Dominance of Post WWII - 70s era

[flamin]

The majority of players in the team of the century come from these few decades. I assume the case is similar for the top 100 players list. What I want to know was this era really that amazing? Or was it that the style of gameplay produced greater players?

I mean I have seen some footage of old matches and they often seem to be scrappy and unprofessional compared to the game from about 1980s onwards. Or does my impression come with the fact that the coaching aspect of the game has dramatically improved and a vast number of the great playmakers played over the last 30 or so years?

 

[rupertpupkin]

The 60's, 70's and 80's really were that amazing. This is not meant to justify the lack of earlier names.

 

[ngap]

Or is it that most people judging didn't see people playing in the earlier eras, so didn't have the personal feelings about them. Only statistics, which don't tell the whole story.

 

[skeepe]

I think romanticism comes into play a fair bit. I'm guessing that the majority of the judges grew up around this time, and to them that era probably represents their fondest memories of rugby league. For me personally, I'll always remember the late 80's/early 90's most fondly, and in my weaker moments say how league is rubbish compared to back then... but again, probably because that's when I grew up with league.

It's only human nature to think "it was better back when..." and ignore the fact that there was just as much dross as there was highlights.

 

[Tunguska]

Yes, the but old blokes love to say how modern players don't stand up to the old timers. In Cricket this is the case, but especially league.

It's bullsh*t, to be honest.

 

[rupertpupkin]

Yes, the but old blokes love to say how modern players don't stand up to the old timers. In Cricket this is the case, but especially league.

It's bullsh*t, to be honest.

I understand what you mean, and memories do tend to be fond. But IMHO, it isn't entirely BS. Not regarding "toughness", which is relative anyway. What factors into comparisons is that the NRL is now virtually a completely different game, to what Rugby League was. The 10m, scrum-in-name-only, and interchange has drastically altered the game, the make up and required skills of players. Particularly the Forwards. That and the trend towards more Ref interference, penalties and stoppages, in the game.

This is an opinion, but there isn't the breadth of talent today, compared to the 60's thru 80's. There really were much better players (in a different sort of League) and more of them, then, than what there is today... in 1st grade. Due to competition, alone. One might be able to point out that there are more juniors playing now, than what there were then, in total. The population has exploded, since then, and during that time, League (and to a somewhat lesser extent, Union) enjoyed an almost total monopoly on winter sport in NSW and Qld, at a high point in population (compared to prewar), when it commanded attention as the unchallenged king. Due to this the 60's, 70's and 80's produced a wealth of talent, that is unmatched. Not necessarily "better", "tougher" or "more skilled", across the board, but in volume of sheer talent.

This has declined with the inroads by soccer and AFL, and a general decline in contact sports, overall. It's a different game, in a different climate, with relatively fewer players, compared to those decades. Not sure that the 3 periods of League can really be compared, and judged.

 

[Danish]

It is not coincidence that the majority of the judging panel were kids, teens and young footy players who admired and looked up to the players of the 60s and 70s as their heroes...

As Phil Gould has said, if we were fair dinkum about making a list of the 100 greatest players of all time, and the team of the century, ALL members would be from the last 20 years or so. The dragons team of the 60s would get well and truly creamed if coming up against most of todays teams.

 

[flamin]

The dragons team of the 60s would get well and truly creamed if coming up against most of todays teams.

Thats how I feel about it but I'm not in a proper position to make an objective comment.

 

[Paullyboy]

I also laugh at the fact that this era was considered so much greater. St George dominated every other team for 11 years, it obviously wasn't exactly a tough competition if one team could walk all over everyone for over a decade.

Give me a player like Brad Clyde, Allan Langer or even Nathan Hindmarsh any day over the blokes who only had 1 hard game every 3 or 4 weeks because they got to play against so many weak teams.

 

[dannyboy]

I also laugh at the fact that this era was considered so much greater. St George dominated every other team for 11 years, it obviously wasn't exactly a tough competition if one team could walk all over everyone for over a decade.

You owe me a new computer keyboard. I just spat my coke out all over it

 

[madunit]

I think you are all forgetting the fact that players prior to 1980's and 1990's had full time jobs away from football. They didn't get paid hundreds of thousands a year, state of the art training facilities, 4-6 days of solid training et al.

If the players of the past had all this at their disposal, I dare say they would have sh*t all over the current players.

 

[Paullyboy]

You owe me a new computer keyboard. I just spat my coke out all over it

Tough is problably the wrong word.

