Genetics. Islanders are naturally big they wudnt even need to hit the gym to be big and athletic!

Time to send scouts to Ramsey, Douglas and Peel?

Give some couples of Polynesian passports with the agreement they have many kids lol

It's all about player supply - ie numbers playing the game. We should give all RL clubs targets for the number of junior teams playing in meaningful clubs / leagues in their areas. Going into primary schools for a day is no good. Development needs to translate into regular participation. You need to see kids playing rugby with their mates in the park / in the streets. I know I live in the South these days but when I go home I rarely see kids playing rugby in an informal environment. That's something that has changed enormously over the years. We all used to do that every day.

who said SL is a "bore fest! strewth having watched NRL on tv and live I know which comp i want to watch and lets put it this way it is northern hemis!
if we have to go to Southern hemis style of play to beat the aussies in internationals then sod it i am happy to keep losing to them
The NRL is pretty dull to watch, the atmos at NRL games i have been to is graveyard!!
The 2 ref thing is pants

SL is a damn fine product

Big differnce with why the games are different, whats the pay scales north and south???

That's sort of my point. The league has promoted more and more of the Australia wrestling at the play the ball in an attempt to catch the Aussies. Ten years ago the game was far more exciting to watch

We need to have a more intense competition, less games. I would reduce SL to 11 clubs so clubs only play 20 games instead of 27. I would also like to see overseas quota reduced 2nd rate aussies ruining our game stopping young players develop. And put overseas coaches on quota!

so reduce SL to 11 clubs, does that not then mean there is a smaller pool of players to choose from who are playing at that level?

It means fewer average players.

so how many teams in the NRL???? seems a strange concept to me, reduce the number of teams playing at a higher level gives you better quality teams, so how far down do you think we should go?
surely by this logic we should have say a 6 team comp

Difference between the 2 comps is purely Money!"!! and the ability to develop players from the grass roots and keep them in the game

Sixteen but that will increase in the next couple of years in my opinion. You can't compare rugby league in Europe and Australia. Here we're a minority sport shunned by the media and ripped-off by Sky every four or five years. Rugby league is a huge sport in Australia, if not the biggest. The players are on the back and front pages and have the same profile as soccer players in Europe.
Australia can afford to have sixteen teams in its premier competition because it has a massive talent pool to choose from. Unfortunately we don't have that and while progress is being made nation-wide, it's going to be a good few years before we have anything like the number of quality players to support fourteen or sixteen competitive top division sides.

Dont matter how many teams at the top table 6 or 16 if you dont do the basics how many times have we seen a player make a break then look for the man backing up and no support.

les goose!! good answer

That's something that is going to take years to sort out. In the meantime drop the number of clubs then our internationals wouldn't be making breaks and having to depend on players like Karl Pryce, Mark Calderwood, Ben Fisher or Josh Veivers for support.