Oh it was so much better back then....

[PCPhil]

Good article.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/ ... dApp_Other

[weegie01]

I once stood with a former Scotland lock watching our respective sons play. We'd both had our children later in life, so his playing days were long in the past.

He quite seriously thought that the Scotland team he played in would struggle to beat a current elite school 1stXV. The schools team may not have been as talented, but they were bigger, stronger, better coached and drilled, had better technique and were much, much fitter. His view would be that whilst the old time internationals might get some scores from their higher skill levels, they'd just not be able to withstand the sheer relentlessnes of the multi phase play these teams were deploying.

I was genuinely shocked at the intensity the first time I saw a Watson's v Merchi 1st XV game.

[Raggs]

Had this debate several times. Someone posted up a match they said highlighted great backrow play (early 90s I think) and how good a match it was. Huge rose tinted glasses. First 20 minutes saw multiple knock ons, scrums, lineouts, kicks, and about 6 completed passes.

[Slick]

The trouble with articles like this is that its focus is always on elite pro rugby, and fuck the rest. Is it a better sport to play at amateur, dog shit park level? Not sure it is

[Raggs]

The trouble with articles like this is that its focus is always on elite pro rugby, and fuck the rest. Is it a better sport to play at amateur, dog shit park level? Not sure it is

Christ, if we suffer from rose tinted glasses on the pro game, where we can actually point out that it was shite in comparison, what chance have we got of trying to convince the bluffers sat in the bar that it wasn't so much better in their day?

[Slick]

The trouble with articles like this is that its focus is always on elite pro rugby, and fuck the rest. Is it a better sport to play at amateur, dog shit park level? Not sure it is

Christ, if we suffer from rose tinted glasses on the pro game, where we can actually point out that it was shite in comparison, what chance have we got of trying to convince the bluffers sat in the bar that it wasn't so much better in their day?

Every club having multiple teams, a game for all shapes, sizes and talents, clubhouses packed into the night. It wasn’t all bad

[Raggs]

The trouble with articles like this is that its focus is always on elite pro rugby, and fuck the rest. Is it a better sport to play at amateur, dog shit park level? Not sure it is

Christ, if we suffer from rose tinted glasses on the pro game, where we can actually point out that it was shite in comparison, what chance have we got of trying to convince the bluffers sat in the bar that it wasn't so much better in their day?

Every club having multiple teams, a game for all shapes, sizes and talents, clubhouses packed into the night. It wasn’t all bad

You said better sport to play. The playing aspects of what you mention haven't changed, there's still all shapes and sizes on the rugby pitch (along with a huge range of ages). Where's the idea that there's not a range of shapes and sizes in the amateur game coming from?

Or is this the same sort of nonsense that people try and push when they watch an elite team play, and bemoan it not being a game for all shapes and sizes, and ignoring the fact that elite athletes are going to be elite athletes (and even then, I can't think of a sport with a large range of body shapes than rugby).

[Paddington Bear]

The trouble with articles like this is that its focus is always on elite pro rugby, and fuck the rest. Is it a better sport to play at amateur, dog shit park level? Not sure it is

Christ, if we suffer from rose tinted glasses on the pro game, where we can actually point out that it was shite in comparison, what chance have we got of trying to convince the bluffers sat in the bar that it wasn't so much better in their day?

Every club having multiple teams, a game for all shapes, sizes and talents, clubhouses packed into the night. It wasn’t all bad

I had a couple of pints at Mill Hill RFC after the Sarries Connacht game, and got talking to one of their committee members. They’re down to one team in a merit table, that afternoon they’d played their fifth game of the year (by mid-December). Behind the bar was a shield celebrating their 5th XV’s 1981-2 season.
The amateur game is dying and could well be all but dead within a decade

[Niegs]

This commenter from the article could be me...

The game has become undeniably more one dimensional. This can be seen from the convergence of physique across the positions, as specialisms have been eroded by developments such as feeding, lifting and sealing off. Thus while the modern game may display more technical skill, speed and power, its lack of variation diminishes one of the biggest attributes of rugby Union in the amateur era.

