Overseas Numbers.

Quote: Old_Faithful_IAKW "The state of our national game?'"

Here's what I put on another thread.

Quote: Old_Faithful_IAKW "Just maths innit?

There are outstanding, good and ordinary players both here and in Australia. And in similar proportions, looking at the right hand ends of normal distributions. The absolute numbers though are (crucially) different.

Let's say that England has a dozen 'outstanding players' at any one time. Players that wouldn't look out of place in State of Origin. Not quite enough for one a team in SL (especially with the likes of S. Burgess, J. Graham and G. Ellis heading over there), or to fill out an International XVII. Also they tend to be forwards, leaving us short in the backs.
Australia, I'd guesstimate for these purposes has 50.

Let's now say that for every outstanding player there are 10 good players.
That's 120 Englishmen and 500 Australians.
Just over nine Englishmen for each English SL club, meaning that the 17 man team and 25 man squads have to be filled out with ordinary players.
The Aussies have more than 30 good players per NRL team (though the NRL is expanding, of course), which is a surfeit. So good Antipodeans come over here and take the place of ordinary Englishmen in SL squads.
The numbers I've used for illustration are arguable, but the principle is sound, I reckon.
Now you get the occasional spectacular Aussie failure, but mostly they come across and do a good job - which is why there is always demand in the market.
Coaches who choose what you might call 'average Aussies' over 'promising Brits', do so for similar reasons that I'd choose a [ismall[/i pile of banknotes over a [ibig[/i bag of coppers. You're judging the groups by different standards, when the only one that matters to a coach is what they offer the team.

The reasons for this disparity are, I suspect, to do with coaching, sporting culture and, most important, junior player numbers.
There is nothing amazing about the situation. As the NRL gets richer and bigger, a new balance will develop. And England will most likely still only have a dozen outstanding players - because quotas don't make junior coaches better or get more kids playing the game.'"

I submit to you that there are no outstanding players (or probably even many merely good ones) forced out of Super League by imports. Now some ordinary players who have the potential to be good/outstanding, may be denied opportunities - but tbf the bounce back rate from the second tier is low, so either that is [ireally[/i hard to do or there isn't actually much wastage.
Great Britain last won the Ashes in 1970, the World Cup in 1972. Imports might be having an adverse affect - but there are other more fundamental issues.
More British players might be desirable in of itself. It won't though make any significant difference to England's chances of beating Australia, if we're just promoting more players from closer to the middle of the normal distribution.

If you're just doing some cross-river moralising and points scoring, I apologise for wasting your time.