The word I'm looking for is competitive/balanced competition. Back then they had gimme games 2 out of every 3 games.

 

[Drew-Sta]

It is not coincidence that the majority of the judging panel were kids, teens and young footy players who admired and looked up to the players of the 60s and 70s as their heroes...

As Phil Gould has said, if we were fair dinkum about making a list of the 100 greatest players of all time, and the team of the century, ALL members would be from the last 20 years or so. The dragons team of the 60s would get well and truly creamed if coming up against most of todays teams.

Rediculous assessment.

The game has changed in nature so much since the origin of the game that realisitically players in the 50's to 70's were playing a markedly different game to those of the 1900's to 40's, and 80's to now.

The game itself is different. Insinuating a Saints side of the 60's would get towelled up is basless and contextually incorrect. What rules would they play? 5m offside? 10m? Ruck offside? Limited or unlimited rule settings? Tries as 3 or 4 points? Field goals as 2 or 1 point? Scrums being actually scrums? Kicking duels being prevalent?

The thing that separated the players in the team of the century was their impact on the game itself. Lewis' dominance at SOO was incredible, and his 'X' factor brilliant. Churchill's revolution to the FB position. Rapers faultless technique. Provans leadership and captain-coaching, not to mention his incredible toughness. Kelly being a proper hooker and not some darting 5 foot 8 athlete. Messenger for his freakish skill. Bevan and Irvine for their amazing attributes that made them the ultimate in wingers. Gasniers pure adrenaline and running. Langlands for his talent. Meninga for his barnstorming performances. Beetson for his passing.

And finally, Johns for being the consumate halfback.

These were players that, throught the test of time, have held records and played games that stick out in peoples minds as being phenomenal achievements. Their pure talent is why they were selected, not their era.

 

[Willow]

I also laugh at the fact that this era was considered so much greater.

So you have personal experience of both eras?

St George dominated every other team for 11 years, it obviously wasn't exactly a tough competition if one team could walk all over everyone for over a decade.

No, that's not right. By your logic, if a team dominates the opposition, then they must have been powder puffs.
Its like saying the Broncos were not so tough in 1992, or the Sea Eagles in 1996.

The 50s and 60s were a very tough era. There was no interchange, no reserves for the most part, and a lot off-the-ball play going unchecked. In addition to unlimited tackles, players were closer in the ruck, the pitches weren't as good to play on, and players were paid very little.

Be assured, the South Sydney teams of the late 60s were ruthless, and so were the St George teams before that.

I'm not saying that one era is better than the other, personally I think both are just different, that's all. We simply have players and those who rose to champion status in each era.

 

[Willow]

Tough is problably the wrong word.

The word I'm looking for is competitive/balanced competition. Back then they had gimme games 2 out of every 3 games.

So essentially you're still saying they had it easier in the 50s and 60s?

 

[Ribs]

Watching the replay of the Manly Sharks GF of 73' makes me think that plenty of the pretty boys that play now wouldnt be so keen on the fancy footwork knowing that their teeth were on borrowed time.

Apples and Oranges.

 

[Paullyboy]

So essentially you're still saying they had it easier in the 50s and 60s?

Yes I think they had an easier time winning, however, If you are talking about physical toughness I would take the blokes from that era in a heartbeat, but we are judging the best rugby league players, not the hardest heads.

 

[ride the tiger]

i wonder if bad players made good players look even better in the past.

i remember watching an old GF on fox & either the half or hooker could not pass both ways. he had to turn his back to the defence if he wanted to pass to his weak side.

you would have to go to the u12's to see that these days, yet this was happening in a GF with a position you'd expect to be a good passer.

this could possibly be a true broad sweeping statement - good players these days stand out against highly trained professionals, good players in the past stood out against average part timers.

 

[Paullyboy]

Great analogy 'ride the tiger', I agree whole-heartedly.

I think if Cameron Smith (for example) played in that era he'd have been one of the first selected in the team of the century.

 

[Willow]

Yes I think they had an easier time winning

For a start, Saints were not totally dominant throughout the 11 year run, 1963 is one example. Souths, despite their dominance in the late 60s- early 70s were still rolled by underdogs Balmain in 1969.

So are you saying that teams that dominated a season in the modern era also had it easy that year?

In any case, it defies logic. Especially considering that we have a semi-final system in place and the mandatory grand final has been there since 1954. There have been teams which were minor premiers, and dominated all season, but were knocked over in the grand final by an underdog - there are numerous examples of this over the last 50-60 years. How does this fit in with your reasoning?