals (bar the last 30 seconds), as style matters.

Ronaldo became a star for the same reason Roger Federer, Michael Jordan, Muhammad Ali, Pele, Lomu, Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo...and indeed Hanley and Offiah did. They did things that captivated the public. Bar the odd sporadic moment (Rangi Chase passing behind his back and then being brought into Sky Sports News studios to replicate it) RL (and RU) no longer affords individuals this platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 210
  • Created
  • Last Reply
34 minutes ago, DC77 said:

You’re showing a highlight reel of one score after another. In no way can a snap shot give a proper comparison from one era to another.

I said previously, there are “sporadic moments”, that’s what you have shown. There simply isn’t the volume, nor the openness in general play, that can elevate individuals to become stars, that is household names to the general public.

Tommy Makinson has scored 138 tries in a decade of top flight RL.

Regan Grace has scored 63 tries in five years of top flight RL.

 

In the 86-87 top flight season, Hanley scored 63 tries.

In the 88-89 top flight season, Offiah scored 60 tries.

Both Hanley and Offiah have done in one season, that Grace has taken five. Another season for either, and they’d match what Makinson has done in ten.

And again, I brought up the England RU team to refute this point. England vs NZ, 2018 RUWC semi-final, live on terrestrial TV, all eyes on England, they win, yet there was not one solitary individual that stood out for the public to grab hold of, for the media to write about. None.

There is not a singe current RU player in England, the home of the sport, that is known to joe public. When you make something infinitely harder for individuals to stand out, they will remain anonymous. And given (as you allude to) that there are more options today, more media, so less focus, it’s insane that a sport has only made it HARDER for individuals to stand out than a time when there wasn’t as many options.

On the field. Lomu could not do today, what he did back then. Not a chance in hell. Likewise Offiah, Hanley etc.

In contrast (as other sports have been mentioned by Dave to suggests it’s not just a rugby thing)...in football, Messi CAN do what Pelé did. He just broke Pele’s scoring record for a single club (Messi with 645, Pelé had 644...Budweiser sent a beer to every gk Messi scored against). Cristiano Ronaldo is within 7 goals of being the highest scorer in international football (103 goals for Portugal).

And in RL it’s not just the difference in scoring as I said, it’s the non scoring stuff too. The creativity, the off the cuff play, previous characteristics of English RL, before adopting the attritional, brutal Aussie stuff with the latest import being the wrestle. The maverick that was Garry Schofield routinely laments this, and he’s right to.

I’ve just highlighted the differential in scoring. The manner of scoring (and general play) is indeed crucial. Klose (top scorer at World Cup) is largely unknown, so how you do it matters. Ronaldo (whose record he took) became the most famous sportsman on the planet precisely because of the manner of his play. This video doesn’t show any goals (bar the last 30 seconds), as style matters.

Ronaldo became a star for the same reason Roger Federer, Michael Jordan, Muhammad Ali, Pele, Lomu, Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo...and indeed Hanley and Offiah did. They did things that captivated the public. Bar the odd sporadic moment (Rangi Chase passing behind his back and then being brought into Sky Sports News studios to replicate it) RL (and RU) no longer affords individuals this platform.

There’s loads of players that do things that captivate the audience. Many multiple times a game. Regan Grace is a case in point. Each try in his hattrick vs Leeds deserved its own highlights reel. We, as a sport, don’t appear to have the capabilities to use this content in the correct ways in this day and age in the way that other sports do. 

This whole “no superstars” thing is a massive myth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DC77 said:

On the field. Lomu could not do today, what he did back then. Not a chance in hell. Likewise Offiah, Hanley etc.

Look, the bottom line is that we see Regan Grace and Tommy Makinson making fantastic breaks and scoring great tries... likewise Ryan Papenhuyzen, Josh Addo-Carr in the NRL.

If they can do this today then of course the likes of Offiah, Hanley and Robinson could do it.  I just don't see the logic in saying they couldn't. 

