Dominance of Post WWII - 70s era

[Paullyboy]

The dragons were the minor premiers in all but one season from 1956 - 1967 and the one year they were not minor premiers they came second only because of for and against (a difference of 9 points - a miniscule difference). So I dont see how the semi-finals argument had anything to do with it.

The Dragons had the advantage of only facing two or 3 other competitive teams all season - and as was pointed out above, a semi-professional good player would look stellar when playing a semi-professional average player. Whereas a good professional player of the modern day would not look that much better than a professional average player because all players have such a good base.

The players who excel in todays game are pure freaks of talent which aren't truely recognised.

 

[Tunguska]

Let's not forget that these footy players were all products of their time.

To say Cam Smith would be an instant pick if he played then is stupid... quite simply, players like Smith did not exist for one reason or another.

How can we define Rugby League anyway? The game has changed so much, the team should be picked on impact within their time, against their peers.

For that reason, a few more modern players should have been picked to keep it fair. For that same reason, we can hardly complain on the face of it, since I for one have not seen these blokes play.

 

[Paullyboy]

The reason I mentioned Cameron Smith was to go along with the very good point raised by 'ride the tiger'.

Players of that era didn't have the skill set of a modern day player. If you plugged Smithy into that era he'd have been seen as a mastermind.

I'm not saying it doesn't go both ways, but I dont think the superstars of yesterday would have stood out half as much in the modern game due to the fact that every player they play against is of high standard whereas back then they would get to face a fair few cod ordinary players.

 

[macavity]

I agree with Gus

professionalism has seperated the wheat from the chaff much more effectively.

notwithstanding the training, players of the modern era are simply bigger - and that gives them a head start. has anyone actually met an old school prop? hard men, sure, but some of them are the size of today's halves....

I'm not saying some of the old champions wouldn't still be champions if they were 25 in 2008 - but I would say not all of them would stand out (some like Lewis certainly would), and I would also say I don't neccessarily think they would be head-and-shoulders above the current champions - especially in the forwards where size is such a factor.

 

[rupertpupkin]

The reason I mentioned Cameron Smith was to go along with the very good point raised by 'ride the tiger'.

Players of that era didn't have the skill set of a modern day player. If you plugged Smithy into that era he'd have been seen as a mastermind.

Due to all his experience in contested scrums?

I'm not saying it doesn't go both ways, but I dont think the superstars of yesterday would have stood out half as much in the modern game due to the fact that every player they play against is of high standard whereas back then they would get to face a fair few cod ordinary players.

A high standard of what? Multi-million dollar, professional scientific Athleticism? Or the skills required of the position in each era? It might be a little naive, to assume that League players "today" could do as well in that era, simply because today's "modern League" is "faster" and "more skilled". And vice-versa. Many of the old stalwarts, even stars, might well struggle with the game today. The "big stars" of today could (and likely would) be overwhelmed in their traditional position, in that era.

Forwards had to be dominant scrum players, and not rely so heavily on interchange. It is not so easy to be intimidating, and effective when called on to contest scrums also, and not get breaks. Same with backs. They all may not have had such "refined" ball skills- but they were expected to fight to retain it, in play, and do their job in a 5m zone.

Saying such-and-such a player would have "killed it", in a different period is wishful thinking.

 

[Blind Freddy]

If the legend's from back in the older era's had all the modern training methods, and were fulltime proffesional athletes they would smoke the blokes of today.

 

[Paullyboy]

I agree with certain things you are saying, and I'm debating it more out of boredom than anything else - but people who suggest that unlimited interchange reduces the credibility of the modern athlete doesn't take into account some other things, maily the limited tackle count.

Prior to 1967 a team could have as many tackles as they liked (which I dont doubt you were already aware). The reason I raise this is that when your team was on attack the forwards gained the opportunity to have a rest that modern day players never get to experience.

The 5 metre rule (which you mentioned) also made it easier for the defensive team to get back onside and also reduced the speed the player in possession could gather before reaching the defensive line. This means that not only was a player easier to tackle (no matter who they were), but once the tackle was made they only had to cover half the distance to get back onside.

I take your point about scrums, but to be honest I'd take a player whose speciality is in play every ruck over someone whose speciality is only in play 10-20 times a game.