I also did some stat analysis on old matches... more lineouts than rucks with players kicking away before being tackled into touch. Defenders worse, yes, but I enjoyed the chaos of it all. Modern matches I analysed featured 75% of phases being scrum half to player going straight into contact. I think there were less than 10 moments where more than three passes were made in a phase... possibly for BOTH sides combined stats. (Euro matches, on two occasions French team was in the mix.

[Raggs]

Christ, if we suffer from rose tinted glasses on the pro game, where we can actually point out that it was shite in comparison, what chance have we got of trying to convince the bluffers sat in the bar that it wasn't so much better in their day?

Every club having multiple teams, a game for all shapes, sizes and talents, clubhouses packed into the night. It wasn’t all bad

I had a couple of pints at Mill Hill RFC after the Sarries Connacht game, and got talking to one of their committee members. They’re down to one team in a merit table, that afternoon they’d played their fifth game of the year (by mid-December). Behind the bar was a shield celebrating their 5th XV’s 1981-2 season.
The amateur game is dying and could well be all but dead within a decade

It's a problem from the top down. There seems to be a drive to consolidate teams into fewer bigger clubs, rather than lots of smaller ones. Very little support for smaller clubs these days, but it all stems from not enough interest in the sport, which again comes from the top down.

[Niegs]

The two things I hear about avg joe player giving it up are can’t get hurt for work and family, esp as some I inow have their kids in more than one activity a week themselves. Or weekends are rest/vacation time, so not worth the fees.

[Paddington Bear]

Every club having multiple teams, a game for all shapes, sizes and talents, clubhouses packed into the night. It wasn’t all bad

I had a couple of pints at Mill Hill RFC after the Sarries Connacht game, and got talking to one of their committee members. They’re down to one team in a merit table, that afternoon they’d played their fifth game of the year (by mid-December). Behind the bar was a shield celebrating their 5th XV’s 1981-2 season.
The amateur game is dying and could well be all but dead within a decade

It's a problem from the top down. There seems to be a drive to consolidate teams into fewer bigger clubs, rather than lots of smaller ones. Very little support for smaller clubs these days, but it all stems from not enough interest in the sport, which again comes from the top down.

Yeah I don’t have a firm answer to this. Really I’m part of the problem - my Dad is a life member at our club and played for the 1st XV well into his 40s. I played my last contact game at 24. In our case (and not unique) the generational difference is that a large segment of local rugby players would flip straight around from a 20 game rugby season and play a 20 game cricket season - most of us do one or the other these days. The commitment to club sport is just too much in the current times.

Would echo Nieg saying that ‘family time’ is a big factor in the drop off - kids seem to need constant structured activity in a way that wasn’t true previously. In many ways it’s sad - I’ve got a ton of happy memories of tagging along with my Dad and playing on the touchline/round the boundary, and almost never being the only kid in that situation.

I think I may have mentioned this before, but I was talking with a bloke who is chair of a local sports club with a rugby, hockey and cricket section, he’s also well clued in to the national picture and governing bodies. All but verbatim he said if his lad is into hockey or cricket, he’s confident in 25 years there will be a recognisable local league structure. If he’s into rugby he reckons he’ll have to travel a fair distance to his home club and across the south to play matches.

[Slick]

Christ, if we suffer from rose tinted glasses on the pro game, where we can actually point out that it was shite in comparison, what chance have we got of trying to convince the bluffers sat in the bar that it wasn't so much better in their day?

Every club having multiple teams, a game for all shapes, sizes and talents, clubhouses packed into the night. It wasn’t all bad

You said better sport to play. The playing aspects of what you mention haven't changed, there's still all shapes and sizes on the rugby pitch (along with a huge range of ages). Where's the idea that there's not a range of shapes and sizes in the amateur game coming from?

Or is this the same sort of nonsense that people try and push when they watch an elite team play, and bemoan it not being a game for all shapes and sizes, and ignoring the fact that elite athletes are going to be elite athletes (and even then, I can't think of a sport with a large range of body shapes than rugby).

