Was rugby better in the old days? Try watching it and you will soon find out

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/jan/02/rugby-union-nostalgia-defences-space-tackles

Michael Aylwin

The game is infinitely more skilful and entertaining than in the past and nostalgists should be careful what they wish for

Agreed it’s a far better game today - real test of skill - players are bigger, stronger, fitter and more skilled than they used to be and the game itself has become a real science to the point that it becomes virtually impossible for an individual player to consistently shine

Defences are so tight and structured, players so strong that breaching the advantage is a real challenge most of the time

The game has almost become too good that individual brilliance is nowhere near as apparent as it used to be. Danie Gerber in today’s game would not standout like he did back then. Don’t get me wrong he would still stand out but it would be in the same way as say Am or Eben or Kolbe do

Ja, rugby is way better, but that comes with professionalism and players making a career out of it and not being Minolta sales man look the former boks use to be. 

It was different. But yes, watching 80s rugby now there was a lot more fumbling and basketball going on and the game was far looser and less organized. It's more professional now, as you'd expect from a sport that is the players' job now versus their leisure in the old days.

Scrum time used to be bit tougher….there was no crouch, touch and engage..it was more hitting into each other like there is no tomorrow….game has more structure today.

We have lost some things……hookers that can hook….lineout forwards who really jump, as opposed to lift/jump. There were also more direct contests….players took care of their opposites all the way to the wing. I recall the papers speculating whether Dewi Bebb the Welsh sprinter was going to gas Jannie Englebrecht….he didn’t.

The maul wasn’t nearly as prominent, scrums weren’t penalized you won a tighthead…more like a turnover.

But above all there was much more space so the great runners had more opportunity to showcase their talent. Modern rugby has become tighter and clearly more professional. But less enjoyable to watch if you take away the need to win.

I would say if you are watching a key test the tension is the same, so you are just as engrossed. But watch two clubs you don’t care about and the repetitive process nature of modern rugby can be a little predictable.

Always remember rugby in the "OLD Day's was played by folks who toiled during the day trained after work and played rugby on Saturdays.

That is true for most except the "CONNECTED" old players.

Today the players are full time professionals, with trainers in all departments, dietians, masseurs, fitness instructors and everything they desire to excell.

Sure some great improvements in the game have been made in general the only difference between the old players and the new crop of today is they are earning a lucrative living playing the game they love and all the benefits/perks that go with the contract they have signed.

Old players such as Jaap Bekker, Cris Koch, Tommy Gentles, van Vollenhoven, Gainsford, Keith Oxlee, Jan Pickard and Frik du Preez will forever be remembered and respected by me and our older generations.

Out with the old and in with the new has made the game more entertaining and with the TV coverage more interesting internationally.

Sharks/ Bokke.

We simply can’t compare pre vs post professionalism

That’s why I can’t take those best Bok sides of all time seriously as the game was so different

Watching old games now makes you realise just how amateurish everything was. I find myself literally laughing at that older footage

Frik du Preez might have made a useful loosie in todays game but certainly would not have smelt playing as a lock

The modern game is far far better than anything before it - it’s not even close for me, especially when you consider the skill set of forwards these days

If you want professionalism and physicality watch the NFL. Rugby is bound up in rules and reviews. Hell the card that was given to Caine wouldn’t even have registered in the old days. When Fergie McCormick removed a few of Syd Nomis’ teeth, he played on.

We review things to try to enforce stupid rules which have more to do with legal considerations than real safety.

As for size, it’s a generational thing. The 2023 version of Frik du Preez would by 260 lbs and 6’ 6”. He was always short for a lock, but he could jump….put that version of Frik on the park and he would still be awesome,

The reviews are a good thing - prior left far too many officiating errors

NFL is as boring as fuck played by a bunch of fatties and the odd talented players like the QB and wide receivers

Frik jumped no better than modern locks no way in hell.

Frik was far too tiny to be a modern lock not even close - at best he might have made a modern day openside. Kolisi probably has 10kg on Frik

Bottom line is we simply can’t compare the game or players from back then it’s like comparing cars then and now

Frik would have snapped Kolisi like a twig.

Bullshit Kolisi wouid drill those little amateurs into the ground

Most dominant tackler in the game against an amateur bwhaaahaaaa

It would be embarrassing

Dave, Kolisi is half a player….dusted off the down ball, knocked over the goal line. If he makes a dominant tackle it’s because he is the second tackler against a stationary target, as he was in the WC final when he got his card. I suppose if he went lower that would have been classified as a dominant tackle.

