Agree totally! I found an old book of F Maths Pure past papers the other day and gave it to my son who is doing F Maths this year. He reckoned that over half of the old syllabus either isn't on the new one at all or the level of detail is much less. There's some nice analysis stuff in there, injection bijection and surjection, Taylor / Maclauren series in lots of detail, hyperbolic functions, group theory ... The old syllabus gave a much better idea of what university maths looked like because it actually introduced some of the topics. Also double As at double maths were quite rare, as opposed to the scarily large amount of university places this year asking for A*A* as standard.
I feel really sorry for people sitting A level nowadays who are working their socks off and then have to listen to my generation going on about how it's 'easy' to get high grades now compared to 25 years ago. It's NOT easy, a couple of silly transcribing errors or swapping a '-' sign can be a death knell for an A*, neither of which have anything to do with mathematical ability, because there is so little on the paper to differentiate between the top candidates
It might be technically easier to get an A grade now, but it is also so much easier to slip a grade because as you can see from the raw score => UMS conversion tables, sometimes the difference between an A and a D can be as little as 10 raw marks.
As a comparison, I went to Manchester 25 year ago to study Mech Eng. My offer grades were BCC. This year for the same course it's AAB. The A levels are supposed to be for differentiating candidates for University entry.