24 years on, how has rugby changed...

In 1989 the Lions won a Test series in Australia. The Welsh contingent that could have been on that tour was depleted by defections 'North'. The Scottish and English within a year were head to head for a Grand Slam. There were no Irish men in the team.

I've tried to think who the equivalents of those Lions are in modern terms. Feel free to offer alternatives. As you will see, in some positions it's not immediately obvious.

1 David Sole
An intelligent mobile prop of the modern mold - Ryan Bevington.

2 Brian Moore
Dynamic if not the biggest - Tom Youngs

3 David Young
Another mobile prop - Euan Murray

4 Paul Ackford
A big, mature, hard man - Simon Shaw

5 Wade Dooley
ditto - Nathan Hinds

6 Mike Teague
poweful physical presence - Kelly Brown

7 Findlay Calder
There is no one even remotely like him playing today, but the closest I feel - Chris Robshaw

8 Dean Richards
Another unique player - Sean O Brien

9 Robert Jones
Fast pass, elusive, with a good boot - Danny Care

10 Rob Andrew
Kicking outside half - Ronan O Gara

11 Rory Underwood
Pacy finisher - Sharples

12 Jeremy Guscott
creative link in the backs - (a damning indictment on modern rugby on these islands that we have to adapt the king of outside centres to this roll) BOD

13 Scott Hastings
Break maker - Jonathan Davies

14 Ieuan Evans
create a chance out of nothing - Eli Walker

15 Gavin Hastings
metronomic place kicking and from long range - Halfpenny (ignoring the obvious differences as to the other facets!)

As much as I am a huge fan of Richard Hill I would go so far as to say there aren't many players if any around to compare to Mike Teague in his pomp.

It was a while ago, glas, but only 24 years!

Just looking at the 89 Lions and their modern equivalents, you'd have to fear for the boys of today, especially up front. When would the 2013 vintage ever see the ball? That 89 pack was as hard as nails, not without pace in the back row and excellent in the line-out. Because of the swiftness of Jones' service, I prefer the half-back combination as well from 89, the centres show as much creativity as today's counterparts, while the wings are every bit as formidable in the finishing department. Gav is rock solid at the back too, and between Andrew and him,the goal-kicking department is absolutely ace.

It lends weight to my opinion that we're currently undergoing a comparatively fallow spell in NH rugby. If that 89 team were to take on the best possible Lions team of today, I like the old boys by at least 20 points.

May be worth adding that it's not just the NH where standards have slipped a bit over the last twenty years or so.

Which national team of today would you confidently expect to beat their counterparts of the 90s (or indeed, the sides of ten years ago)? Ireland, almost certainly, Argentina probably, Wales at certain times and maybe Samoa as well, now that they're hanging on to more (though not all) of their quality players. The rest - absolutely not. That applies in spades to SA, NZ, Australia, England, Scotland and France.

24 years

That is one of my favourite Lions XV, fantastic players everywhere.

Packing down agains Sole, Moore and Young? No thanks!

Then coming to the breakdown.... where if you were lucky enough to avoid being smashed by Teague you then have the spectre of Calder & Richards bearing down on you to trample you untill you relaease the ball.....

Loved the way that Richards had that magnetic effect on the ball. Despite having pace that could only be measured using geologic time scales he always seemed to be where the ball was.

(That is until he finally got shown up towards the end of his career)

Even 10 years after he made his international debut, lostinwales. I well remember Scotland going for the Slam in Edinburgh in 96 and Richards apparently beating them on his own in one of those wonderfully turgid, tryless Calcutta Cups of the period. As you said, look for the ball and there you found Richards, usually defying the best efforts of three Scotsmen to prise him away from it.

He must have been a blacksmith in his spare time, those hands were so strong.

captain carrantuohil wrote:May be worth adding that it's not just the NH where standards have slipped a bit over the last twenty years or so.