Because there aren’t enough teams to accommodate everyone any longer. Of course a 1st XV will have tall, short, thin and fat blokes that train twice a week and have a weights programme, but where are the 4th and 5th teams for those that just want to play.

You can go on about how it’s much the same for everyone, but it’s clearly not and rugby is dying from top to bottom.

[Sandstorm]

Had this debate several times. Someone posted up a match they said highlighted great backrow play (early 90s I think) and how good a match it was. Huge rose tinted glasses. First 20 minutes saw multiple knock ons, scrums, lineouts, kicks, and about 6 completed passes.

Yes, Irish Rugby is a lot better these days.

[Sandstorm]

The two things I hear about avg joe player giving it up are can’t get hurt for work and family, esp as some I inow have their kids in more than one activity a week themselves. Or weekends are rest/vacation time, so not worth the fees.

It's always the wives that spoil it for us.

[Raggs]

Every club having multiple teams, a game for all shapes, sizes and talents, clubhouses packed into the night. It wasn’t all bad

You said better sport to play. The playing aspects of what you mention haven't changed, there's still all shapes and sizes on the rugby pitch (along with a huge range of ages). Where's the idea that there's not a range of shapes and sizes in the amateur game coming from?

Or is this the same sort of nonsense that people try and push when they watch an elite team play, and bemoan it not being a game for all shapes and sizes, and ignoring the fact that elite athletes are going to be elite athletes (and even then, I can't think of a sport with a large range of body shapes than rugby).

Because there aren’t enough teams to accommodate everyone any longer. Of course a 1st XV will have tall, short, thin and fat blokes that train twice a week and have a weights programme, but where are the 4th and 5th teams for those that just want to play.

You can go on about how it’s much the same for everyone, but it’s clearly not and rugby is dying from top to bottom.

I play for a team where people literally just rock up and play. We play teams in exactly the same circumstances. We often have players from other local teams just join in, because the league deliberately allows 2nd team players to just rock up to ensure they can get a game. There's specific laws setup on what to do all the way down to 10 vs 10, just with the intent of getting everyone a game. Trust me when I say we do not have weights programs, nor do the people we play.

Rugby is dying, I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing against those that say it's no longer a game for all shapes and sizes (and talents), when it clearly, absolutely is. There's 13+ divisions in the UK, trust me when I tell you, that the bottom, people don't have weights programs.

[Hal Jordan]

The two things I hear about avg joe player giving it up are can’t get hurt for work and family, esp as some I inow have their kids in more than one activity a week themselves. Or weekends are rest/vacation time, so not worth the fees.

It's always the wives that spoil it for us.

Judging by the amount of old boys lunching at the club on their regular table, the wives are happy to get the codgers out of their hair for a day.

[Camroc2]

I once stood with a former Scotland lock watching our respective sons play. We'd both had our children later in life, so his playing days were long in the past.

He quite seriously thought that the Scotland team he played in would struggle to beat a current elite school 1stXV. The schools team may not have been as talented, but they were bigger, stronger, better coached and drilled, had better technique and were much, much fitter. His view would be that whilst the old time internationals might get some scores from their higher skill levels, they'd just not be able to withstand the sheer relentlessnes of the multi phase play these teams were deploying.

I was genuinely shocked at the intensity the first time I saw a Watson's v Merchi 1st XV game.

I still don't understand why the , Edinburgh, schools in particular don't feed Scottish rugby like the Dublin schools do the IRFU. I've had the debate many times in t'other place but still don't get it.

[weegie01]

I still don't understand why the , Edinburgh, schools in particular don't feed Scottish rugby like the Dublin schools do the IRFU. I've had the debate many times in t'other place but still don't get it.

Scottish rugby is staggeringly dependent on the Edinburgh private schools, plus a couple of Perthshire private schools. This came up on the Glasgow fans forum recently as most of their home grown players come from the Edinburgh / Perthshire private schools.

