Damo even you have to admit the standard in the NRL is vastly superior to that of the SL.

There is only two ways we will become competitive with the Aussies: if their standards drop significantly or we increase the GB qualified playing pool from which the team is selected.

The Aussies internationally are far better but hey, just appreciate super league for what it is and enjoy, I would prefer to watch a super league game rather than NRl game far more entertaining

We must agree to differ - I like to watch the game to see the extraordinary and that is something that occurs far more regularly in the NRL than it ever does in SL

The Aussies were way 'PAST' us well before SL started. However, the gap in standards has widened even further since the start of SL. Our international results post SL-era are worse than they were pre-SL era. That's the reality.



The Aussies have beaten the Kiwis. On average, they beat the Kiwis 3 times out of 4. Since 2006 they've beaten the Kiwis 7 times in their last 10 meetings, 1 draw and 2 defeats. Since 2000, they've beaten the Kiwis 20 times in their last 27 meetings, 2 draws and 5 defeats. There are also 3 fifty point hammerings of the Kiwis among those results.

In recent times the Kiwis have made a habit of attaining peak performance by winning 3 out of the last 4 Finals contested - 2005 Tri Nations Final, 2008 World Cup Final and 2010 Four Nations Final. None of this is rocket science. The Kiwi squads of recent years are almost exclusively drawn from the NRL competition, hence their ability to lift their game and their intensity when it really counts. Apart from Thomas Leuluai, their coach will not entertain substandard Kiwi players drawn from a substandard SL competition.



I have absolutely no idea what you're rambling on about here. What has happened to the standard of Australian RL? Results suggest otherwise. If you are implying that the playing standards in Australia have dropped, then I can only assume the playing standards over here during the SL-era have scraped the bottom of the barrel and sunk a borehole right through it.

Anyone who has watched the last 4/5 SOO series cannot be anything but disappointed with the quality on offer - the dramatic fall in standards is evident to all. Even more evidence that the overall quality of the NRL comp is not as a result of the improving standards of the Aussies.

Whilst an improvement on the England v France mid-season game, I don't think this idea would improve standards much, if at all.
A Yorks v Lancs would be better in my opinion, since you would have 34 instead of only 17 potential England players competing for places, plus there's an existing rivalry to take advantage and people from outside the game can instantly associate with the idea of a Yorkshire v Lancashire competition.

However that still would be fiddling around the edges instead of addressing the real problem of the woefully inadequate and just downright cr@p youth and junior coaching. Until kids are taught the basics properly we're not going to consistently compete with the Aussies.

In the previous 13/14 years prior to SL, we were winning around 1 game in 4 against the Aussies. Post SL-era we only win around 1 game in 6.

In the previous 13/14 years prior to SL, we were winning around 1 game in 2 against the Kiwis. Post SL-era we only win around 1 game in 3.

That is the true reality.

Your failure to acknowledge this along with your propensity for massaging the evidence to fit your agenda suggests to me that you are possibly an accountant by trade?



I'm saying that it ain't rocket science that one bunch of NRL-standard players are more than capable of beating another bunch of NRL-standard players. The Kiwis are now products of the Australian system, hence their improvement, and I applaud the Australian contribution to international competition and credibility.

The point which seems lost on you (or more accurately, the point which you refuse to acknowledge) is that it's the playing standards over here since the inception of SL which is the problem. Our international results have deteriorated during the SL-era, as have the results of the French since Catalans entered SL. The French finished 10th and last in the 2008 World Cup. Tonga and Samoa have potential for improvement but not until they are in a position to select more NRL-standard players rather than SL-standard players. Our contribution to international competition is negligible to say the least.



Only a very ignorant person with little to no knowledge of the cultural significance of ANZAC Day to Australians and New Zealanders could make such a dismissively ignorant comment such as that.

Greg Eastwood is a product of the Australian system and did get some game time during the last Four Nations. What is the point you are trying to make here? Are you claiming he's a product of Leeds Rhinos and SL? Fortunately for him, he was wise enough to realise rather quickly the huge mistake he'd made stepping down to SL-level.



What are you trying to say here?

Are you Gotcha in disguise?

Your focus ought to be disappointment with the deteriorating standards ushered in by SL instead. Our playing standards have never been as atrociously poor as they are now. The Australian system produces world class players like Benji Marshall. Our system produces players like Danny McGuire! Go figure.

Are we really in a "post SL era" Keith ?

I thought it was still underway.

I am not disagreeing with your point about the standards of the SL competition - it is no surprise that this has coincided with a greater influx of very average overseas players that have gone through the NRL system. If we want to improve the quality of the comp we cannot continue to fill the teams with players who are not good enough to claim a regular starting position in the NRL. Although you have question the NRL development system when the likes of Riddell and Hicks can still get a gig?

The point about the falling standards at international level being a result of the introduction of SL simply doesn't stack up - whether we 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 is irrelevant when it came to the crunch we have been unable to do the business - which suggests the Aussies only performed to their peak when needed - even with the likes of Hanley, Schofield etc we never beat them when it mattered.

We beat the Kiwis as often as they beat us so I am not sure your idea that are results are getting worse stacks up here either

So you are saying the ANZAC test is the same as a world cup final - only AP could believe that? Whilst the ANZAC concept has some significant cultural value as a game of rugby do you honestly think it carries the gravitas of a Tri/Quad nations or a world cup?

Whilst the Aussie system does produce the likes of Marshall it also produces the likes of Tim Smith, Michael Witt go figure!!

No doubt Willie Mason will deny his NRL background, like he did with his country.

What, for the all stars?? Probably not no.

Yep.



Nope.

It only lasted one season - 1997.

Thats not really true, and a fair bit too early to judge.
That again isnt true. The players these days, even simply down to fitness and tactics are better than they were, they havent gone backwards. What we have failed to do is advance as quickly as Australia and certainly new zealand.
that is true.

This is massively untrue. There are many many more international sides, playing many many more international games. It is a disservice to a lot of what is happening in the game outside of the NRL and SL to dismiss their growth since the advent of SL.

I don't think defining "SL era" as "the Australian SL era of 1997" supports your main point above Keith.