Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
Proffessional Era vs. Amateur Era? - Yahoo! Answers
Can we compare players and teams from the amateur era to the modern era of proffessionalism?
Just look at the 1982 SA vs.
NZ Tour, the quality of the rugby compared to now is, without being rude, shocking.
The modern era is much better.
I know purists will always tell of how the game was just as good back then as it is now, but honestly do you truely believe that???
Its not that the players were sh*t back then, they played to the standard at the time and it was entertaining, and yes I do respect that era and what it achieved, but one cannot deny that the players of today are more precise (not neccessarily more skilled) but have refined their skills to be more accurate and clinical (just watch a lineout from the 80's compared to now and you'll see what I mean)
Anyways, what's your opinion?
I wanna stress that I'm not dissing the amateur era, mearly stating that if one was to choose the greatest team of all time wouldn't it consist of modern proffessional players rather than the older amateur era?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Its hard to set the terms with a hypothetical question of this sort.
Modern professional players have the luxury of training full-time, and access to training techniques and nutritional knowledge an entire generation ahead of what was available in the amateur era.
So of course they are superior atheletes and players -- it would be shocking if they weren't.
The real question is who -- amongst the amateur era players -- could play to or above the current standard if they had the same advantages.
I suspect many or most.
But of course this is impossible to know for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional era has better players but i think the amateur era had better games.
The rules in rugby these days are constantly changing and it seems that the referee has to much power over the game (e.g.
Always blowing their whistle).
Overall i still prefer the professional era.
You're watching the very best athletes and there is much more competition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The amateur era has had probably atleat the top 3 games of all time.
It was a much more flowing type of game.
Todays a different style and more tactical.
Both games are still great to watch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously the players should be of a higher standard.
Back then most worked with rugby as a weekend game.
Now that it is professional you would expect them to have a higher level of fitness than their 80s counterparts.
You cant really compare lineouts from that period.
Lifting and holding were no-no's then.
SWcrums and lineouts cpuld be held virtually on the try line, now they have to come out.
One thing the 80s game didn't have that we have is the lying across the ruck.
In those days, if this occurred, the player was rucked out so the ball was quicker than now.
That is probably the only downside on the current game.
Players from those days?
No one today would be Campo's equal.
Kirkpatrick and Shelford were great loose forwards.
Fox would still be better than most 10s running around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|