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

If they can do this today then of course the likes of Offiah, Hanley and Robinson could do it.  I just don't see the logic in saying they couldn't. 

Of course they could, they wouldn’t have the sheer numbers of tries against their names, but that’s because they were fortunate enough then to be on a team which was full time, with their opponents being predominantly part time, but their skills would flourish today. Hanley, Offiah and Robinson were also fortunate enough to play at a time when more RL (especially Wigan games) was on terrestrial TV, today’s top players are hidden away behind paywalls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Oldbear said:

Of course they could, they wouldn’t have the sheer numbers of tries against their names, but that’s because they were fortunate enough then to be on a team which was full time, with their opponents being predominantly part time, but their skills would flourish today. Hanley, Offiah and Robinson were also fortunate enough to play at a time when more RL (especially Wigan games) was on terrestrial TV, today’s top players are hidden away behind paywalls.

Correct 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Oldbear said:

Of course they could, they wouldn’t have the sheer numbers of tries against their names, but that’s because they were fortunate enough then to be on a team which was full time, with their opponents being predominantly part time, but their skills would flourish today. Hanley, Offiah and Robinson were also fortunate enough to play at a time when more RL (especially Wigan games) was on terrestrial TV, today’s top players are hidden away behind paywalls.

The Wigan team were not full time while Hanley was there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Damien said:

The Wigan team were not full time while Hanley was there.

But they still featured constantly on the Televised games in the Challenge cup , and indeed the other cups they won , so he was in the public eye ( RL wise ) all the time , in the most dominating era of any club in RL history 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Oldbear said:

A lot more full timers than any other team though.

Incorrect again. People keep spouting this myth about when Wigan where full time to make up for their own clubs inadequacies. Neil Hanson wrote a book following the Wigan 1990-91 season and over half the squad were not full time. Other teams had just as many full timers before Wigan went fully professional and Leeds were fully professional before Wigan. Indeed Hanley went to Leeds for more money. Lets not let facts get in the way though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

Incorrect again. People keep spouting this myth about when Wigan where full time to make up for their own clubs inadequacies. Neil Hanson wrote a book following the Wigan 1990-91 season and over half the squad were not full time. Other teams had just as many full timers before Wigan went fully professional and Leeds were fully professional before Wigan. Indeed Hanley went to Leeds for more money. Lets not let facts get in the way though.

OK, let’s agree on this then, Wigan had a good core of great full time players, who were, along with their part time players, professionally coached using the most up to date coaching methods. Other clubs, were, as you say, nowhere near as adequately set up off the field, coaching was pretty much light years behind Wigan’s. Gives you a big advantage on the field, and for what it’s worth, if Hanley, Offiah, Robinson et al were in their prime today, they would still dominate as they were that special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think that people's views are distorted somewhat by Wigan's Challenge Cup run and they forget how close many seasons were:

1992-1993

image.png.daec3268def5ddbc8d3f74f78eb673e4.png

1993-1994

image.png.6baf24fd3fb9a0488addba7b9e0cf888.png

Other seasons Wigan were only top by 1 or 2 wins. There were a lot of very good teams about at this time with every team having some great players, people forget that. The Widnes team that preceded Wigan's winning Championship run, and won the league twice in a row, was as good as any that has been.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Oldbear said:

OK, let’s agree on this then, Wigan had a good core of great full time players, who were, along with their part time players, professionally coached using the most up to date coaching methods. Other clubs, were, as you say, nowhere near as adequately set up off the field, coaching was pretty much light years behind Wigan’s. Gives you a big advantage on the field, and for what it’s worth, if Hanley, Offiah, Robinson et al were in their prime today, they would still dominate as they were that special.

