Do these Kiwi players magically appear at 16-17 years of age in the youth systems of NRL teams?

Why are NRL teams looking to pick up young players from NZ when they have such a large talent pool on their doorsteps?

Somewhere, during their formative years in NZ, they are being exposed to coaching that makes them the equal of their Australian counterparts and considered ready to enter the junior system of NRL teams.

That's the question, and why your answers are more reflective of someone who "doesn't get it" than Richie's.

It's only a hand full of players that at 16-17 are as good as their Australian counterparts. Like maybe 1 in 16?!

Funny that seen as 1/16th of NRL teams, who use NRL training techniques, and NRL youth policiy and who are watched week in, week out by NRL selectors and scouts, just happens to be based in New Zealand.

Look, all I'm saying, is 5 of 23 play for NZ Warriors. The other 80% have been developed by the NRL. My point, which is 100% valid, is that it's the NRL that is producing top quality players, and that is who we should be learning from.

Why on earth, with all those Australian youth players, are NRL clubs signing young Kiwis?

These kids from New Zealand are top quality players (for their age) before they even get to the NRL, that's my point. What the NRL clubs then do is take these players and polish them into the players that put on Kiwi jerseys.

So how is New Zealand able to generate such numbers of these outstanding young players for the NRL clubs when their English equivalents can't do the same for SL? It's that pathway into the pro clubs and its relative success in NZ that needs to be examined as much as what the NRL/SL clubs do with their junior players.

IMV it's because Rugby is the national sport in NZ.
Initially Union but increasingly League.
At junior level I suspect that which code you play is immaterial.
Without being racist I think that Maoris & all other South Sea island races (like black sprinters) are genetically better suited to Rugby of both codes particularly since RU in the southern hemisphere at least is now much closer to RL than ever before.

There does seem to be, from the guys I've spoken to here, a fair bit of crossover with players playing both. More than they do here anyway, where many players seem to be either one or the other. Although until just a few years ago, players in 80% of the country didn't even have the opportunity to play league.

I think its due to the fact that modern RU is much more of a handling game than it ever used to be plus the influence of so many exRL coaches now plying their trade in RU all over the globe.
How often did Fran Cotton for instance ever handle the ball compared to Tony Woodcock (the All Black front rower not the ex-Engalnd footballer by the way)?

Which players have been improved to the extent that would warrant such unqualified support for a further exodus?

One of the casualties of the move to summer rugby has been the international scene and the lack of an opportunity for players to have a short stint with an Aussie club.

Without doubt most of the players who guested for ARL clubs came back better for the experience. We also had regular tours which were real learning experiences for players and there was a genuine desire for players to play for their country. This is in contrast to the trips now where players get fraction of the game time.

From my own personal experience living in NZ I can vouch my ten year old at the time step-son was enthused by rugby ( union and league ) because every single one of his class mates was too. It is the game they all aspire to. We found he had the natural attributes in pace and classic wing play within a well disciplined team even at that age ( all the dads and teachers want to to succeed as coaches too, increasing the choice of quality here also ) to succeed.

The attitude in him, however, changed considerably once back in the UK. Football here of course dominates amongst his mates. He no longer has any interest in any code of rugby.
Do not underestimate peer pressure.
My lad is another potential loss to the game and unless RL becomes the dominant sport in this country - it never will - things won't really change.

all very true however sadly in this country there is absolutley no chance of rugby league being as popular as football, regardless of exspansion of the game etc...

In the short term it would help the England team if most/all of the team/squad played in the NRL but it's not a long term solution. All it would mean is that the next generation of England players would be playing in a weakened, less intense competition in England. We need to make our own competition stronger and more intense which means more good players/fewer weak links which is why increasing the league size was a bad idea and a massive cull in overseas players would not help either. More incentives to recruit, train and support quality juniors better than we do now are what we need. However, this solution is long term and won't pay dividends for some years.

I think we need to get our best 16-18 year-olds to Australia to train with NRL sides for a year. We have a classic case in point in young Hardacre. With the best will in the world, how much is he going to learn playing NL? More than Academy, but I'd suggest far less than reserve grade in Australia. Widdop sums it up - he's not a regular first-teamer in the NRL and yet he's got the basics down well enough to not look out of place alongside SL 'stars'.

I'd like more senior players to give the NRL a go, but do agree that we can't have all our star players leave at once. Having said that, we aren't going to face a mass exodus anytime soon for the simple reason that NRL clubs aren't going to be interested in many of our players - Graham, Roby, Tomkins maybe. But even then they aren't going to pay them anything like what they're on in SL. Just like Ellis, they're going to have to take a pay cut and prove themselves first. I would hazard a guess that very few of our star players would be willing to do that - and TBH I can't blame them individually.

While I agree completely with much of this and your previous posts, I do not agree with copying the way things are in NZ. We have a model far more akin to the Aussies who have mutiple sports competing for talent. We need to look at the way we work with kids in sport from the ground up. It's the Aussies who are masters of getting the most out of limited talent and population over lots of sports. In NZ they play rugby and that's pretty much it.

I'd like us to remember we had a playing style that was good enough to beat anyone and we could have again. I like the way we move the ball and the style we play. What we need to have are intelligent players who have been coached in basics like playing the ball and controling posession so it's built in. Ellis was the player he is before he went to the NRL, the fact he's shown up as outstanding there isn't because of magic NRL dust that's been sprinkled on him, it's because he is a great player.
Widdop doesn't sum anything up, he's a lad who is good enough to get in a Melbourne team a couple of times and apparantly immediately qualifies for an international shirt. Briscoe did not much wrong while playing full back for England, and I've sen him play far better than I've ever seen Widdop play (and I think I've seen all his first grade appearances so far).