1
Jake White: Are modern rugby players actually better?
By Jake White
The Six Nations has given me bit of head space to reflect about rugby and its direction of travel. It’s funny, I remember Frik du Preez, the great Springbok captain was once asked, ‘Would your team of the 1960s beat the current South Africa team? And he quipped, ‘Only by 20 points’. When they asked him why, he said, ‘Well, because we’re all in our Eighties’.
ADVERTISEMENT
Frik loves a laugh, but the question all sports fans would love to know the answer to is this; would the legends of yesteryear beat the modern players of today?
In the last year we’ve seen a thrilling World Cup in France, a high-quality Six Nations, and the debate has never been more relevant. Where is rugby today? Is it better off or worse? It’s a pertinent question because in the last few months, two icons of the game have been laid to rest: JPR Williams and Barry John.
Video Player is loading.
Now I started coaching in 1982. I was a young Varsity scholar studying teaching. One of the things I had access to was VHS tapes of the greats. It gave me a body of work to study. You know, the triple Grand Slam-winning Welsh team of the Seventies, the glorious 1971 and 1974 British & Irish Lions tours and who could forget the iconic All Blacks teams that would travel to the British Isles and beat every home nation convincingly? Individually, we could regale at the Phil Bennett sidestep, the JPR Williams thunderbolt tackle. Sitting there, late into the night, watching this massive box of a TV, I could gain insight into the early years of marksmen like Grant Fox or once-in-a-generation athletes like Zinzan Brooke. It always seemed like there was a massive gap between these icons and the rest.
So, I would like to ask myself and maybe the public; has rugby got better? Kids now are full-time. They have training apps, S&C coaches, they have access to YouTube to analyse other players – in fact they’ve never had so many learning tools. But look at the legends, those runners Gareth Edwards, JJ Williams and Andy Irvine, or bruisers Willie John McBride, Fergus Slattery and Fran Cotton. They were incredible players. Are those adamantine Lions as gifted as those we see today?
I understand cycles come and go. Take this Championship winning Ireland side. People are hyping them up, and mark my words, they are special, they play a great brand of rugby, but they haven’t won a World Cup. I’d even ask, would they have beaten an Ireland side comprising of Brian O’Driscoll, Keith Wood, Ronan O’Gara and Paul O’Connell? Now I don’t know the answer. My opinion doesn’t count. It is a question for rugby union fans. Look at some of the other celebrated sides. The double World Cup-winning Australian sides from the nineties with players like Matt Burke, George Gregan, Stephen Larkham, Joe Roff and Wendell Sailor. Then there’s Richie McCaw, Dan Carter, Jerome Kaino, Ma’a Nonu, Keven Mealamu. That 2015 All Blacks vintage was pretty extraordinary.
ADVERTISEMENT
At the 2023 World Cup, Fiji beat Australia, and went ever so close to beating Wales and England. Does that mean the Tier 1 nations have actually regressed or the emerging nations have moved forward? To be fair to Tier 2 nations, what they do is say, ‘judge us on the World Cups’ because they get access to plentiful support to face the world’s best players.
Why? Because World Rugby do pump a lot of money in, to the tune of tens of millions through the high-performance department. It’s all to level the playing field. They will coach and condition these less well-resourced players to compete. You don’t want only one or two sides being able to win a global competition. Look at football. The World Cup would be boring if Brazil or Germany won it every four years. In fact, eight teams have won it since 1930, compared to four nations in rugby since 1987.
Progress hasn’t been absolute. At old World Cups, you used to have Western Samoa skittling Wales at the World Cup, but Samoa has fallen away. Or look at Romania. They used to be a force but have withered. There are success stories since we went professional. Look at what Italy has achieved in the last few weeks with two professional teams, drawing with France who have 14 clubs, and then beating Scotland and Wales on consecutive weekends. What joy it brought to the faces of the Azzurri.
In September 1995, rugby went professional. That meant that players were tracked from an early age. They’d go to academies, get paid and the very best would go on to play professional rugby. If they were special, they’d represent their country. Professionalism didn’t benefit all. In Wales all their club teams got subsumed by the regional structure, Scotland’s clubs went the same way. In South Africa we went from 22 unions to 14 unions.
ADVERTISEMENT
Why do I mention this? Well, the irony is I’m not sure if we’ve improved more by having less players, more money and more time to hone skills. The bank clerks, doctors, farmers and lawyers of days gone by had more demands placed upon them. They would train early in the morning, or late into the night, just to fit in their day jobs and that takes real dedication, a passion for the sport and an unbelievably competitive nature. Then they would play on pitches that resembled bogs or dustbowls. Nowadays, the elite train on perfect pitches, with indoor facilities, artificial turf, and at traffic-friendly times. Has complacency crept in? You tell me.
