More over is that fact that the prime build of athletes suitable for the backs choose football over Rugby League. How they then develop, or not, is a failing of the English youth academies and ironically the fact that ‘technically better’ foreign players keep them out of the side. There will always be a place for and English style centre half or forward (John Terry, Alan Shearer) but filling two positions out of the 11 isn’t enough.

As one poster originally mentioned, the RL clubs should be hanging around the football clubs academies trying to entice the ‘failed’ footballers into taking up RL. A sporting minded 16 – 17 year old lad would still, IMO, be young enough to develop into a decent RL player given the right coaching. He may break into the team a little later but that would be better then not at all.

The biggest issue holding this sort of thing happening is money. An average Championship or even League 1 footballer would still earn more then the majority of RL players so persuading the potential athletes to switch to RL would be extremely hard.

Did anything ever come of this?

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/apr/04/sport.comment1[/url

It's a very interesting topic.
Perhaps someone should do a study on this. Perhaps the RFL should employ more researchers to look into issues like this?

Didnt Ste Tyrer and Matty Smith play football for Wigan and Everton academies was it?

Skills development is neglected in the junior clubs, as af says partly because of the focus on winning but also partly because of the terrible conditions that the junior players face in the winter, when practicing ball skills is an unproductive waste of time. As a result the physically bigger and stronger players ie the forwards stand out. It's only when these players get to professional clubs at the age of 17/18 that there is any real focus on their skills, and even then only at clubs with good junior coaches. Therefore, most of the best players we produce are props or workhorse second rows (rather than ball handlers like Lauitiiiti or Solomona). There is no problem with overseas players taking the place of British youngsters (apart from at Wigan). We just need to switch the junior game to the summer.

after watching Huddersfield against Cas in our first friendly those two looked world class,but if Huddersfield don't win anything they won't get noticed.
Lee Smith and Calderwood got picked for England because they play for Leeds and Wigan and played well in ONE GAME!

I've thought this for a long time. Every time we balls up a world cup or similar you hear people demanding that we "put some pride back in" and so on. It's the sort of sentiment that got Martin Johnson the England RU job, despite a total lack of coaching experience. Maybe pride isn't the problem. Maybe our being crap is the problem. I can see the same thing happening in our game after the 4 Nations. If we are as poor as we were in the World Cup, people will demand a British coach who can put some passion back in the team, get the old "bulldog spirit" back and so on, and before you know it we've got Paul Sculthorpe or Andy Farrell coaching England without any experience at all.

It's not just skill levels in the backs but also the players' physical attributes. I passed Calders and Lee Smith during the World Cup and both are pretty small. By comparison the NZ and Aus outside backs tend to be bigger AND faster.

We really seem to struggle to find players of the build and speed of say Keith Senior. Unfortunately when we do get them their skill levels are way behind their Australian counterparts as well.

I think a fan analysis would yield the same results....and I agree with you, it is an interesting topic.

For years, SL fans have bemoaned the fact that our GB/English backs will be Senior/Gleeson/Gardner etc etc.

There's rarely a moan about Peacock/Graham/Morley being included in squad. Morley gave it a go in NRL & Ellis is out there now.

We have some fantastic backs, but on a world stage they don't compare. I have a lot of respect for Lee Smith, but as a FB he doesn't compare to Billy Slater. But I'd still put Peacock on a par with Civoniceva.

The talent will come. Atkins, Clubb, Fox, Sharp, Cudjoe & Armstrong are superb talents. But at the moment they don't come close to Inglis, Folau, Slater, Williams (David), Tate, Monaghan et al. Eventually....they will.

As much we like to moan about the ‘wrestle’ over in the NRL, IMO the quick PTB in the SL is a bigger concern. The majority of attacking plays we see in the SL are based on a quick PTB, the defence not having time to set and the attacking team exploiting the weakness with broken field runs. Whereas, an NRL defensive line is usually allowed time to set, forcing the attacking team to be creative. It’s no coincidence that the likes of Saints and Leeds can still beat teams comfortably without any creativity in their halves (with long, Borrow, etc. missing), they’ve just got the quick PTB down to a tee.

Ah, eventually....

Im sure people thought this in the mid 80s when we were getting pumped by Wally Lewis and co. Eventually we'll produce guys at their level of ability.

Last years World Cup showed where we are in relation to the Aussies, so I wonder how much we are closing the gap....or are the Aussies accelerating ahead faster than we are catching up?

Is this not a very recent development though? The Australians have been ahead of us for literally decades, but the wrestling holds and slow PTBs have only come into the game in the past few years.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Aussie game was always faster, and this was one of their biggest advantages over us