What is a mystery to me is why the other rugby playing private schools do not produce the players any more. There were no formal leagues in schools rugby back when I was at school, but I played in the informal top league that included what remain the powerhouse schools. The others still play rugby, but produce hardly any pro players. Glasgow schools are the most glaring example. There are several with a proud rugby record, who used to produce many internationals. They still put out a lot of teams, but who just don't produce the quality any more. Anecdotally, when my sons were coming up, they would often lose to Glasgow schools at the younger age groups. As they got older you''d see the same players on the other side year after year, but they were gradually falling behind. The impression I got was that the talent was there, but was just not developing as they grew.

The SRU has tried various things over the years to bring through players from other than the elite schools. None of it has worked as far as I can see (but a couple of the elite schools do use scholarships to ssck in talent).

This seems like one of the big differences to Ireland where seems to be a greater breadth of schools produce players, and whilst there are the Blackrocks et al, they are not as dominant.

[Niegs]

I still don't understand why the , Edinburgh, schools in particular don't feed Scottish rugby like the Dublin schools do the IRFU. I've had the debate many times in t'other place but still don't get it.

Scottish rugby is staggeringly dependent on the Edinburgh private schools, plus a couple of Perthshire private schools. This came up on the Glasgow fans forum recently as most of their home grown players come from the Edinburgh / Perthshire private schools.

What is a mystery to me is why the other rugby playing private schools do not produce the players any more. There were no formal leagues in schools rugby back when I was at school, but I played in the informal top league that included what remain the powerhouse schools. The others still play rugby, but produce hardly any pro players. Glasgow schools are the most glaring example. There are several with a proud rugby record, who used to produce many internationals. They still put out a lot of teams, but who just don't produce the quality any more. Anecdotally, when my sons were coming up, they would often lose to Glasgow schools at the younger age groups. As they got older you''d see the same players on the other side year after year, but they were gradually falling behind. The impression I got was that the talent was there, but was just not developing as they grew.

The SRU has tried various things over the years to bring through players from other than the elite schools. None of it has worked as far as I can see (but a couple of the elite schools do use scholarships to ssck in talent).

This seems like one of the big differences to Ireland where seems to be a greater breadth of schools produce players, and whilst there are the Blackrocks et al, they are not as dominant.

Sounds like us in Canda where a few schools take it seriously but have no competition to make them better. Two in my city are so stacked that the others only play 7s against each other now as years (decades!) of beatings sapped the will to play them. The two travel far for fixtures and tend to make provincial semis every year. Mid range touring sides from Eng, Aus, etc tend to beat them though and neither has produced an international in ages... last two at the private were given scholarships when older, can't recall one coming from the public school.

[Niegs]

On the subject of then vs now, rather the pop passing here than successive 'collisions' of now...

[Sandstorm]

On the subject of then vs now, rather the pop passing here than successive 'collisions' of now...

That non-lifting lineout the start is a joke!

[Niegs]

On the subject of then vs now, rather the pop passing here than successive 'collisions' of now...

That non-lifting lineout the start is a joke!

When I take over, I'm banning lifting! ... less kicking for touch, or more randomness.

[petej]

On the subject of then vs now, rather the pop passing here than successive 'collisions' of now...

That non-lifting lineout the start is a joke!

When I take over, I'm banning lifting! ... less kicking for touch, or more randomness.

More randomness would be a plus for rugby.

[Slick]

https://x.com/apsmrugby/status/17428962 ... tSNBueE4mg

25 years ago

[Dinsdale Piranha]

https://x.com/apsmrugby/status/17428962 ... tSNBueE4mg

25 years ago

Ah, the good old 'wave them through' school of tackling

[PornDog]

On the subject of then vs now, rather the pop passing here than successive 'collisions' of now...

That non-lifting lineout the start is a joke!

When I take over, I'm banning lifting! ... less kicking for touch, or more randomness.

I don't mind it so much in the lineout, but it should absolutely be banned outside of it (should never have been allowed in the first place)

[Mahoney]

https://x.com/apsmrugby/status/17428962 ... tSNBueE4mg

25 years ago

I think the Bulls could work on their line speed.

[Sandstorm]

https://x.com/apsmrugby/status/17428962 ... tSNBueE4mg

25 years ago

I think the Bulls could work on their line speed.

A few tackles would have kept them in the game a bit more too.....