the simply answer is they didnt. They had to rely on 5 overseas players to win last years GF

apparently one way to qualify as an Aussie opening batsman is to be born in Bloemfontaine - ie.Keppler Wessels (and then return to play for SA !)

huddersfield leading the way

Louis Anderson is 25 and has only played for New Zealand Warriors and Warrington. I think you're thinking of Vinnie who is at Salford.

Not according to Daniel Holdsworth he wasn't, unless of course you know more than him about where he was born.

According to Wiki he was born in Perth and I know for a fact he played all his jnr RL at North Beach until moving East at 16 into the Penrith jnrs before making first grade with St George.

Either way he is a product of the WARL and we will be happy to have him back in 2013 thanks.

He was born in Tweed Heads. Anyway, according to the knowledgable posters on this thread he's rubbish anyway so you won't want him.

He's got a couple of years to come good under the, no doubt, world class coaching of Salford!

So signing 9 players, most of them being better than the ones we just got rid of, and one of them being probably one of the best full backs going isn't trying to be competative?

What would be really interesting is a count of how many NZ's/Polynesians/Fijians/PNG's that are playing for the 15 Aussie NRL clubs if somebody has the patience. I'm convinced the Kangaroo's are suffering because of what seems like 4 or 5 non-Australians in nearly every team.

65% of the toyota cup players from 2010 were non-australians. Can't find the link now, but this was the reported figure just after the Warriors won the comp last year......this would point to a number of non-australian people "adopting" or being "adopted by" a SOO state in the near future. NRL/AFL will find another way of shifting the goalposts once they need to......when in reality, country/state of birth should be the rule.......

no they're not (AGAIN!) 65% are of polynesian descent, most were born in Australia but are also eligible for NZ or an Island by heritage.

someone came up with a list in 2010 of eligble Kiwis in NRL clubs 1st grade and it was around the 80 mark. Add in another approx 25 playing in SL makes approx 105 1st grade players for the Kiwis to chose from.

How many 1st grade English players are there to chose from? Maybe quality not quantity is the problem???

Take out half the imports of our competition and you have a competition which is drastically weaker in quality. You really think thats going to make our talent pool for England stronger ?

If the money saved is put into youth academies and refining training, developing sports science etc in rugby league to help improve the quality of our young players then over time, yes, I do.

over time? Exactly how long, and what do you do in the mean time as crowds drop, TV viewers are turned off and clubs continue to spend money to try and build competitve teams for the following season? It's pie in the sky. Only thing I would say is the RFL needs to take a greater responsibility in the rules it makes and in how it spends its funding.

I say again NZ can be World Champions and 4 Nations champions with 105 players to choose from, how many do England have playing 1st grade? Numbers is not the issue!!!

If all clubs dropped their overseas players to a max of 5 or below a lot more youth would be coming through. Whilst the immediate effects would not be felt in the longer term 5-10 years down the track we could be looking a stronger game.

Do you really think crowds would drop at KR if (taking players at random) Webster, Green, Lovegrove and Vella didn't play for you? I doubt it.

That would leave you Dobson, Mason, Clinton, Newton, Galea as overseas players - enough big names to satisfy the fans and leaving the clubs with four spots to fill with English players. That's four young kids that you could put in and develop like Welham and Latus. Would this not benefit the game long term?

How do you think the Aussies have been so strong? They've got an excellent youth programme so as soon as one player leaves, another one is ready to come straight in along with excellent coaching methods and superb facilities. We NEED to be doing this.

Only if the primary requirement of RL clubs is to produce players eligible for the national side which would mean completely restructuring the defintion of success and reward structure within the competition and ignoring the business imperative for each club to first cover costs and then make as much profit for its shareholders as possible.

I'm not saying you're wrong but the RFL determine the direction that RL goes in by creating rules for clubs to operate within that should achieve both the aims of the clubs and the game as a whole, if we aren't as strong as the Aussies it's not because of what the clubs are failing to do, it's because of what the rules encourage them to do.

You are completely wrong, wrong wrong.

Go back to my earlier post where i showed you could take out 50% of the overseas imports without any dimunition in the quality. I would argue you would improve the game over here it if you look at some of the squad players who will not be getting a game becuase of poor over the hill journeymen who are taking up places.

In your opinion obviousley.

lol, so you think the top coaches in the land are picking players because of their accents? I am pretty confident coaches pick the strongest team available to them, after all their jobs depend on it!

and still nobody answers the question: NZ can be World Champions and 4 Nations champions with 105 players to choose from, how many do England have playing 1st grade?

Wakefield will surely be winning this when we have 0, and have a team full of amateurs due to wage bill restrictions!

No we didn't!

take away Wigans first seventeen and then look at the young players they have left who would love to be playing week in and week out. Everyone of them is better than all of Wakefields imports yet rather than trying to get good young English players they waste money on old aussies. Most other Sl teams do the same. If you get a rep for playing young players then hungry youing players will come to play for you.
Sometimes it works like Lunt and Patrick at the Giants and sometimes it doesnt like McNally. But as mor good English players come through hopefully we will see only good quality imports not pension seekers

I'll have a go at answering it for you......

If you moved all the Polynesia/Pacifica islands to the northern hemisphere (say we swap Ireland, the Isle of Wight and the Isle of Mann) then the Superleague would be like the NRL.........in that only a couple of "overseas" players would be signed!
Pacifica nations are well suited to RL. It's fast, hard and there is little time for f^%king around with the ball up your jumper.....that's why the current IRB 7's champs are Samoa........but their XV team are still pretty rubbish. Fiji seem to be pretty good at 7's too......

Bottom line is the NRL coaches are no better than the SL coaches....it's just the raw materials they get to work with that make the difference.

As for the overseas players in SL......we will never know if the comp is better or worse without them until the RFL grow a set and state the rules as 5 overseas passports........or even better, 5 overseas BIRTH CERTS!