I do agree and have said this before. Wigan became the club they were because of the recruitment of Graham Lowe and the great strides in professionalism they made off the field. They then followed this by pulling another master stroke by following this with the recruitment of John Monie. They developed a winning mentality and an aura that was hard to beat, pretty similar to what happened with Man Utd at Football when they went on their run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

I also think that people's views are distorted somewhat by Wigan's Challenge Cup run and they forget how close many seasons were:

1992-1993

image.png.daec3268def5ddbc8d3f74f78eb673e4.png

1993-1994

image.png.6baf24fd3fb9a0488addba7b9e0cf888.png

Other seasons Wigan were only top by 1 or 2 wins. There were a lot of very good teams about at this time with every team having some great players, people forget that. The Widnes team that preceded Wigan's winning Championship run, and won the league twice in a row, was as good as any that has been.

 

Yes but it was the cups that got the TV time then , and Wigan featured in them constantly giving their players the visibility 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

I do agree and have said this before. Wigan became the club they were because of the recruitment of Graham Lowe and the great strides in professionalism they made off the field. They then followed this by pulling another master stroke by following this with the recruitment of John Monie. They developed a winning mentality and an aura that was hard to beat, pretty similar to what happened with Man Utd at Football when they went on their run.

And created a plethora of obnoxious fans who were disliked by all all and sundry 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GUBRATS said:

And created a plethora of obnoxious fans who were disliked by all all and sundry 

A very unnecessary comment in what is (so far) a very reasonable conversation. 

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dunbar said:

A very unnecessary comment in what is (so far) a very reasonable conversation. 

They became truly arrogant to a massive degree , if it wasn't a win by 50 points they'd abuse their own players , and never gave any credit to their opposition 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Look, the bottom line is that we see Regan Grace and Tommy Makinson making fantastic breaks and scoring great tries... likewise Ryan Papenhuyzen, Josh Addo-Carr in the NRL.

If they can do this today then of course the likes of Offiah, Hanley and Robinson could do it.  I just don't see the logic in saying they couldn't. 

Aye, it's a really odd stance. The reason Grace hasn't scored as many as Offiah is that he is nowhere near the player Offiah was, not the rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

There’s loads of players that do things that captivate the audience. Many multiple times a game. Regan Grace is a case in point. Each try in his hattrick vs Leeds deserved its own highlights reel. We, as a sport, don’t appear to have the capabilities to use this content in the correct ways in this day and age in the way that other sports do. 

This whole “no superstars” thing is a massive myth. 

Clearly not, as there is not a single name in RL that has. I’m talking general audience here, not the RL bubble/RLpurists who were satisfied watching the 80 minute arm wrestle that was 2017 RLWC final. And to quote the BBC, a “final hardly anyone seems to be talking about”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/42191891/rugby-league-world-cup-the-final-hardly-anyone-seems-to-be-talking-about

You idea and my idea of what constitutes “captivating an audience” are clearly very different.

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Look, the bottom line is that we see Regan Grace and Tommy Makinson making fantastic breaks and scoring great tries... likewise Ryan Papenhuyzen, Josh Addo-Carr in the NRL.

If they can do this today then of course the likes of Offiah, Hanley and Robinson could do it.  I just don't see the logic in saying they couldn't. 

Ok, let’s pretend Offiah and Hanley could do now what they did then. What you are essentially saying is today’s players, Grace, Makinson and co. are bobbins (ie. gash, tripe, fifth rate, bog standard) given they take five years to score what Hanley and Offiah can do in one.

I beg to differ. I rate the todays players very highly, and they aren’t afforded the same platform on the field to excel as Offiah and Hanley were.

 

And again the old “more coverage” line is trotted out by others. It’s tiresome when that myth has been refuted. The England RU team has more terrestrial coverage than ever, and does not have a solitary household name. The truth of the matter is both codes have become more attritional, defensively sound, more risk averse, less free flowing, less open attacking, and as a result the potential headline makers, ie. the attacking players, are shackled. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Aye, it's a really odd stance. The reason Grace hasn't scored as many as Offiah is that he is nowhere near the player Offiah was, not the rules. 