Which national team of today would you confidently expect to beat their counterparts of the 90s (or indeed, the sides of ten years ago)? Ireland, almost certainly, Argentina probably, Wales at certain times and maybe Samoa as well, now that they're hanging on to more (though not all) of their quality players. The rest - absolutely not. That applies in spades to SA, NZ, Australia, England, Scotland and France.

Well indeed NZ didn't win anything of note through the 90s but did have some awesome players. Just weak at number 9.

"24 years on, how has rugby changed..."

Well simply Scotland are utter dross now compared to the young exciting side in 1989 which was starting to get into prime form for the 1990 Five Nations Season in which they won a Grand Slam. Wales on the other hand are the exact opposite from Scotland. Wales were utter dross in 1989 barring that flukish victory over England at Cardiff, but now 24 years on they are near to the same situation as that Scottish side in 1989 in that they have an excellent set of players which are near to or in their prime. As for England, well we are exactly in a slightly better situation than we were back in 1989 as we have a victory over the All Blacks under our belt now compared to 1989 in which England for some reason didn't play the mighty All Blacks at that time led by their formidable number 8 forward Wayne Shelford.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOCN4dkyvp4

In answer to the OP. Probably not much. We remember them because they won. The 97 team won well by the time the last test started. The series in 93, 97 and 2001 were even going into game 3. The margins are small.

That said I think they have a great opportunity this year.

In terms of comparing players it's harder. The standard is so much higher now. Overall, the players are bigger and fitter. skill standards are up and team techniques are through the roof. Added to that the game has changed with rules. It's harder for players to overpower the opposition or to find space. As an example, here's a take on backline attacking strategies for 13'sand changes over time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIuJRGXerPM&list=UUwASj8YUwKDdnzGCBixJwaw&index=3

Here's there take on current tactics for current 13's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6Hceh5TifQ&list=UUwASj8YUwKDdnzGCBixJwaw&index=2

That's why I say we need to get forwards into ruck and mail again by allowing competition (which would make room for the backs) get rid of the back foot law, it's had it's time.

I think you would find any modern team would muller their counterparts of 24 years ago. Fitter, stronger, more skilled.

If the Scotland team of 24 years ago had had access to the same full tiem training as the current team the old team would win probably but as they actually were when they played? You cannot compare amateurs who trained part time with fulltime professionals.

Glas a du wrote:In 1989 the Lions won a Test series in Australia. The Welsh contingent that could have been on that tour was depleted by defections 'North'. The Scottish and English within a year were head to head for a Grand Slam. There were no Irish men in the team.



10 Rob Andrew
Kicking outside half - Ronan O Gara

Well that's certainly true - ask Sean Cox!

http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/rugby/2013/0117/1224328990086.html

Great post - my amendments

15 Hastings - if we ignore the goalkicking, I think Kearney has a similar game.

2 Brian Moore - I would suggest Rory Best - although not always eye-catching, is simply competent in every area of being a hooker

4 Paul Ackford - Steve Borthwick - the agile athletic type

6 Mike Teague - Tom Woods - though he needs to spend a few years as a builder to be as mighty as Teague

24 years ago NZ were World cup champions...hmmm...seems like nothing ever changes... ....

mr_stonelea wrote:Great post - my amendments

15 Hastings - if we ignore the goalkicking, I think Kearney has a similar game.

2 Brian Moore - I would suggest Rory Best - although not always eye-catching, is simply competent in every area of being a hooker

4 Paul Ackford - Steve Borthwick - the agile athletic type

6 Mike Teague - Tom Woods - though he needs to spend a few years as a builder to be as mighty as Teague

Actually although not in stature, but in playing styles Halfpenny is very similar.

Ok' Gav could canter at quite a lick

Taylorman wrote:24 years ago NZ were World cup champions...hmmm...seems like nothing ever changes... ....

No no 24 years ago NZ had the best number 7 or all time ever. Now we only have the second best.

nganboy wrote:

Taylorman wrote:24 years ago NZ were World cup champions...hmmm...seems like nothing ever changes... ....