 

[rupertpupkin]

The reason I mentioned Cameron Smith was to go along with the very good point raised by 'ride the tiger'.

Players of that era didn't have the skill set of a modern day player. If you plugged Smithy into that era he'd have been seen as a mastermind.

Due to all his experience in contested scrums?

 

[simmo1]

Players of that era didn't have the skill set of a modern day player. If you plugged Smithy into that era he'd have been seen as a mastermind.

Of course. But Smith train 7 days a week, and is a conditioned for rugby league. Kelly would have had a full time job away from football, and would fit his training in around that. You simply cannot compare, and any attempt to do so is pointless.

 

[Hanscholo]

As athletes and individuals they dont stack up against the modern player. Its about the effect they had on their peers when they played. That is the only way you can measure past time periods for ability.

 

[Willow]

The dragons were the minor premiers in all but one season from 1956 - 1967 and the one year they were not minor premiers they came second only because of for and against (a difference of 9 points - a miniscule difference). So I dont see how the semi-finals argument had anything to do with it.

Actually there's a rare article I have which shows that Wests and Saints were declared joint minior premiers in 1963 as the prize money was split equally between them. In any case, Wests had a better F/A and deserved favouritism. But I digress.

I use the semi-final argument for the last 50-60 years and mentioned Souths as well. I also referred the 1990s examples of Brisbane and Manly. You seem intent on saying that Saints had it easy when they won their successive premierships, but ignored my question if this same logic applies to other teams that dominated their season(s). Why is this?

The Dragons had the advantage of only facing two or 3 other competitive teams all season

lol. Where did you dig that up from?

Saints did actually lose games during this era, believe or not. Unless you're suggesting that the teams that beat them were the only competitive ones, and the rest were donkeys. Sure they handed out a number of thrashings, and the club's record during this era speaks for itself. But there also some very close contests, on top of the matches they lost.

Unfortunately your argument has too many holes in it. In particular, you fail to understand that there is no such thing as a sure bet. For example, you might be surprised to learn that eventual wooden spooners Parramatta defeated Saints in 1958. Even in their undefeated season of 1959, Saints had a draw with Balmain, a team that failed to make the semis that year. I think its nice to remember St George as the team that thrashed every other team every week, but the facts simply don't back this up.

Plus it seems to be a bit of a slap in the face to all the great players who played against Saints during those years.

- and as was pointed out above, a semi-professional good player would look stellar when playing a semi-professional average player.

ride the tiger's post? The one you called an analogy?
The example you've latched onto would need a little more research. Was the player injured? Was he just having a bad game? Was he past his best? We don't even know his name, his position, the team he played for, or the year. You seem to be placing a lot of stock in what is at best an anecdote. Sorry, but you'll have to do better.

Again, I'm not saying one era is better than the other.

And we're all fully aware of the added professionalism in the modern game.

The players in 50s and 60s had day jobs, they were paid very little by the League and were not 'professionals' as we understand the word to mean in 2008. We are talking about a completely different generation.

But it doesn't mean the players were any less competitive in their respective eras.

Whereas a good professional player of the modern day would not look that much better than a professional average player because all players have such a good base.

The players who excel in todays game are pure freaks of talent which aren't truely recognised.

Again, its all relative. The players of today have the greater professionalism because they are just that, players of today.

I still maintain the view that with the right circumstances a champion player of the past would most likely be a champion player in the present. To carry this forward, past and present champions would most likely be champions in the future, again given the circumstances (training etc).

Of course its all very subjective. The only yard stick we have is how they performed in their day.

 

[mightybears]

the period when most were picked from, is the youth/golden age of those that did the picking, never.

the team picked would have been fine for the unlimited tackle era, today it would be blown off the park speed wise in the forwards.

langlands should have been picked in the first 13 or not at all, he rev'ed the way his position was played, his selection 14 -17 is a joke-the bench has no balance

its great that someone who went to my high school got picked, but provan is there because he is from the golden age, for the golden team and he's the big guy on a trophy.

at international level, the era when the poms were better than us has been ignored.

i wouldn't have picked brian over horder, but at least he is a great that played in the UK when it was the best comp no questions.