Increase the intensity and excitement and we will increase the profile. Even now as we bemoan the spectacle, to outsiders we have one of the most intense and entertaining sports around. The sport is growing, as evidenced by increased crowds (e.g. 9k at Wakefield yesterday) and some of the ideas mentioned in this thread will help (e.g. 12 teams) or have helped (e.g. salary cap) to improve competition.

We need a strong negotiator in place for the next TV contract because, no matter what we say, it will probably be the greatest determinant on which way the sport over here goes during the next decade.

The fact that the England squad is no longer made up of 10 players from the champions and then scatterings from a couple of other clubs.

How about we make most of the games actually count for something? That will increase intensity and excitement instantly far more than anything else would. Sadly that isn't ever going to happen. One of RL's biggest problems going forward is that it is run by the RL. We're doomed as long as that carries on.

No - the national squad is now made up mostly of players that wouldn't have been good enough to pull on any kind of representative shirt a decade ago instead. But so long as our increasing levels of mediocrity are spread thinly throughout the game then we're OK, eh?

Repeating the same statement over and over again won't miraculously turn it into truth.

It is already truth mate...

A decade ago we lost to a record test defeat of 64-10 I seem to recall so I would argue with you about that point.

OK then - how many current GB players would have made the starting 17 that got beat that day? 3 or maybe 4 absolute tops being as generous and charitable as possible.

Now tell me talent in the domestic game is not in sharp decline...

Seriously? Here's the line-up from that team and I've highlighted the players that I believe we have better options now at that position.

Radlinski (Wigan);
Johnson (Wigan),
Wellens (St Helens),
Senior (Leeds),
Pratt (Leeds);
Sculthorpe (St Helens),
Sheridan (Leeds);
O'Connor (Wigan),
Cunningham (St Helens),
McDermott (Leeds),
Peacock (Bradford),
Fielden (Bradford),
Farrell (Wigan, capt).

SubsGleeson (St Helens),
Newton (Wigan),
Joynt (St Helens),
Sinfield (Leeds).

I have highlighted Sculthorpe because he was a loose forward. Ten years ago we couldn't even field a stand off and now there's more than one competing for that spot. Similarly, I haven't highlighted Keiron but Roby is hardly a drlop off from him. Certainly if you look at the backline I would say things have improved dramatically.

You're right... for once. Though perhaps the decline is more gradual than sharp.

This result - a freak result - is often cited by people who want to argue the game is in great shape now, but if you look at the squad that day, it was a strong squad:

1. K. RADLINSKI
2. P. JOHNSON
3. P. WELLENS
4. K. SENIOR
5. K. PRATT

6. P. SCULTHORPE
7. R. SHERIDAN

8. T. O'CONNOR
9. K. CUNNINGHAM
10 B. McDERMOTT
11. J. PEACOCK
12. S. FIELDEN
13. A. FARRELL (c)

14. C. JOYNT
15. M. GLEESON
16. T. NEWTON
17. K. SINFIELD

It certainly hasn't improved in the forwards. Are you joking about Cunningham and Roby? Roby's a good player but he's not in KFC's class.

I don't understand your argument on Sculthorpe (a) he often played at 6 and (b) he was better "out of position" at 6 than any current British stand-off (as Farrell would have been 10 years ago).

Farrell, Cunningham and Sculthorpe were a level beyond any current British player (other than Tomkins, obviously).

I would say that the standard is perhaps more uneven that the current first choice England 17 - there are one or two duffers in that side, which is what may have contributed to its downfall that day, but there were some great players in that side.

I wouldn't argue with you about there being a difference but you could make an argument that since becoming England's first choice hooker Roby has put in better performances at international level that KC did.



I take it that you have no issue with the other members of the backline like Johnson, Wellens, Pratt and Sheridan? We have at least two to three options now on each of those positions each of which is better than any of those.

The same nostalgic conversations pop up whenever somebody mentions declining standards and I don't know why because I would bet money on the fact that when we lost 64-10 people were levelling the same accusations at these great players. At the time I'm sure people would mention those glory days of the 80s and 90s saying we had loads of great players yet they still couldn't win at international level (including a home loss to France of all teams). I don't want to diminish the excellence of those players, however that doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical of the bigger picture i.e. the increasing numbers of home grown talent which compares favourably to back then.

Standards are not plummetting but they have dropped off in the league in general over the last few seasons, internationally it's hard to notice any difference, we've been the same for 30 years close but no cigar.

I think the drop in the SL is the fact clubs are having to take serious looks at their own talent production rather than serious looks at the rules to find loopholes to sneak more overseas in.

Long term I think it will benefit the league to have more home grown talent, but no doubt those who can't hack long term planning (the majority of the English population) will start spouting panic over short term drops in player quality. Once clubs get used to the fact they need to produce their own top class players and not rely on a few RL clubs youth players and overseas players then we will see better investment in youth coaching.

It's like any drug addict you have to make people realise there is no other way than the hard way before they believe, at the moment we still have clubs only just realising the party is over. Was it a week ago the Hull KR chairman said he was switch to concentrating on youth, that's 5 years after the RFL changed the overseas quota ruling.

Paul Johnson was a decent player, I certainly didn't mean to call him a duffer, and he deserved his caps. But I'd take Charnley or Hall ahead of him. I'd forgotten Sheridan even existed, so Chase would get in ahead of him (though he wouldn't have been eligible back then). As for Pratt. Well....

And then. Deep breath. I'm going to defend the young Wellens... I'm sure he wasn't too slow back then to play centre, even at international level? I think his fiercest critics would have to admit that apart from his (increasing) lack of pace he has everything else needed for a top player. Would he have been as good as Atkins, no, but I'd take Senior from 10 years ago ahead of Atkins anyway. Better than Goulding or the other centre options? I can't remember enough of Wellens from those days, but I suspect he'd be in with a shout. Over to you as you will be able to recall the young Wello.

I think you're too harsh on Gleeson (don't forget this is the 2002 Gleeson, my memory of him then was of a very good young player) and Newton (I'd say the 2002 Newton was not that far off Roby, and I'd rate Roby as one of our best 2 or 3 players at the moment). To be honest I never particularly rated Joynt, but that may be down to Wigan bias to be fair, though if you don't rate him either then I'm not going to disagree with you!

What's your thinking on Fielden? I certainly can't forget the 2003 version when the Bradford pack was just too powerful for us in the GF.

Better option at stand off now than scully?

Scully was rated in the top 3 players in the world while playing at stand off, he has his best playing days wearing the #6 shirt.