No no 24 years ago NZ had the best number 7 or all time ever. Now we only have the second best.

True...and Graham Henry was yet to commence his tenure as Aucklands coach.
24 years on he's waiting to commence his tenure as Aucklands assistant coach...you'd think he'd give up trying to get anywhere in this game after all that time....

nganboy wrote:

captain carrantuohil wrote:May be worth adding that it's not just the NH where standards have slipped a bit over the last twenty years or so.

Which national team of today would you confidently expect to beat their counterparts of the 90s (or indeed, the sides of ten years ago)? Ireland, almost certainly, Argentina probably, Wales at certain times and maybe Samoa as well, now that they're hanging on to more (though not all) of their quality players. The rest - absolutely not. That applies in spades to SA, NZ, Australia, England, Scotland and France.

Well indeed NZ didn't win anything of note through the 90s but did have some awesome players. Just weak at number 9.

Come on man-nothing of note? NZ's first series win in South Africa-that was the holy grail then and because the world cup drought was at two cockups I'd argue that it was more important than Bill at the time. Obviously the late 90s and early 2000s were NZ's most barren run but 95-97 was one of the best teams in history-certainly the best I've ever seen in the flesh.

Whilst the NZ side of 97 was a vintage one I would say that this was in part due to other sides rebuilding esp. the AUS side who had lost a lot of their 91 winning players post 95. The same with SA... the 95 side was being torn down and being replaced with a more professional & dynamic side which post Lions tour 97 began to take shape.

Once the AUS side got into its stride it was vastly superior.

disneychilly wrote:

nganboy wrote:

captain carrantuohil wrote:May be worth adding that it's not just the NH where standards have slipped a bit over the last twenty years or so.

Which national team of today would you confidently expect to beat their counterparts of the 90s (or indeed, the sides of ten years ago)? Ireland, almost certainly, Argentina probably, Wales at certain times and maybe Samoa as well, now that they're hanging on to more (though not all) of their quality players. The rest - absolutely not. That applies in spades to SA, NZ, Australia, England, Scotland and France.

Well indeed NZ didn't win anything of note through the 90s but did have some awesome players. Just weak at number 9.

Come on man-nothing of note? NZ's first series win in South Africa-that was the holy grail then and because the world cup drought was at two cockups I'd argue that it was more important than Bill at the time. Obviously the late 90s and early 2000s were NZ's most barren run but 95-97 Lomu was one of the best teams in history-certainly the best I've ever seen in the flesh.

Fixed that for you

Ha nice Glas. Cullen, Wilson and Lomu are IMO the best back three ever.

FA I disagree about the period being partly responsible-just rate this side that highly. Above the great Aussie side of 99-01, England 01-03 and quite possibly the 87-90 team all of which I was lucky enough to see. You could also say that the AB pack was pretty weak from 98 on-even if the French didn't turn on the magic in 99 we'd have still gotten thumped by Australia in the final.

Ooh, controversial

It was mainly 3 matches which spoilt the 90's for us- all 3 WCup losses.

Other than that series wins over the Lions and Boks and we still maintained a better win rate over everyone else- except France where it was 4-4. So on that basis, not as good as other decades perhaps but not a total disaster...(like the 70's... )

Sorry people I was being a smarty pants about not winning anything of note. I'm like Emack when it comes to the World Cup.
Actually I don't rate the series in SA because it only had 2 games. Now if we had won a third one ....
Agree about Aus beating us in the 99 final they were the best at the time.
Lomu doesn't get into my ABs best of. Interestingly Cullen and Wilson do so I guess Lomu was just coat tailling off the best.

SA was 3 matches- what you on today Ngan?

For me, Lomu, Wesley, South Auckland, Weymouth- all of which I was very close to was and is still the best player to run with the ball, ever, and thats why I watch the game.

Watch Kronfelds try against Ireland in the 95 world cup for the real definition of coat tailing...classic....