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).

Widdop vs Briscoe sums up everything. How many first grade games has Briscoe played? More than 3 I suspect. At the equivalent stage in his career as Widdop he would have been laughably bad in an international. That entirely sums up the difference in coaching and experience a kid in Australia gets compared to one in the UK.

The 'style of play' we had when successful was 40 years ago. The game is not the same at all as it was then. Sadly Australia has carried on moving forward whilst we lag way behind. Our style of play may be entertaining, but its patently not as good as the NRL.

The whole point about the coaching you suggest our kids need is that they aren't getting it in England. Otherwise we wouldn't have halfbacks with no kicking game and centres who are clueless. That's the point - if we sent our kids to Australia its those basics they would be looking to pick up. If they don't have the raw materials then nothing will help, but one of the most frustrating things to me is how so many of our players do have raw ability but have no taught skills to go with it. I'd argue its not just coaching but also playing - hence why sending kids to the NRL would probably work better than sending an army of Aussie coaches to teach Academies.

I'd also add that until we have a whole lot more players in SL of the required quality, the coaching will go to waste anyway. If you don't get punished for dropping the ball or giving away dumb penalties, then you'll keep on doing it. Its human nature.

A lot of rubbish has been talked about League in NZ. The Warriors produce a lot of juniors - in fact they just one the juniors comp? With many been signed by for the first team and a few for other clubs. TBF most of the current problems have been caused by ineffective administration - sound familiar - but that has now been sorted.

Many areas produce juniors that actively recruited by other NRL teams.

Granted Union is bigger, but kids often play both one on Sat and one Sunday, but league in NZ has one thing union does not. We have Sir Peter Leitch - the one and only Mad Butcher!

Briscoe was a very talented and much talked about young full back when he broke into the Wigan team. But that's not enough to get you in a GB team past two greats like Radlinski and Wellens. You have no idea how he would have played had he been selected. I suspect he would have shown up as well as anyone.

It's of limited value sending young players to the NRL because it's already too late. We have to adjust our attitudes from ground up - that's junior level - 8/9 and beyond.

Regarding Widdop, for his age and experience, he isn't ahead of where Chris Ashton and Lee Smith were, in fact he's probably behind them.

In my opinion, whilst there are significant issues about size of player pool, the intensity of SL and I think there is a definite need for a mid season domestic rep series of some description, the biggest problem is that of junior and youth coaching. Still, despite some effort from the RFL, there are far too many junior and youth coaches who focus on winning instead of player development. There are far too many junior games where the team tactic is pass it to the big kid. The big kid who doesn't have good skills either but just happens to be 2 foot taller than the rest of his age group.
We get several kids every year who come to us whilst still playing for amateur teams who's basic skills are frankly appalling, especially their passing and handling. They can throw a ball but they can't pass it. Same goes for virtually every other skill, tackling is "brave" but technique is non-existant and there are too many who can't kick a ball to save their lives. I don't care if a lad is obviously going to be a prop I still want him to learn the basic skills which include accurate kicking of different types. As for attacking or positional "nous" well there's none whatsoever. We are literally having to explain to 12/13/14 year old kids the difference between a prop and a stand off. The play the ball is also appalling, it makes the play the ball in that cup final that was shown recently look tidy.
I've managed to see the training of scholarships at a few SL clubs and to say I was underwhelmed by the basic skills on show is an understatement. I also happen to know a couple of the scholarship coaches who are incredibly frustrated that they are having to coach/re-coach basic skills that should have been learnt at a much younger age.

Until there is a much firmer grip got on junior and youth coaching and the backward, aggressive, arrogant, idiotic, selfish and you scratch my back & I'll scratch yours elements are got rid of from junior coaching we won't move very far forward.

The well meaning but essentially clueless amateurs which make up a significant proportion of those coaching the next generation of professional players are doing more harm than good.

I'd suggest a mandatory minimum qualification scheme for all those involved in the junior game, say Level 1 for all those involved in the mini-mod game, Level 2 for those working with aged 12 and upwards and Level 3 for those involved with players aged 14 and over.

Whether the RFL has the resources/inclination to monitor such a scheme however is open to dispute.