Good point, I do think it's a closer link in junior levels in the league area's over here just not publicised. If a closer working relationship could be built between the 2 codes it can only benefit both codes.

Sadly they are the few that we need in our game the vast majority are plodders who can't make it in Aus.
We tried the Yorkshire/Lancashire thing a few years ago and it didn't work nobody really cared. The problem lies in the youth development we need better coaching at junior level and better opportunities for young players at the top level. If the quota rules were sorted out I'd be more in favour of the franchise system as it would allow teams to blood youngsters without fear of relegation.

Nail on head but when will the penny drop

One of the main differences between the sides is the intensity that the Austalians play,every game is played with the same intensity whereas over here you probably only play at the same intensity three or four games a season.Until we get each team as strong in depth as one another I just do not see how we will ever challenge the aussies or n.z ever again and ,in my opinion,the franchise system at the moment is a big hindranceas each team has only 3 years to establish a strong squad and it will take 10 to 15 years to hope to beat them so either increase the number of super league clubs so that all clubs are able to bring youngsters through lor dare I say it no franchise for 10 years.

Agree 100% as well. Next year potentially KR will have only one English player (Murrell) from 6-13. That is sad. All teams are guilty to some degree or another though.

the aussie commontaters were saying that the only way is for the UK to send its top 200 young plyers to play league in Australia for 2 years.. they will get the right coaching the right intensity and some will gravitate to the top of the game..

the most telling quote was about Atkins.... "he can certainly tackle.... he just can defend!"

I just feel that we never got the chance to see whether we are far behind or not, as we coughed up possession too often. I thought when we had the ball we looked okay. We had quick play the balls and we making good ground.

Two dodgy ref decisions gave them two tries they shouldn't have had and took the game away from us. And Cudjoe was just the wrong player to put there. Maybe on the wing, but not there. We know our three-quarters is where we are weak, and we play someone who isn't aggressive enough. He let in two soft tries through not being aggressive enough.

The Aussies are beatable, but you've got to get into their faces, get some fists flying.

how can we justify have a full time coach for 3 matches and a friendly once a year, how the hell can he prepare for these so little game times

Agree about Cudjoe. He is a talented full back or winger, but is he physical enough for centre? And how much has he played centre? He just did not look solid enough for centre imo.

I agree.... just not by the quality of player available to represent England at the moment


I used to watch plyers like hanley, gregory x2 Edwards etc... plyers who are far better than those available today... and they couildnt beat Australia... during the superleague war the aussie test team lacked a whole team full of internationals and won ... that Australian Team was weak by comparision to the best available plyers if fit... yet they won at a canter... shutting the game down for the second half.

the game yesterday was depressing... the auusie press are even now suggesting a two nation competition next year... England must dominate and destroy PNG at the weekend to have any credibility in the game!

When you think that Atkins, who many at Wakey weren't that bothered when he left, was our main centre with Cudjoe the other are we in anyway surprised we couldn't cut it? The decision to play curly wig and Cudjoe in those positions was even more ridiculous than the video ref calls and thats going some. To have any chance we needed to be right at the top of our game and get a bit of luck along the way, we got neither. The ball was stripped from Briscoe who was adjudged to have knocked on on our 20 then they immediately got the knock on try. That try of Tate's that followed was never a try in a million years, if he had control of that we might as well play basketball. By then we were never coming back with the players we had out there, too much inexperience and they had no belief. To be fair for all the daft mistakes they kept going when for a time with the amount of possession they had I thought we were gonna have 50 past us.

We were outplayed, no question about that; several players and the coach were totally out of their depth.

Even so, the refereeing can't pass without mention; the Aussie officials were so ridiculously biased against England, at times it bordered on the comical. Surely the ref's have to be neutral from here onwards?