One thing I think we can all agree is that players are fitter, bigger, faster and stronger than ever before, and the pitch dimensions haven’t changed. It’s a bit like in golf, players hit longer, have better equipment with graphite shafts, not wooden clubs and the golf course stays the same length. It’s the same in tennis, so coaches have to adapt.
If you look at individual moments, look at that magnificent Barbarians try from 1973. It would stand up today for its visceral thrill, derring-do and joyful abandon. Indeed, how would it compare to that wonderful French try at the weekend finished off by Nolann le Garrec. Talking of Les Bleus. Are you telling me Serge Blanco, Jean Pierre-Rives, Philippe Sella, Franck Mesnel wouldn’t thrive in today’s game. They were players from the Gods! Over the channel, you can’t forget the English side I was privileged to coach against. Tindall, Greenwood, Grewcock, Johnson, Dallaglio, Thompson, Wilkinson. How many of them would have made the side that faced France last weekend? They were playing at a rarefied level less than 10 years after professionalism of the game and hats off to them.
Right now, I can’t see any team that is as dominant as those great teams were in those days. At the 2023 World Cup, there was one point between France and South Africa. Three points between Ireland and New Zealand. No one side standing on the shoulders of giants.
Sports fans will always ask questions and compare generations. I was at a fundraiser recently, and all these little kids were asking me and some of the Bulls players the same questions. Who were the best players you played against? Who were the toughest players you faced? What’s the toughest stadium to win in? In other sports, you’d argue with your father over who is the better boxer, Muhammad Ali or Mike Tyson? Racing drivers, Ayrton Senna or Lewis Hamilton? Tennis player Bjorn Borg or Novak Djokovic? Footballer, Pele or Messi. American footballer, Joe Montana or Tom Brady. I watch all those sports and wonder if they’ve developed at a faster pace than rugby.
Debates are fun and can often improve the product which is why I love sport. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
What about changing the ball? To something heavier and more pointed that bounces unpredictably.
Not this almost round football used these days.
This is the problem with conservative mindsets and phycology, and homogenous sports, everybody wants to be the same, use the i-win template.
Athlete wise everyone has to have muscles and work at the gym to make themselves more likely to hold on that one tackle. Do those players even wonder if they are now more likely to be tackled by that player as a result of there “work”?
Really though, too many questions, Jake. Is it better Jake? Yes, because you still have that rugby of ole that you talk about. Is it at the highest International level anymore? No, but you go to your club or checkout your representative side and still engage with that ‘beautiful game’. Could you also have a bit of that at the top if coaches encouraged there team to play and incentivized players like Damian McKenzie and Ange Capuozzo? Of course we could. Sadly Rugby doesn’t, or didn’t, really know what direction to go when professionalism came. Things like the state of northern pitches didn’t help.
Over the last two or three decades I feel like I’ve been fortunate to have all that Jake wants. There was International quality Super Rugby to adore, then the next level below I could watch club mates, pulling 9 to 5s, take on the countries best in representative rugby. Rugby played with flair and not too much riding on the consequences. It was beautiful. That largely still exists today, but with the world of rugby not quite getting things right, the picture is now being painted in NZ that that level of rugby is not required in the “pathway” to Super Rugby or All Black rugby. You might wonder if NZR is right and the pathway shouldn’t include the ‘amateur’, but let me tell you, even though the NPC might be made up of people still having to pull 9-5s, we know these people still have dreams to get out of that, and aren’t likely to give them. They will be lost.
That will put a real strain on the concept of whether “visceral thrill, derring-do and joyful abandon” type rugby will remain under the professional level here in NZ. I think at some point that can be eroded as well. If only wanting the best athlete’s at the top level wasn’t enough to lose that, shutting off the next group, or level, or rugby players from easy access to express and showcase themselves certainly will. That all comes back around to the same question of professionalism in rugby and whether it got things right, and rugby is better now. Maybe the answer is turning into a “no”?
Of the rugby I’ve born witness to in my lifetime - 1990 to date - I recognize great players throughout those years. But I have no doubt the game and the players are on average better today.
So I doubt going back further is going to prove me wrong. The technical components of the game, set pieces, scrums, kicks, kicks at goal. And in general tactics employed are far more efficient, accurate and polished. Professional athletes that have invested countless hours on being accurate.
There is one nation though that may be fairly competitive in any era - and that for me is the all blacks. And New Zealand players in general. NZ produces startling athletes who have fantastic ball skills. And then the odd phenomenon like Brooke. Lomu. Mcaw. Carter.
Better than comparing players and teams across eras - I’ve often had this thought - that it would be very interesting to have a version of the game that is closer to its original form.
