Could probably add a few more, to be honest Holdsworth would definitely be on ours, Patten aswell with the big hype for him, its weather he delivers of not though. I'd maybe add Henry aswell for us, hes not been the best centre out their but hes very consistant and works hard. Good point you've made their though, a lot of the over sea's players won't really add much more than some of our young British talent.

Why does it matter? I go to Rovers every other week to watch rugby league being played. I like to watch the best spectacle of the game I can however I was there through the dark days and saw some pretty dire performances with a team almost full of local lads!

The fact is our player pool is not big enough with or without the current numbers of Aussies. If they were not here then 14 SL teams would pick out the best Championship players and even some pretty average ones too. This would hardly give us the memorable moments players like Solomona, Lauititi, Monaghan, Sammut, Dobson, Leuluai...etc have given us.

If we are really that bothered about England doing so well at international level then we need to give the squad more time together, more competative mid-season games, more specialist coaching. When I read Jason Robinsons book he talked of the Union international training, each player got a dvd about the players they would be marking or running at...etc I have never heard our players getting that kind of indevidual treatment.

Oh and once Rovers start to lose some of these players like Vella, Galea and Fisher we will be unable to replace them which will bring us back in line with most of the other teams. Not our fault the RFL changed the rules after we'd offered contracts out.

That’s a fair opinion and well presented, I guess my view and yours differs in two areas

Firstly, I don’t really have a club allegiance so I’m much more passionate about the success of the national team than being entertained by and supporting a successful club week in week out

Secondly, I don’t subscribe to the opinion that we don’t have the player base and we have to rely on Antipodean back up. It is fair to say that if we drastically cut the number of overseas players, the standard would initially drop with players rising from the National leagues and maybe youngsters given a chance who wouldn’t be today but the young players are out there and if the clubs were forced to find and develop them, they would... clubs like Wigan are producing a large number of talented youngsters (only this week they off loaded another England Academy international... I would criticise that but Wigan have several young English back rowers in their squad)

Granted we have some great up and coming youngsters but not only are Rugby Union becomming quite interested so are it would appear the NRL.

What we don't have is the standard of player to replace these Aussies with. We accept a drop initially in standards, then we get used to that standard and think it's getting better, then we are still rubbish at international level and who do we blame then?

The cream will always rise to the top which is why players such as Burgess and Ellis are playing in Australia taking the places of Australian youngsters. If our kids are not good enough after learning from superstars over here then are they really ever going to be good enough??

Most of us agree that Englands pack is as good as if not better than the Aussies and NZ'ers. What we lack is the backs to be competative. Then look at our injuries, we couldn't take our first choice halves and our centres were pretty useless compared to the opposition. By losing players such as Jake Webster I do not seriously think we'd have been taking Mike Ratu to Australia and that can be said about most teams' players. If we got rid of the Aussies would our England team selection have been much different? Also the players that were playing, would they have had the same kind of challenge through the season not playing alongside world class players but having to play next to average Championship standard players and youngsters that are learning their trade? Would this have made them worse players putting us at an even greater disadvantage?

Honest answer... I don't know

Like most people, I have no problem with world class players entering Super League – it raises the standard of our competition and I firmly believe that improving the quality of our domestic competition will develop our national team (which is why I don’t want too many UK stars heading down under)

What does frustrate me is when club chairmen and coaches take the easy option and bring in average overseas players as a quick fix... I thought that the licence process was designed to remove the fear factor so that investment can be made in youth

Let’s not get down on ourselves too much though, compared to other sports we have a lot of home grown talent in our elite league – Rugby Union seems to be bringing over more and more players every season and the Premier League is ridiculous (remember when Wigan Athletic were promoted to the Premier League and Whelan said he would use English players... now Latics has more foreign players in the team than any other than Arsenal)

My idea on the Rovers forum is that the RFL should say clubs can have as many as they like, the stipulation comes on game day, they must field 6 home grown players, a further 5 federation trained players leaving 6 spots for any other players the coach wishes to pick. This should be coupled with a rule that states 6 home grown players MUST earn 25k per year with a further 4 earning at least 18k per year.

