No.

Overseas players in Super League isn't the issue. They aren't exactly stopping the next Sam Burgess coming through.....maybe the next Josh Walters or Andrew Dixon getting more game time.....but not International quality players.

On the other side of the coin, are Sam, Tom, George Burgess.....Hodgson, Whitehead stopping a potential Aussie International from game time????

My quote above from the Exchange Rate thread covers some of the issues we have in this country. It's the chicken and egg debate though - It all starts with the amateur game (which is in a complete mess), as we need more juniors playing the game to increase our player pool, but a key thing to achieve that his getting the sport a higher profile and thus more money in the game to improve the amateur game, particularly at junior level.

The amateur game is in a mess - it's fighting itself with the whole summer/winter mess, the level of amateur coaching, particularly at junior level is generally awful. A lack of facilities usually means kids are training in the dark, cold, and wet, the attitude of 'give it to the big kid' and 'smash em in defence' is still prevelant - other than kids who are already from rugby league families, it's hardly a welcoming environment. Throw in then the low profile and therefore lack of star/household 'role models' for the kids to look up to, we're starting well behind the Aussies right from the beginning. They've got their star players as household names/media superstars and the climate to encourage outdoor activities that straight away gets more kids involved, and it all builds from there.

Until we find a way to encourage more kids to play and stay with the game, we're papering over the cracks. We need better facilities, more inclusiveness (how about having both tackle and touch leagues?), better coaching and a change in mindset of what the junior game is about. The only way I can see things getting better is for the professional clubs to take complete ownership of their catchment areas (with non-heartlands then shared out) - they should be responsible for increasing participation numbers, improving facilities (maybe central/shared indoor facilities?), coaching etc.... They're the ones that would ultimately benefit from doing so.

The Aussies have got some natural advantages over us with the climate (and you could even add gene pool with the natural athleticism of Pacific Islanders), plus their existing higher profile and extra money - we have to be creative to overcome this, and it will take a drains up change in approach.

But ultimately, that will all cost money to implement..... back to the chicken and egg...

Just my musings, but I certainly don't see any RFL led initiatives currently in place looking to fix the root cause.

There'll be more ejaculate in the Eve household today than there has been for many a year.

We haven't had a decent English hooker since Martin Dermott, the game has been obsessed over here with scooters from dummy half who lack the ball playing skills of the likes Cameron Smith.

they also increased participation levels across the board and had a clear path to elite cycling so good cyclists were not lost to the sport and had a real chance of getting to the top. for years Britain produced cyclist more by chance an a few who had poetical did not make it through, now young cyclists have a pathway and have a good development programme.

that is why the A team is so important it keeps late developers in the game, and keeps participation levels up. i know so many players who don't make it in academy and simply give up the game, players don't want to drop down a division or two and certainly don't want to go back to their amateur clubs. so many amateur clubs are folding or struggling to get an open age side together. most conference and a lot of Yorkshire league side ran two sides 15-20 years ago,

They are stopping Jordan Baldwinson coming through. Right now. At one of the few clubs we have who actually bother with junior development.

So the only options after a match are to spit at your opponents shirt or take selfies with them?

how do we no these players are not international quality, they get to be if they are given 3-4 year run in the first team, they may not be the next sam burgess or adrian morley, but they could be the next andy Platt, roy power,l paul dixon, daryl Powell Paul lochlan, Mike gregory, all players who now would be written off. plenty off players who stood up well for Gb in the past were not seen as special junior talents or world beaters but played above themselves.

But an A side isn't going to bring them through. Late developers aren't going to develop in a low quality, low intensity league which is what an A side would be. The reason U19's is U19's and not U21's or U23's is because clubs would keep hold of players with even a glimpse of potential which would then be wasted as those players stagnate in poor quality, low intensity reserves leagues.

But yes, brilliant, lets increase participation levels. But GB Cycling did that by being successful, they were successful because they spared no expense, spared no effort in gaining every advantage they could, however miniscule.

Yep if Jordan Baldwinson had been playing instead of Tom Burgess, England would've won.

He's got a point. With the exception of James Graham, I can't see what any of the NRL "superstars" have offered in this series. I've been most disappointed with the Burgess clan. It looks like Sam's been trying too hard. And the thing I've noticed most about the twins is the amount of errors they've made. Easy to criticize now I know, but I'd have picked Farrell before any of them.

half right there. we have produces some good hookers, Dermot was not that good but when he played for Gb he played above his ability and was fearless and had absolutely no respect for the aussies, never forget him squaring up to bully boy Harrogen, (big fan of the chief though)

sorry but your wrong. Jamie Peacock became a better player through playing A team think we all can agree he's probably a fur hall of Famer. Karl Harrison another late developer who came through A team rugby JJB another Phil Clarke another, phil Clarke takes some garbage but he's thoughts and experience from A team rugby are very Valid. there are many many more who have had great careers and international career who spent extended periods in A team rugby.

no ones saying that though are they. but Baldwinson may have been just maybe pushing for an england shirt rather than not even getting a game. he should have had 30-40 super league games behind him, and i am using him only as an example. there are probably 2-30 players cross the league in the same position.