What would the game look like today if the rules were rolled back. Not rules that promote safety obviously - but rules like:
- a try being worth 1 point and conversion 2 points. Hence the term “try”. Earning a try at goals. Would we see more attacking play?
- no lifting in the lineouts.
- rucks and break down laws in general. They looked like wrestling matches in bygone eras.
I wonder what a game applying 1995 rules would look like with modern players. It may be a daft exercise, but it would make for an interesting spectacle celebrating “purer” forms of the game that roll back the rules dramatically by a few versions. Would we come to learn that some of the rules/combinations of the rules we see today have actually made the game less attractive?
I’d love to see an exhibition match like that.
There are a few ‘forms’ I think would be better now, thanks to professionalism, than they ended up being back then. There’s no need for sprigs with todays grounds, so no need to ban rucking. Return it to a wrestling match rather than a diving contest onto the ‘released’ ball?
All the old stories when professionalism started were about how the new gym athlete wasn’t as “hard” as your typical farmer who worked 10/12 hours a day. NZ is a fairly rugged country, and idea how a rural lifestyle reflected in boks physique back in the day?
Bla bla bla Jake, bla bla. 99%of the time I think Jake is a p@$s. To many opinions instead of being a coach coach. So f$%king many excuses when his team loses and after the loss saying he would do better if he had more Springboks in his team. F$%king has been of a coach
Great story Jake.
I would reckon on average the player of today is fitter and bigger. I say average player not the odd brilliant player. There are certainly more players out there than in the old days.
It seems that defences have improved over the years.
I think what the modern game needs is a bigger field.
Say 10 yards longer and 5 wider.
Then the crossbar between the poles say 3 foot higher and the poles say 2 foot closer together.
Circuits for F1 cars have in most cases been widened, smoother surfaced etc to cope with increased speeds.
Championship golf courses lengthened to accommodate the far flying balls and easy to hit clubs.
Yeah, despite what Jake said about Golf, they have actually made the courses much narrower and longer now (Tiger alone forced golf courses to drastically change dimensions). Ahh! You got the golf one (it’s pretty much every single golf course though).
If I pick an idea from your line of thinking. Would the fact players are stronger, having much better technique, and the rugby ball being much firmer, make it more likely the tackler has less success holding onto the ball in the ruck if he’s in trouble? If the opposing team can win the ball even a small amount (as we have found the new ‘release’ laws only having about a 5% turnover rate), it would be so much better if rucks weren’t so likely to be penalized. That holding on wasn’t an infringement.
The obvious answer, rather than going ‘bigger’, is making the game go ‘faster’, isn’t it?
Better? No. Different? Yes.
better as well though
The first test I watched was as young boy in 1970. All Blacks vs the Boks. So I have seen many many tests in my life.
The teams of the past would get desimated by the modern teams. Players are just too fast strong and powerful nowadays.
Having said that, there were geniuses playing in the teams of years back. I think if you you give Colin Meads, Theuns Stofberg, Willie John McBride, Lawrence Dalalio, Serge Blanco, David Campese, Danie Gerber, JPR Williams etc
the time, training, gym sessions, information and all the tools and priveleges that the modern players have, they would be absolutely devastating.
For a test I thought about this….
Take the 2023 Boks, AB’s, French, Irish players and plonk them back to 1960. How many of them would be truly great?
I can only think of 2. Dupont and PSTD.
Then take those legends from the 60’s 70’s etc and give them all the tools that the modern players have… how good will they be.
Unstoppable…
It’s a fun exercise and my theory is debatable.
Yeah. To be devoid of ‘fun’, Jake’s question is only ever relevant if it is what you did, take the old players and imagine them as developing today, or reverse it and put someone from today in that old picture. Rugby was definitely more about the top two inches before, and now it’s much more about genetical make up (if the brain can be excluded from that concept).
Those genetics haven’t changed though (perhaps the world of rugby is visible to more peoples) over time though, so if one player appears to be x better than everyone else, ‘x’ can be directly matched to every/any era, if Dupont is x+3 times better than any body else in rugby today, we know he would also have been x+3 times better back then too. But yes, no point directly comparing them. I do think a little of one’s physical abilities would be as capitalized on back then, if you know what I mean. I think for instance, some bodies are able to just keep going past whatever given point exercise might have stopped at back then, were as now that 1 or 2 % athletical freak is able to push barriers.
Athleticism and skill are the key ingredient. Great players past and present would probably be greats in any era given the same conditions. But as for the ways teams play - I agree. The average professional player today is miles ahead of the average amateur player of the past. And this gives the collective performance of modern day teams a massive edge.
