Was the game more interesting to watch in the 80 and 90s then now?

[Fire]

Nostalgia can be a very potent drug.

I think every era has it's strengths.

Personally, the best era was watching Saints absolutely dominate for three years under Bennett.

The saddest thing about the game today is the players aren't mythical Gods who awe struck you if you met them in public. I remember meeting Ricky Walford at the local Video Ezy and it made my week. Now with social media kids know the players are just like them - and usually f**ken knobs to boot.

I preferred it when footy players were my mysterious heroes.

 

[betcats]

It probably is a valid question, but it's no coincidence it's always posed at the arse end of each season by fans of clubs who are out of the running.

Yeah fair enough, I guess some are people just saying it out of spite or frustration at losing.

Its not a knock on the good teams of this era to say the game was better in previous eras, the crap teams are playing the same style of footy generally, they are just worse at it.

 

[LineBall]

It probably is a valid question, but it's no coincidence it's always posed at the arse end of each season by fans of clubs who are out of the running.

I'll think you find this question has been brought up at the beginning of the season as well. In fact, people blame poor crowds on ticket and food prices, poor public transport and poor scheduling of matches. Perhaps they should have a look at the product on the field instead.

 

[magpie4ever]

It probably is a valid question, but it's no coincidence it's always posed at the arse end of each season by fans of clubs who are out of the running.

What a load of crap. The current game is played by less talented natural footballers and dominated by the bigger, highly conditioned robotic athletics.

Reason: The contest for the ball has all but disappeared. The game is no longer a game of attrition.

The modern game is somewhat a hybrid game between girdiron and union. Girdiron - as most plays are power plays; Union - the need for a very good kicker - to pin place the ball into a corner or bomb onto a ten cent piece.

Realistically, league was never mention to be played like this.

And, it is as boring as all f**k; every game played the same way with winner normally the one that has the less errors.

 

[Sir Biffo]

People look through rosé coloured glasses a lot when thinking about the old days. Games which are on fox classic matches are there because they were classic matches, they're not going to show Gold Coast circa 1992 cos they were pus.

In saying that I think watching great matches from back in the day is better than a great match from present day

 

[SEAT 1A]

Piss the wrestling and the cannon ball tackle off now. Plus, the different amount of games the players get for the same foul play.

 

[Iafeta]

I loooovvveed the late 80s/early 90s. It was my first real exposure to rugby league. The Winfield Cup was alive and well. Tina Turner, Jimmy Barnes, those classic grand finals like Balmain/Canberra, the brilliant Balmain team of that era with Jack, Brasher, Freeman, Hanley, Sironen, Roach, Elias, versus the brilliant Canberra team of that era with Belcher, Ferguson, Meninga, Daley, Stuart, Clyde, Walters, Lazarus, versus the great Brisbane team that came through around then. Origins were about 26,584,493,349 more brutal than they are nowadays. The rivalries were fair dinkum in Origin, and the tightness of the contest was awesome. My favourite memory pre-Warriors was THAT try to Mark Coyne, that was an unbelievable play.

It was awesome watching toe pokers like Terry Maddison and Mel. Small halfbacks who wanted to go the biff if needed. The emergence of genuine speed machines through that era like Brett Mullins and the footwork of Steve Renouf. The development of a young Brad Fittler at Penrith. I loved watching Manly with the Kiwis connection with Mathew Ridge, the Iros and Darrell Williams. Cliffy Lyons - didn't look like a footballer, but he was a genius of a ball player. He was favourite ball player ever. Even the hard nosed Broncos like Mark Hohn, great times. I think after say '92-'93 league lost a bit of its glamour in terms of on field skill until all of a sudden a young, arrogant halfback at Newcastle was throwing 25 metre cut out passes fast and flat, spreading defences wide and then throwing massive dummies and going straight through.

The 90s for me is where it is at. The game now is slow, and soft.

 

[CC_Roosters]

Wasn't watching league in the 90's in fact didn't know it existed. I do think soccer was better in the 90's and its decline into the current farce meant I shifted to other sports and found rugby league thank God!

 

[Teddyboy]

What a load of crap. The current game is played by less talented natural footballers and dominated by the bigger, highly conditioned robotic athletics.

Reason: The contest for the ball has all but disappeared. The game is no longer a game of attrition.

The modern game is somewhat a hybrid game between girdiron and union. Girdiron - as most plays are power plays; Union - the need for a very good kicker - to pin place the ball into a corner or bomb onto a ten cent piece.

Realistically, league was never mention to be played like this.

And, it is as boring as all f**k; every game played the same way with winner normally the one that has the less errors.

So true but even Union is coping a load of crap with the game being about kicking and big powerful players with no brain's yet the little guy is getting eased out.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Nope. There was a Broncos v Raiders match from 1990 on the other night and it wasn't interesting at all. People reflect back on the 80's and 90's as being great and superior because they miss their youth.

 

[Bengal]

Having watched some classic matches recently of the 80s and early 90s got me thinking how much more interesting and fun watching football back then would have been, none of this wrestling on the ground stuff slowing down the play the ball and all this other rubbish in the modern game,it looks so much more free flowing as well back in those days. Would love to hear some thoughts of the old fellas on here...

The game is more interesting now (or up to this year that is) than back in the 80?s and some of the 90?s. The interchange has killed off the boring and slow final periods of each half. Game?s used to wind down back then near the end of the first half and almost be a procession in the final quarter of the game. We largely don?t have that anymore (or again, up to the beginning of this year). People either forget that aspect of the game or weren?t around to witness what was once a common and very boring occurrence. Players had piss-poor passing skills relative to today and kicking wasn?t an essential element back then either.

