I'm sure it plays a part but if Australia are THAT good and far advanced, dominating shouldn't be a problem at all.

No, the problem with England's international RL is twofold; management and mentals. The recent 4n is a classic example, there were players selected who are past their international sell-by date and in the final again that combined with poor mental conditioning resulted in England's worst performance of the entire tournament.

I would say that mentally this year's side was one of the best I've seen so I'm not sure how you've arrived at that opinion. If anything they kept themselves in the final because of it when we were being played off the park.

Think Ian Smith was more responsible for that. England froze in the final, end of story. They see the green and gold jersey in a big game and the legs turn to jelly. It's not talent or physical prowess that England lack. It's belief, plain and simple. Belief in themselves and their teammates. If you don't believe that you can achieve something, then you won't be able to do it

I understand your point about numbers, But what do you think that Australian coaches do that's so different? What do you think NRL coaches do? You say players with talent will reach their potential (which is actually immeasurable) but it will take longer.

I would love you and others to come over here to see for yourselves rather than presuming that their coaching is better. Think about the fact that in the UK there are so many Australian coaches. What are they coaching? Something different? Has no one learnt anything?

And of the Englishmen who came and went back like Adrian Morley, Chris Thorman, Jordan Tansey and Mike Worrincy? Are they now better players?

As I said, I've worked with players and interviewed players for this website years ago who have played in both comps and they say the main difference is not coaching, fitness etc. It's the level and depth of talent. I'm gonna listen to those who have lived it.

What, like winning the last 3?

Well how many coaches are there operating in Super League that should be head coaches in Australia? One of the best coaches we've had over here is Daniel Anderson yet where does he rank compared to NRL coaches? The players may say there's no difference however recruitment of head coaches suggest otherwise. The NRL attracts the best coaches e.g. Maguire, so it stands to reason that the quality of coaching is better in the NRL.

I could flip that question around and ask how many coaches in the NRL SHOULD be head coaches in SL?

Re: Anderson. Got Warriors to a Grand Final and coached New Zealand before going to blighty. Went back to Parra after blighty and got them to a Grand Final. Thanks to a huge amount of politics and the fact that he was part of the "old guard" at Parra. The new lot couldn't wait to see someone else coach. Ironically, Kearney has done no better.

As for the recruitment. That is based on the myth that everyone believes. A bit like in Football. Why doesn't every national team have a Brazilian coach? Their players are brilliant and win so much, so often.

Maybe get more and more footy people over here to study an ARL Level 1, 2 or 3 coach’s certificate? Or get a chance to work at a club.

I do understand why people think the way they do back home. Because on paper and in black and white, we believe the coaching must be superior. Whether that's true or not is what I don't buy.

Finally. Consider the nationality of the coach that won Super League in 2011.

Two, Storm were rightfully stripped of their title. UK teams have won 11 WCC titles, Aussie teams have won 7.

That could be more of an appropriate argument. Nurturing the younger talent through and the masses with natural ability. There would be a far greater set up for that in Oz. More clubs? More money? We even have player agents signing kids up from Harold Matts grade in NSW (U16s).

However, to counter that, I have watched St Helen's kids come over and beat their NRL equivalents in their last two visits. And our kids beat the aussie schoolboys.

Like I said, maybe people who work in the game in the UK should come on fact finding missions here. I'm led to believe that training facilities are more abundant and superior here, not technique. I suspect that those people will not find much difference in methods and coaching.

Disagree with this bit. The players have shown they can defeat the best juniors in Australia at academy and younger ages.

Latest was Saints who took their 16-18 year olds down under and won every match against top junior sides.
This isnt a fluke as they over the years have consistently defeated top aussie teams.

Also the other year i seem to recall an aussie club side touring with their best juniors and losing a couple of matches. I think it was West Tigers.

The problem occurs for me when the players get to the 20-21 age group. They are then too old for the academy and go into the reserve/under20 competition which is rubbish in the UK.
The aussies on the other hand have high standard televised lower grade competitions that they farm players out to. These feeder teams help the players develop their games ready for the NRL.

The first tentative steps have started to be done in the UK re this with clubs like Leigh and Widnes, signing SL players on loan deals.
However misguided RL politics is preventing the likes of Leigh, Batley, Swinton etc becoming proper feeder teams for SL clubs.
As a result many young players are being discarded before they can reach their full potential.

I'll go with that. The lad is a grafter.

@ The Chair Maker - you're probably right in that there is such a big gap in between academy/reserves and first team SL and many players get lost in that gap. Whereas in Aus there are the feeder clubs to take up that bit in the middle. The dual reg system should hopefully help with that over time.
I still think the Aussies are generally more skillful at a younger age than our lads are though. Having spoken to a few SL academy & scholarship coaches I know they are often depressed at the general skill levels (especially passing & handling) of kids who come into their teams. And they are then often coaching these lads the basics that should have been taught them at a much younger age, and are missing out on the more advanced stuff they should be starting upon.

It's probably a combination of both plus a restricted player pool.

Probably more than the other way around.



I wasn't aware that Kearney had a track record of coaching prior to getting his jobs.



Well that's football where there are multiple competitions, different ways of playing and coaching opportunities. Completely different in comparison to the scenario in RL i.e. there's a wealth of coaches out there plying trades in many competitions so it stands to reason there is unlikely to be a singular power base of coaching excellence. Why don't you compare the sport to something similar like NFL, MLB, NBA, which share similar demographic traits to our sport?



Agree with that and I don't think it's any coincidence that Mike Rush (Saints), who previously spent considerable amounts of time in Australia before he was appointed, has produced one of the most successful academy systems in the UK.



Consider that he was the first British coach to win the title in x years and that the top four spots in Super League have been dominated by overseas coached teams for several years. Not all overseas coaches are infallible but the ones that have had significant impact upon our sport over the past thirty years have all been from overseas i.e. Lowe, Monie, McRae, Millward, Smith, Anderson, Maguire. Of the most recent ones only Anderson had actually coached a NRL first grade side before coming here. What does that say?

It says to me that people in the UK believe the myth and are happier to get a coach purely because he is australian, rather than a brit could possibly be equally as good if not better.