The most worrying thing to eminate from Sam is not his accent but his comment that he is training a lot harder and for longer in Oz than when he was in the UK.

It may be that he's just trying to flatter the locals, but if its true it is fairly damning. I thought the point of having such a strong Australian influence in SL was that we benefit from their methods? We're supposedly paying the players more than they get in Oz, there are enough Australian coaches over here, even if not recently at the Bulls, for the message to have spread. So why should training regimes be noticeably different?

Wigan certainly looked fitter and faster than us this year suggesting their training went up a gear under McGuire.

Excellent point - and yes, worrying.

Maybe the earlier return to training reflects a recognition of this by the Bulls coaching staff?

Without doubt and speaking to anyone at the club, players or officials repeatedly reinforces that; along with the internal discipline. But it's not just about fitness.

Phil Clarke identified some time ago that the advanced individual skill (and fitness) levels of every player, in every position, in the NRL is the primary reason for the gulf in class (along with the obvious pool of talent etc). Watching a Tony Peletua, Ali Lauititi and Louis Anderson highlights the very skill concept we continue to ignore for our very own players. It's put down to inate "freak" ability or "natural", but is it? Watching a number of NRL players repeatedly over the years suggests it's been, and is being, worked on continually and extensively.

Only 17 players can take the field at any one time but even our best 17 has nothing like the skill level in intense games to compete with Oz or NZ. Not even close. As Clarke said, clubs need to invest heavily in player skill development at all levels, in every playing position if International rugby is to have any future or value. The international post mortem will continue, but it will likely paper over the cracks.

That all makes sense to me.

What worries me is where do the teachers come from? In the NRL they have the big - and skilled -talent pool, and no doubt everyone feeds off each other - especially the younger players, as Sam no doubt is finding. We have a handful of Aussie/NZ coaches and a handful of senior imports ready willing and able to mentor the youngsters. Is that enough critical mass? Do we have enough home-grown coaching/playing talent to develop the skills in others?

The necessary investment in player development skills efectively means investment in the skilled people to teach those skills. What practical steps do you reckon UK clubs need to take (apart from somehow finding more money to spend on top-quality coaching staff, which those without a sugar daddy will struggle to do) to resolve the problem? Whenever I think about this, it keeps coming back to money and a perceived need (especially with franchise renewals looming) to prioritise short-term performance.

It always seems to come down to money and spending it in the right areas.

I'd like to draw an analogy between the great Bulls teams of recent years and the poor ones of late.

The great teams seemed to perform when the chips were down. The poor ones seem to go to pieces and make catalogues of errors.

The great teams could go long spells without failing to complete a set of six and finish it with a good play or kick. With the poor teams, you are just waiting, all the time, expecting a schoolboy error, and you aren't often disappointed, with the ball being coughed up even on the first tackle with monotonous regularity.

I guess it boils down to whether you can bring your 'A' game to the table when up against an opponent you know is better than you on paper, or whether you crumble with nerves and an inferiority complex.

During the NFL game at Wembley, one of the commentators was talking about a particular player failing to make a catch, and he said that at that level (ie the top gridiron level) the margin for errors is so small. Basically, you just can't afford to make them. That is, not in practice, but when the chips are down, can you hold yourself together and make the plays, time after time.

That, to me, is the essential difference, but I'm not sure just how it can be coached. I am sure that playing in a pressure cooker most weeks is one way of sorting out the players who can, and those who crumble, but we don't have that to anywhere the same extent.

Too many low intensity games in SL. However there were precious few occasions last year when we looked capable of playing a high intensity game, as you say we either made errors or missed tackles.

Having a bigger squad should create some intensity in the competition for places. Despite still receiving contract payments players do still want to be in the 17 each week so that should help.

Part of the problem in this country is the nannying culture and the idea that it's the taking part that counts. No it's not, winning should be everything. No one remembers losers.

That's why the Aussies are superior. They just want to wipe their opponents off the park. No room for sentiment, no sense of equal participation. Just sheer bloody mindedness and a will to win.

I blame debaser and his ilk.

What exactly did Debaser DO with his Ilk to cause all this trouble? He didn't do something naughty with it in public, did he?

Although I agree with your initial point, I think it's a choice.

You're right, that if you subscribe to the "it's the taking part that counts" kind of upbringing, then you're never gonna win anything.

Which is most important? Is it the kids enjoying themselves or is it winning? Everyone will have different opinions. But I agree that its one or the other, you're not going to get both. Personally I'd prefer to win, but then I don't have any kids to watch enjoying it, so I would say that.

Winning matters the most however old you are.

From U11's through to open age, I never went out the "for a bit of fun".
I wanted to win.

Although everyone does want to win, there is a different culture over here than in Australia. Over there, it seems to be "if you're good enough, you play. If you're not, take up something else.". Whereas here, everyone gets a chance (and to be honest it's similar in the U.S.).

That doesn't mean the kids don't want to win at all costs, but it does mean you end up with a few crap players in there (like me) and some decent ones missing out because it's not their turn.

Strange how as this country has got more selfish & greedy our performances on the international stage have worsened. Still, if the Mail or Sun tells you we live in a nanny state that must explain it. The fact that no-one allows their children out of the house un-accompanied until they are in their teens, by which time they are on the way to obesity, the fact we sold off our school fields, the fact there is virtually no sport (competitive or disabled/gay/colour friendly) in school, no after school sport, the fact we promote vacuous talentless morons as idols, are all irrelevant.



Some good it did you.