The wrestle didn?t exist because there was no emphasis on lightning fast play-the-balls and neither did the defence move up as quickly back them as they do now ? both good things in my book. The game was far less specialized and mechanical, more ad-lib. Players, while not as skilful as today could at least think for themselves, no need for trainers and water boys to follow them everywhere. And of course, there was no salary cap back then so the same old teams tended to occupy the same old positions ? not a good thing. All in all there are positives and negatives of all eras, certainly if there were a couple of things I would have liked back in the 80?s it would be the interchange, the salary cap and the passing and kicking skills the players possess today otherwise the rest of the game, from what I remember (the endemic head high tackling aside) was just fine.

 

[Raider_69]

ill shock you all and say as a raiders fan, i agree
the nineties were awesome.

 

[Bengal]

Nope. There was a Broncos v Raiders match from 1990 on the other night and it wasn't interesting at all. People reflect back on the 80's and 90's as being great and superior because they miss their youth.

Two of the best teams I've ever clapped my eyes on - especially the Raiders of the early to mid 90's. Most of these contests were pretty damn good unless the teams had been decimated by Origin.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

90's were so much better, and Parra were shit for the most part.

In saying that though , the 90's for NFL shits all over today too.

 

[beave]

Players of today are more athlete than footballer.

I honestly feel the scouts just look for the most powerful and athletic lads and try to turn them into 'footballers'. Some of the basic shit i see today where half the players wouldn't know how to put another player through a hole or even simply pass it to someone in a better position than they are astounds me.

Not saying the modern game is bad, i think this season has been pretty ordinary and probably 2010 being the next worse of recent memory (no offence dragons fans), but the modern game is has its downfalls but so did some aspects of the 90's as well. Striking in the play the ball was a shit rule that added yet another dimension to the penalty side of things in the ruck. Glad this rule has been eliminated.

Speaking of rules, I am 99% positive that during super league, when the zero tackle rule was invented, this was also applied to kicks in general play as well, to encourage defending wingers to get to the kicked ball and pick it up before it went into touch, basically rewarding the team for keeping the game flowing. I for the life of me can't remember what year it was changed to only be applied to knock ons?

 

[magpie4ever]

The game is more interesting now (or up to this year that is) than back in the 80?s and some of the 90?s. The interchange has killed off the boring and slow final periods of each half. Game?s used to wind down back then near the end of the first half and almost be a procession in the final quarter of the game. We largely don?t have that anymore (or again, up to the beginning of this year). People either forget that aspect of the game or weren?t around to witness what was once a common and very boring occurrence. Players had piss-poor passing skills relative to today and kicking wasn?t an essential element back then either.

The wrestle didn?t exist because there was no emphasis on lightning fast play-the-balls and neither did the defence move up as quickly back them as they do now ? both good things in my book. The game was far less specialized and mechanical, more ad-lib. Players, while not as skilful as today could at least think for themselves, no need for trainers and water boys to follow them everywhere. And of course, there was no salary cap back then so the same old teams tended to occupy the same old positions ? not a good thing. All in all there are positives and negatives of all eras, certainly if there were a couple of things I would have liked back in the 80?s it would be the interchange, the salary cap and the passing and kicking skills the players possess today otherwise the rest of the game, from what I remember (the endemic head high tackling aside) was just fine.

1: You are easily pleased.

2: Totally disagree with your memory of the latter part of each half - actually the games opened up more.

 

[Noa]

Yes in the 90's but that might just be nostalgia!

The game really needs to speed up the play of the ball, reduce the interchange bench to 3 and substitutions down to 4 a game. That would open it right up and bring the small skillful players back tot he forefront of the game.

I don't get the sense any less tries are being scroed these days but majority of them are after a penalty and involve 5 runs and a kick to the corner.

You cant speed up the play the ball under the current 10m set up.

All we will see is an increase in dummy-half running and penalties.

Thinking outside the square how about letting them longer in the tackle. If the defence knows the ref will allow them to hold a bit longer it may reduce the need to wrestle.

Also a more set defence may cause teams to be a bit more adventerous in how they use the ball i.e. have to think a bit more and show more skill to get through the defence. Combine this with less inter-changes and more time off to increase fatigue in players

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

You cant speed up the play the ball under the current 10m set up.

All we will see is an increase in dummy-half running and penalties.

Thinking outside the square how about letting them longer in the tackle. If the defence knows the ref will allow them to hold a bit longer it may reduce the need to wrestle.

Also a more set defence may cause teams to be a bit more adventerous in how they use the ball i.e. have to think a bit more and show more skill to get through the defence. Combine this with less inter-changes and more time off to increase fatigue in players

Indeed, allow a good legs tackle to stay bound to the attacker for longer, as you say teams will run from acting-half more like they do in England if you have a quick p.t.b.

There probably was more ad-lib in the 80's but that occurred, obviously, because defences and tackling techniques weren't as good. Some rose tinted glasses speak by some on here in my opinion too.

Reduce interchanges to 8, and the number on the bench to 3. A halfback should be able to play No.9.

 

[[FKN-SIK]]

Oh how I miss the 90's!

 

[POPEYE]

The game played then is dead and buried and all the statistics along with it. As it is now Souths haven't won a Cup in 12 years, records for the game being played now started about then. Depends if you liked the old game where blokes played to a standstill, which I prefer, or the new game where tiredness is rewarded with a coffee break. I like the technology but not the lack of attrition