Is it good for the Super League to lose more elite players to the NRL? Can the English game afford to lose its stars? Australian RL has never wanted to lose its star players, nor lose elite NZers, with certain Australian RL people claiming them as our own when criticising player drain to SL. English players may benefit from playing fewer games in NRL, and from receiving more pre-planned breaks in the NRL season, yet any potential boost to those exports potential performance comes at a cost to your game. Its avoiding the issue that will benefit the English game long term - restructuring that puts the national team in a peak physical and mental state the beat the Kangaoos.
Quote: Jonesy "Any League that has around 30-50 % of their first team players imported should ring alarm bells.'"
IMO % of foreigners isn't the most relevant factor that negatively affects the success of the League nor the national team. English Rugby Union's Premiership has a high % of foreigners, as does the French Rugby Union's Top 14. Both are growing in popularity, their clubs are increasingly able to buy players from anywhere. England's national teams won the 2003 World Cup, contested the 07 final, and won three Six Nations titles in the last decade. France has won 5 titles in the last decade. What about English Premier League soccer? High percentage of foreigners, one of the most high profile and commercially successful leagues in the world.
Management of elite players is a significant factor. NZ Rugby does this extremely well, hence the All Blacks performing well, winning so many tests and holding a high world ranking for a long time. English Rugby Union has an agreement, hence its reasonable performance despite a long season.