Quote ="JB Down Under"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!'"
Yes, they are stronger. Only a complete idiot, a real fool, wouldnt find it immediately obvious that a 30year old Australian is going to be better than an 18 year old kid.
The point people are making, Hull Kingston Australia fans are conveniently ignoring is If we give that 18year old kid, first grade experience, better coaching, better training, nutrition, sports science, preparation, etc etc the the 18 year old in 3 or 4 years may turn out better than the 30 year old. Maybe not better than him at his peak, but there is a good chance he could be better than the 30 year old who is winding down his career.
This has the complete opposite affect to your point about the standard dropping, and us losing fans, sponsors, viewers etc. Because after the first 2/3 years where the standard falls, it begins improving, and soon it is in fact of a higher standard, producing more better players resulting in a better more intense competition which will be a huge positive in itself but will also better prepare our international players.
Quote 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?'"
Because they dont have 105 players, they have plenty more. The best 105 have gone through NRL youth development systems (which we dont have because we dont need them, if Chaz I'anson doesnt immediately work out you can drop him for Blake Green) NRL intensity competition, and NRL training programmes.
We could do something similar and send our 200 best pospects to Australia, hope 105 get first grade gigs, it would probably make our international side as good as Australia and NZ, but unfortunately leave or domestic game in the same state as NZ.