No good players today then Dave?

So that’s it. Hanley and Offiah were stars because they were good, and there’s none of them today.

Lets all pack up and go home then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DC77 said:

Clearly not, as there is not a single name in RL that has. I’m talking general audience here, not the RL bubble/RLpurists who were satisfied watching the 80 minute arm wrestle that was 2017 RLWC final. And to quote the BBC, a “final hardly anyone seems to be talking about”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/42191891/rugby-league-world-cup-the-final-hardly-anyone-seems-to-be-talking-about

You idea and my idea of what constitutes “captivating an audience” are clearly very different.

Ok, let’s pretend Offiah and Hanley could do now what they did then. What you are essentially saying is today’s players, Grace, Makinson and co. are bobbins (ie. gash, tripe, fifth rate, bog standard) given they take five years to score what Hanley and Offiah can do in one.

I beg to differ. I rate the todays players very highly, and they aren’t afforded the same platform on the field to excel as Offiah and Hanley were.

 

And again the old “more coverage” line is trotted out by others. It’s tiresome when that myth has been refuted. The England RU team has more terrestrial coverage than ever, and does not have a solitary household name. The truth of the matter is both codes have become more attritional, defensively sound, more risk averse, less free flowing, less open attacking, and as a result the potential headline makers, ie. the attacking players, are shackled. 

 

What a load of confused gibberish / waffle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DC77 said:

Clearly not, as there is not a single name in RL that has. I’m talking general audience here, not the RL bubble/RLpurists who were satisfied watching the 80 minute arm wrestle that was 2017 RLWC final. And to quote the BBC, a “final hardly anyone seems to be talking about”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/42191891/rugby-league-world-cup-the-final-hardly-anyone-seems-to-be-talking-about

You idea and my idea of what constitutes “captivating an audience” are clearly very different.

Ok, let’s pretend Offiah and Hanley could do now what they did then. What you are essentially saying is today’s players, Grace, Makinson and co. are bobbins (ie. gash, tripe, fifth rate, bog standard) given they take five years to score what Hanley and Offiah can do in one.

I beg to differ. I rate the todays players very highly, and they aren’t afforded the same platform on the field to excel as Offiah and Hanley were.

 

And again the old “more coverage” line is trotted out by others. It’s tiresome when that myth has been refuted. The England RU team has more terrestrial coverage than ever, and does not have a solitary household name. The truth of the matter is both codes have become more attritional, defensively sound, more risk averse, less free flowing, less open attacking, and as a result the potential headline makers, ie. the attacking players, are shackled. 

 

The world has changed , let's face it , talentless no marks like Gemma Collins are famous these days for being gobby and fat , and speaking in an awful Essex accent 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DC77 said:

Ok, let’s pretend Offiah and Hanley could do now what they did then. What you are essentially saying is today’s players, Grace, Makinson and co. are bobbins (ie. gash, tripe, fifth rate, bog standard) given they take five years to score what Hanley and Offiah can do in one.

I beg to differ. I rate the todays players very highly, and they aren’t afforded the same platform on the field to excel as Offiah and Hanley were.

 

There are two factors at play here.

One. Hanley and Offiah are two of the all time greats... the finest two attacking players I have seen this country produce in the last 35 years I have been following the game. There is no shame in modern players not being as good... I don't expect to see a player of Hanley's ability again in my lifetime. 

Two. The defences in the modern game are better... and certainly better from the top team to the bottom. I am OK for points to be hard earned, it doesn't do the sport any harm at all. Of course I say this and yet we know that modern teams score more points than the 80's and 90's anyway.

If Hanley and Offiah were in the modern game they would be as exciting and watchable than ever.  Would they get as many tries, maybe not. But they would be superb.

As others have said, if they were not as famous today as they were in their heyday it would be based on other matters than what they could do on the pitch.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.