The same as the aussies when they wer beating everybody

maybe the players could wear leg pads to stop all these tackles intent on causing damage (team unknown).

Central contracts! Here me out, players on central contracts at a club would be taken out of the salary cap for a club, allowing them to hand out more and improved youth contracts.

Players would remain with their club of origin unless they wanted to actually move, rather than for contract reasons. It would provide impetus for teams to produce international talent from within as they would eventual get taken out of the wage system.

Obviously the supporters would not like to see their stars missing for games, so once again RL is being held back by the very people who want it to grow, irony.

What interests me about this is we have two threads at the top of the VT – one asking if RL would be better suited with Super league clubs running the sport and then this championing the idea of central contracts which would see the best players contracted to a central body and their participation in club matches strictly controlled

If any two things are mutually incompatible it is these two

Indeed. I don't see how central contracts for England RL players would work, when you think about how much TV money and gate receipts are received from Super League, and show piece occasions such as Challenge Cup Final in comparison to the RL internationals.

Comparing this to cricket, where a few T20 county games pull decent crowds in - but most of the county stuff is watched by very few people. Big test series like this or the Ashes gain massive media coverage and are nearly all sold out. In Rugby Union, whilst the club game is growing in stature and events such as the Heineken Cup final get massive media exposure, the internationals are still the be all and end all for your casual punter.

The RL international calendar does not warrant having central contracts - maybe more crazy ideas like an IPL style league would warrant central contracts.

This much I do know the coach education in cricket is fantastic. I became a cricket coach 4 years ago. One of the first things they did in my course was share with me the ECB vision of making England the number 1 side in the world. The rest of the stuff that thery did with me was about grass roots and community coaching but they constantly linked it back to England becoming the worlds #1. Dead impressive and motivating. Since then I have done courses each year through the ECB and nearly all the video resources they give you or share with you have prominent England test players of the present or recent past on them. Not as they are now but as they were at 14 -17. Basically their tallent identification and player education from an early age is very impressive. If their is a better model in UK sport I'd love to learn about it.

What the ECB have on their side though is that people care about a successful England Cricket team and such a team is a valuable commodity.

IN RL a successful international RL team would not raise sufficent money to justify a central contracts types system that underpins the success at elite level in cricket.

Utter rubbish.

One thing to bear in mind is the large divergence between nations in the type and relative importance of the different types of cricket eg traditional 5 day cricket, 60 over cricket, 50 over cricket, 40 over cricket and 20/20 cricket. In the UK, the traditional format of two innings per team lasting upto 5 days is still regarded as of utmost importance. The one day variants of the game are looked down upon as slogathons or cricket light. In essence the feeling is that these forms of cricket are tolerated in order to bring in much needed revenue. In other countries however particularly in Australia and India, the one day game is becoming the elite form of cricket and the big money earner for the players. As such the players are developing skills more suited to the shorter version of cricket, which is to the detriment of their test cricket. I think its therefore better to judge things in context. For example when it came to the cricket world cup England were pretty average. Some articles:- www.crickblog.com/entry/concern- ... t-cricket/ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Premier_League (interesting footnote on this wiki page stating that India premier league got double the tv ratings of RL in the UK)

One thing to bear in mind is the large divergence between nations in the type and relative importance of the different types of cricket eg traditional 5 day cricket, 60 over cricket, 50 over cricket, 40 over cricket and 20/20 cricket. In the UK, the traditional format of two innings per team lasting upto 5 days is still regarded as of utmost importance. The one day variants of the game are looked down upon as slogathons or cricket light. In essence the feeling is that these forms of cricket are tolerated in order to bring in much needed revenue. In other countries however particularly in Australia and India, the one day game is becoming the elite form of cricket and the big money earner for the players. As such the players are developing skills more suited to the shorter version of cricket, which is to the detriment of their test cricket. I think its therefore better to judge things in context. For example when it came to the cricket world cup England were pretty average. Some articles:- www.crickblog.com/entry/concern- ... t-cricket/ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Premier_League (interesting footnote on this wiki page stating that India premier league got double the tv ratings of RL in the UK)

Yet we are the current World Champions in the shortest form of cricket (Twenty/20)?

So are you alleging that England focus on test matches and Australians don't any more?

You should have been here for the Ashes. That is still the pinnacle of Australian cricket. Australia losing the Ashes on their home soil was far, far worse in the media than not winning the World Cup in One Dayers. You may be right in the future, and you may have a relevant point but it's not having an effect at the moment.

You cannot deny that Australia have declined massively mate. England are a very good team now and I am shocked how much they have improved but there is no doubt that Australia have been on the decline for years now.

What an utter non-point.

One of the best sporting teams the world has ever seen in "less good when all the genius players have retired" shock.

England are only good because Australia are rubbish? Nonsense.

As other people have said on here the Australian team is rebuilding for the future now. They are still producing the same talent, their Academies are still as good. It's just that everyone else has raised their games.

Central contracts has helped England enormously but....the domestic competition has to produce the talent in the first place.

International RL has been a joke for a few years now. I remember a time when playing for GB meant something. Wembley being sold out for test matches. Foreign tours with loads of fans going along. I'm afraid Super League/RL is all far too insular now. Fans only really interested in their own club and not for the greater good of the game.