Yeah cos that's what I said and definitely not what you made up to hide your terrible argument.

But maybe if Jordan Baldwinson was getting game time and being invested in and being developed, in 5 years time he might be one of the best forwards in the world. He and others in a similar position to him may be better than Tom Burgess. And when a player like Tom Burgess is losing his place to players we are developing, perhaps then we will beat the Aussies.

Perhaps Baldwinson wont be better than Burgess, but perhaps he will only be better than Mitch Garbutt. But even then Leeds would have improved. And that means one of the teams in SL has improved. And that means SL would have improved. And that will bring us closer to the Aussies, and thus the journey to victory begins. Brilliant.

Or perhaps because Jordan Baldwinson wont singularly be responsible for England winning we should just all give up.

Karl Harrison and Phil Clarke came through in a different world.

JP went to Australia and Fev, and was a regular by the time he was 21. He was an international by 22. JJB made his debut at 17.

Hodgson has certainly been disappointing, and hasn't been able to bring his NRL form to the national side. Of course this week he hasn't had Joey Leilua and Jarrod Croker running off him, but nevertheless he has still been poor. I agree the pack, especially the front row, have been disappointing. We fondly imagined they would be our strong suit, putting us on the front foot, but that never looked like happening. Despite all the comments on here about his size, I thought Bateman defended very well. I didn't think our much-criticised centres did too badly, Watkins was plenty involved, and although Percival failed to hang onto a couple of very difficult passes, I thought he did OK too. Our wingers are fine (as they were throughout the comp), if only they got a few more passes.

I didn't see the plan from Bennett with the halves. Even of he'd had a better game, Brown is surely the past, not the future, and in the end the game was lost by the time George Williams got on the pitch.

No but that's what you're hinting at. Same with football, foreigners aren't stopping the next top international coming through and even if they were, England are more than 1 international away from winning.

Also clubs can't build their squads based on what is best for the international team. They have to have squads they think will win trophies. Mitch Garbutt for example won a treble in his first 14 starts for Leeds so can you criticise them when he played a part helping then win trophies???

We have a world class 9 and he was sat in the stands.

It's because the ruck is so tidy over there it makes players look better than they are in and around those rucks. The rucks in SL are an absolute mess and only the really top quality would shine around that, inc NRL players. I'm adamant that Daryl Clark (closely followed by John Bateman) is the best English player and he was used at wrong times, incorrectly or not at all by Bennett in this tournament. Clark would look amazing around the NRL's tidy rucks, he already looks brilliant in SL around the mess.

No I wasn't at all. You simply made up an absurd straw man to try and distract from how awful your argument is. And yes we are more than 1 international away from winning but every journey starts with 1 step.

Because clubs have a wider responsibility to the game and to the youngsters who are trying to build a career in the game.

Even regardless of that fact, it is Leeds best interest to have players better than Mitch Garbutt.

Why do you feel the need to bring up another poster, has he annoyed you in some way?

If you're implying he will be elated with the result I think you're well off the mark. He's just probably feeling the same as many, resigned to the fact we aren't good enough & haven't been for many a year.

I think Bennett got a lot wrong.

Let's start with the halves. What coach hasn't worked out what his best halves combo is before we've reached a crunch game? What coach chooses to throw a guy in whose only played 40 mins against France in the whole tournament.?

What more does Williams have to do to get a go? Yes he was targeted when he came on, but how hard must it be to get thrown into a test match after 60 mins, at 6, needing to win and next to another young player, what sort of master plan is that?

Then look at the forwards, if your going to pick the twins, split them up, they are far too ploddy defensively to be on at the same time, especially if Hodgson is doing big minutes. Their form has been terrible. Sam also looks like he needs a proper off season and needs to stop reading his own press and looking at the ref for a penalty every time he's tackled.

Really, really annoyed. I don't think the Super League contingent let us down today (two wingers especially) but you know for sure they'll be gotten rid of at first opportunity by Bennett.

I get wanting to give the halves time together and needing to wok out who the best combo is, but the problem is that Widdop and Gale didn't work against NZ, Williams and Gale didn't work against Scotland, which one of the combos which didn't work do we stick with?