What planet are you on if you think RL threequarters are smaller than Union or that its something to do with differences between the games? That may be the case in SL where we struggle to produce quality big athletes, but I suspect Greg Inglis (even prior his recent weight gain!) would have been bigger than most Union centres. Gasnier, Hodges, Tuqiri etc are all big men. Its one of the reasons we don't compete against Australia - their fast outside backs tend to be big. Ours tend to be small - and sadly often not fast either.

There's nothing I've seen from the current England halves which suggest Eastmond can't make it to the very top in Union. The fact that Ashton - a lad with plenty of talent but questionable cojones - is tearing up trees in the English competitions ("My God! He runs ... LINES and BACKS UP!"icon_wink.gif hardly suggests that we're talking about a ferocious bear-pit of ultra-competition.

Sadly, Union's decision to re-target its scalphunting operation (after the farcical decision to pay Farrell the wealth of Croesus six months before his body gave out) almost certainly means we can forget about defeating Australia in a Test series within our lifetimes (not that it was ever likely).

It's now open season on any league half, three-quarter, wing or fullback with talent and given Union's resources we can expect to see more leaving in the future. As things stand we're struggling to compete with the NRL's best. Sans anywhere between 20%-40% of our brightest young stars we're out of the picture completely. Indeed, it might not be too long before NZ and perhaps even Papua consider us easy pickings.

Thats what I am worried about. Rugby Union now going after all of Super leagues best young talent as they see kyle leave at 21 years old.

I am hoping that these players in League want to stay and play League as they love the game! Is there any thought going around that players in Super League or in the youth acadamies are looking for moves to Union?

Union will never be able to steal all of our best players. There are as many reasons to stay playing league as there are to switch codes. And money isn't everything. Some people aren't motivated by high wages - especially if they involve working in an environment which is culturally and/or socially alien to them.

Unfortunately - when it comes to the international game - we can't afford to lose ANY quality to a rival sport. Forget about Australia and NZ, as far as the backs are concerned we are still unable to compete with GB teams of 10-15 years ago (which were being similarly pulverised in internationals).

Back then I used to think that given a lucky break with a good crop of players we *might* just sneak a Test series. Now, with the money that's being thrown around in Union for talented League players I'm thinking I won't see such at any point in my lifetime.

Certain outliers like Inglis excepted there is no major difference in size between RU and RL backs, or even between SL and NRL backs. Some sides seem to prefer bigger backs, sometimes trading off against speed, lateral movement or even overall stamina, it just depends on the strategy. The England RU team does seem to go for bigger backs, but then they don't score long range tries, 30 metres out against a weak side like Italy is as good as it gets, and their opponents tend not to score those tries either.

I better get down to Specsavers then.

I could have sworn I saw Chris Ashton score a 95m try against twice world champions Australia at Twickers in November last year.

i liked st helens

very friendly people

I don't watch enough RU to comment on the statistics of how often long range tries occur.

You might want to ask one of the Union fans on here.

Or better still ask over on the 'Other Sports' forum.

I hear thats the place to discuss sports other than Rugby League.

I suppose the fact there are 4 players less on the field at any given time in an RL match than there are in an RU match would lead to there being more 'length of the field' efforts in the 13 man code purely for the fact there is more space available on the pitch to run on.

Apart from Offiahs famous effort for GB against Australia at Wembley and Billy Slaters excellent one in Melbourne in 2008 against England I'm struggling to think of many others at international level though I'm sure there have been plenty....and that people will remind me of them

I think it has more to do with 1) RU having unlimited tackles so they could if they wanted get to the try line through a massive number of tackles and rucks gaining only minimal distance between each tackle (Such tactics (minus the rucks) I believe were the reason RL adopted a limited tackle rule in the first place). RL players have only a few chances each time they are in possession to get to the try line. RL players will run into a gap as they need to make ground. RU players will run into a man to draw opposition players into a ruck so that a teammate can either kick the ball upfield or run to make a few metres before instigating the next ruck.

2) The fact that many RU rucks and mauls can result in penalties and that in RU penalties and DGs are worth 3 points compared to 5 for a try. It takes a lot less effort to get to within 30 or 40 metres of the tryline and then get someone to pop over a DG or to take the points from one of the all too common penalties than to ruck and maul all the way to the line. Do that twice or three times and you have more points than a try would give you. The whole RU game is geared to that approach and their players don't want to run a long way for 5 points when the kick for 3 points approach works.

Only ex RL players will regularly look to run with the ball in hand as that is what they have been taught to do in RL. RU is all about kicks at goal, they will wait for a scrum 10 metres out to collapse so they can get a penalty (and will then kick at goal) rather than try to get the ball out and score a try.