Kolle is koning!!!

No Moz he is not he is a fantastic player and your take on his dominant tackles is a joke

Kolisi is a class act

Different strokes for different folks.

Those old times did great things in the Green and Gold unfortunately our children and grandchildren will do the same when they crack a smile at our heros of today years from now.

True we can’t begin to compare especially considering my first real take on players was Ray Mordt and the likes

It’s like comparing a 1903 Model A with a 2024 Mustang

So Barry Richards and Grahame Pollock would be overwhelmed by the new generation and Jack Nicklaus wouldn’t win a tournament.Utter nonsense Gerber, Mordt and Carel du  Plessis would still be world class.

Can’t begin to compare golf and cricket to rugby

Subtle changes in cricket and golf - huge change in rugby

Sure you can….your argument is bigger, faster athletes would dominate the old guys. Why aren’t we seeing fast bowlers more threatening than the old West Indies quicks.

As for fast since Hines in 1968 the 100 meters record has dropped 0.37 of a second. Throw out Bolt who is an all time phenom it’s dropped 0.2 of a second.

 Bolt’s world record was set 15 years ago. The guys today are only marginally faster. The difference is so slight that a very fast guy 50 years ago would still be right up there.

Much of the size argument for backs is because selection and tactics have favored big guys. With rugby looking more like rugby league and crash ball being the tactic, you chose behemoths.

That’s why it’s so refreshing seeing Arendse and Kolbe cutting these fatties to shreds.

If Mort, Carel and Danie played today, they would have trained and be coached like the current players...they would have been even better...but the level of todays rugby is much better than 20 years ago...Rassie's Bokke will easily put 50 over Morne Dup's team of the 80s.

Come now comparing a Etzebeth to a Frik is nowhere near the same as Rabada to Holding

Strength adds very little to the speed of a bowler it’s why we don’t see muscle stacked fast bowlers

Strength will add nothing to batting skill. Pollard and Richards would have been just as good in the modern game, in fact better given the science of things

Out and out speed counts for very little in rugby given the lack of space

You cannot begin to compare the advancement in rugby to that of cricket or golf.

Not much has changed in terms of bowling, batting or hitting a golf ball other than equipment and the array of attacking cricket shots played today which the likes of Richards would have easily mastered today.

Rugby has changed on every front, size, strength of players, the way the game is played and the skill set of players in particular forwards. Gone are the days of a prop being a fatty that could just scrum. It’s now almost a completely different game.

We can’t say the same for cricket, football, tennis or golf

Frik was never an Etzebeth….he was more of a Matfield/Mostert/ Dud Toit. 

As for fatty props how about Baille…one tackle made, one tackle missed against the Boks….there for scrumming and mauls nothing else.

Oh wow Moz talk about putting your foot in it - would that be the Baille that scored against us in that QF??? You clearly don’t watch matches involving French clubs - Baille is the perfect example of the modern prop - great all round skills

Frik was the same size as de Allende - same height and similar weights. Frik was a lock then but would not smell lock in the modern game - that sums up the difference in the game. A de Allende sized player would never play lock in todays game

Agreed Draad Gerber etc would have been better in the modern game given the advances but would not have stood out as much as it’s so hard to consistently shine in the modern game

Mordt was ahead of his time having built himself up to look like bodybuilder. His strength and bouncing players was a big part of his game

Nonsense Dave Baille just happened to flop over the line…his running stats for that game 5 runs for 5 meters, losing the ball once. Guys like Chris Koch back in fifties were far better general play props than that tub of lard.

As for Mordt being ahead of his time….nonsense again Gert Muller was running over loose forwards in the 60s with a piston like hand off and hip check.

You really should brush up on your historical view of the game.

Just as I suspected Moz you have watched no French clubs in action for if you had, you would realise that Baille is one of the best all round props about - it’s the very reason he starts for a very good ball playing French side

Comparing his all round skill to some prop from 1940 is insulting

For the record 5 runs for 5m is pretty standard for a prop in a close fought test - add that to his try scored and we can see how useful he is

Baille is a class act on par with Kitshoff, Ox and the Beast

Did Gert Muller muscle up like Mordt and modern day players do?