“Take the 2023 Boks, AB’s, French, Irish players and plonk them back to 1960. How many of them would be truly great?”
all of them. Or do you mean take them back as children, and see how they develop within the infrasture of 1960s rugby? then you might have a point.
no they have diffreent skills and possibly fitter but not as tough on the rugby field and the older players would have seats with their names on them with red andyellow cards on them due to the laws
they are better
Nice read Jake. I did enjoy it.
But just simply incomparable. I just like living for it is what it is. Living for the now but reflecting and learning.
I guess at flank (blind) before breakfast FRIK could eat up Siya Kolisi, Schalk Burger, Juan Smith, Francois Louw, André Venter, Pieter-Steph du Toit, Rassie Erasmus, Ruben Kruger, Corné Krige, Willem Alberts, Francois Pienaar, Heinrich Brüssow, Marcell Coetzee,Rob Louw, Danie Rossouw, AJ Venter, Joe van Niekerk, Kwagga Smith, Franco Mostert, André Vos, and Wahl Bartmann.
Oh and he could play, both flanks, lock or no 8.
Lineout specialist, maul specialist
can and did drop goal (one from over halfway)
can and did place kick
what was that game for N Transvaal ?
where he scored a try, conversion, drop-goal and penalty?
It is on youtube. amazing. Currie Cup Final ?
“Frik du Preez, the great Springbok captain“
Really Jake? In how many tests did Frik captain the Springboks? Which tests were they?
I await your response with bated breath.
Does it matter? Slip of the pen. But he was talking more about the .’man’
Ace you maybe waiting for a long time. Frik played for SA and featured 87 times – 38 of those Tests – for the national team. So he may have captained a non test?
okay okay, we all know he did not captain the Bokke in tests. It was mainly Tommy Bedford, or Malan.
But Frik was great (still is BTW) and was for sure the leader on the field, just like Colin Meade’s was even though he was captained by Lochore or Whineray but we know who had the ball in their hands or hand, leading the charge.
But Make no doubt who lead the team on the field for the boks. Remember 15 players no subs, no excuses. rucks were rucks, mauls were mauls.
NO TMO, nowhere to hide, one camera if you are lucky.
Not sure if he did captain a midweek team on tour somewhere.
I think the argument should be about the entertainment value. Is rugby now more entertaining than the 60s and 70s? Doubt it. In soccer, Brazil in the 70s were far and away the great entertainers. Formula 1 was far more fun to watch in the 70s. Boxing with Ali, Frazier and Foreman was a lot more entertaining. The only one that is more entertaining is the NFL, with one handed catches being normal, trick plays, run-pass options and QBs who can throw 60 yards.
It was going well until you mentioned NFL. That’s not a sport.
But you are right about sports like Boxing and football. Largely more entertaining because the rules were different and the participants were the first of their kind. Imagine what it was like watching a phenomenon like Ali change the game. Or Frazier and Foreman trying to kill each other. Intended over 15 rounds.
In modern times - golf, tennis - athletes like Tiger and Roger come along and the game is never quite the same again. Hugely entertaining when that happens. Rugby had those moments in the amateur era. And the players were more like amateur boxers/wrestlers compared to today. Who smoked at half time. Characters as well as gladiators.
Thanks for the entertaining article Jake. I love that quip from Frik. When I watch film of the teams from Frik’s era, or the 1973 Barbarians game, I marvel at how quickly scrums and lineouts form and complete, and at the pace of the game for individual forwards. It’s hard for me to imagine today’s forwards maintaining the same level of activity for 80 minutes. If teams from the two eras were paired, whose game would be played? If it was Frik’s, I put my money on the teams of Frik’s time: in the last 10 minutes, the still-surviving members of Frik’s team would run rampant over the inert bodies of the exhausted Boks of current times (except PSDT). Played within modern norms, Frik’s team might be decimated by the overwhelming power of backs who outweighed Frik, and in the modern, slowed-down set-pieces, the typical Bok forward would crush his counterpart. Or so it seems to me, watching the old masters now and then, and the Boks whenever I can.
Teams of the 80s and 90s would struggle to win a lineout or scrum for starters. Rucks and mauls they’d also dominate. If you think I’m joking go back and look at the quality back then. Before union became professional league players were so much fitter. The modern union player is fitter, bigger, stronger and more professional. Coaching has improved significantly in general. Defences have improved significantly, skills have improved. Comparing professional athletes to amateurs, it's just no comparison. Modern northern hemisphere teams like Ireland would blow old Irish teams away. Ireland only won it's first game in New Zealand in 2022. They're by far the best Irish team ever this generation.
I don't even have to read this article to say unequivocally yes they would. Teams of the 60’s would have no chance. They would be crippled by the size and strength difference. Stupid to even try compare.
Very good summation…impossible to compare eras but you’ve nailed the salient points!