We would not lose the standards the Aussies bring to the competition and we should see more local talent being brought through to a better standard due to having to be used every week and training with plenty of top stars. This not only frees the RFL from any legal loopholes it also stops the quota issues and anything else. We already have a salary cap so the clubs would still be limited to how many they could sign it just wouldn't be putting a number to it.

Can't see what issues would come of this as all clubs will always have to field 11 federation trained players every week.

Tommy Leuluai is fed trained as he was over here at Quins early enough, and he's non-quota as well.

The player pool isnt big enough, because we dont make it big enough, we dont give players the training and coaching they need, we dont give them the opportunities we need.
How is a young player supposed to become good enough to be better than Mick Dobson when we dont give him any time to learn the game? how is a 18/19 year old to not only have the experience let alone prove himself to be better than a 24 year old Aussie when we never gets a game because we keep bringing over 24 year old Aussies?

damn right we do. But if we have a very small player pool then it isnt going to be enough. We will still be left behind.

Im sure they will claim dispensation again, or get 'special status' or find another way.

We do give the players the training and time to progress but the fact is when a team wants success you have to bring in players that are capable of providing this.

As said players that are good enough will force their way in to the team such as Kris Welham, Tom Briscoe and not forgetting Eastmond was a big reason why Saints didnt offer a two year deal to the best English scrum half in the country!!!

Smokey I'm not quite sure I can believe you would know that the England set up provide our players with the indevidual treatment our Union counterparts are used to getting but just by getting rid of the antipodean players isn't going to improve our international game by 1% let alone make us competative with the Aussies and Kiwi's!

Bit early for April Fools gags.

your young players are capable of providing this, they just need time and experience, which we dont give them.
So why have Hull KR just released a S-O with 33 games (not a lot) by the age of 23 and replaced him with an Aussie who has played 40 games by the age of 24? fact is we cast aside our youngsters with very very little experience but have no problem employing overseas players at a similar stage? How is a 18/19 year old youngster at Hull KR supposed to get the experience they need now, make the mistakes they will make now, and learn from them in the future when the club cannot see passed the immediate future, has a ridiculously short-term outlook and the side is filled with overseas players, and when these leave they are replaced with overseas players?



in and of itself removing the overseas players will do nothing. But what it will mean is that clubs have to start playing young british players, they have to start replacing their ageing players with young british players. It means clubs wont be (relatively)successful by going out and bringing in 10 overseas players, it means they will be successful by having the best juniors filling in, and the best british players playing. It means clubs will be forced to make more of what they have, and bring more in. It means they will be forced to, that they have no other option other than to improve the player pool. This will improve our international game.

I think you have been too generous there

Whilst you are correct...well almost, he was a London Bronco in 2005, it does show the regulations up as being a bit stupid....he was a first choice player for the Kiwis FFS.....regardless of his age, it is unfair to suggest that he learnt how to play in the UK.......he also holds a non-EU Passport...he should count against Quota.
For the rules to work then the loopholes need to be closed.
Crusaders have the same number of overseas players in their squad as the East Hull Australians......which club has 130yrs of herritage and which is a couple of years old?

Who would they replace in the Wigan team? or Wire, or Saints or Leeds for that matter.

lol at whinging RL fans who think raising the standard of clubs is damaging to Englands Int chances. How come Wigan needed 8 overseas players to win the GF last year? I'll tell you why, because they are better than the 8 players from England they could have found for those positions. If you have 100,000 15 year olds playing RL in Oz and 0.1% of them are great that is 100 top quality players if you have 25000 kids in England playing RL and 0.1% of them are great that is 25 top players. Its not hard to see why Australia produces far more quality 24 year olds. Throw in better training, better sports psychology, better dietary advice, better training facilities etc etc and you have the reason an avg looking Holdsworth in the NRL can become one of the best looking SO's in SL.