Touché re my comments on SL and KC. In retrospect it was a throw away line that added nothing to the discussion. Maybe I'm subconsciously defending by attacking without putting my brain into gear first. Straightener accepted in full.
I stand by comments that not all recruits from RU are por although many have been and I'm sure we will see poor and good recruitment from RU in the future.

Was Quinnell REALLY a hit? It's pretty hard to tell given the enormous gulf in standards between the top-tier Wigan players who were way ahead of not just players at the bottom clubs but many in the mid-table pack, too.

Granted, Quinnell *appeared* to be making plenty of yards (as did Simon Haughton early in his career). But we have no reliable statistics to make a determination insofar as the whole gamut of equally important attributes (tackling proficiency, endurance etc.) How many missed tackles was he making? What was his general fitness like? Quinnell openly stated that he found making weight difficult. And his physical capabilities dropped off a cliff once he returned to Union which suggests to me that he couldn't have possessed the strength of character many of today's SL players know they have to work on from a very early age.

I don't want to knock the guy too much because he was one of Wigan's better performers. But if I had to take a wild guess at the completeness of his rugby league skills I'd say that he was likely susceptible in one or two less visible facets of the game.

Now, factor in the additional layer of issues created by full professionalism in both codes. Union was a complex game BEFORE it went professional. Today, with all manner of sports scientists analysing not just key skills (such as tackling) - but FRACTIONS of skills. One way or another both League and Union are becoming more specialised. And as they do the gap which players must bridge to make a successful transition grows daily.

Sure, great athletes stand a better chance. But athleticism only gets you so far. I mentioned the term "muscle memory" because it is a monolithic stumbling block to all who cross codes. The process of unlearning correct tackling technique in League and then assimilating the same for Union (which is completely different because of the way the ball is recycled in play) takes a lot of time. Too much time, in my opinion.

Three years is a good benchmark for a completely successful transition. In three years you could have promoted several promising youngsters (at practically no cost) who are currently being coached with techniques which have been proven to work. Bear in mind that coaching one sport out of a player and then replacing it with another can only ever be an experimental process in a rapidly changing professional sport. Which means the possibility of failure is always likely to be high.

In any case, Wigan's problems are relatively easy to address (provided Wane hasn't lost the dressing room or some other calamity) with existing league talent. I'm not sure the club even needs to go outside of this country. Sure, getting one's hands on a Hill or a Walmsley isn't easy. But Wigan's problem isn't a slight undertonnage. You're massively undertonned. First get your hands on some modestly gifted yardage-getters who will immediately lift Wigan six or seven places off the foot of the stats table before you start worrying about superstars.

Any "commercial opportunities" must be weighed against the fact that Union is not just a competitor but a predatory one which has actively sought to harm our game. It would cut our throat in an eyeblink and celebrate with unbridled glee.

There's an old parable about helping a snake cross to cross the river which should never be too far from our minds when discussing "mutually beneficial relationships" with union.

I don't see any issue with "muscle memory" for lads coming from Union to League as leage is such a more simple game. Going the other way it could come into play as the natural reaction is not to get involved in a contest for the ball once the tackle has been completed.

Flankers in particular are asked to take the carry to get over the gain line and make the tackles especially from set pieces where they fly up quick to put pressure on the 10 (open side).

They also are expected to follow the ball to get into the contest at the breakdown to turnover or secure a ball. That is the main issue I had with them, or not getting sucked in to ball chasing/losing attacking shape.

The carry and tackle is very similar regardless of which code you play.

I seriously doubt any SL coach would agree with you on this point. League is becoming a far more complex game. Consider the recent hoopla about Jon Wilkin's tackle at Warrington. I won't bother going into whether there was intent on Jon Wilkin's part - but the point is certainly valid about professional league players viewing the "tackle" as far more than the indivisible action it was twenty years ago. There's a fair bit of sports science involved now - not to mention cross-sport input (see wrestling, judo etc.)

As there is in Union. Controlling the tackled man is arguably more important in Union in order to compete for the ball and stop the man going to ground quickly to generate quick ball.

Both pro Union clubs I have been behind the scenes at in the past work heavily with mainly Judo coaches and most of the defence coaches are ex league players/coaches.

You're really backing up my point here. Both games are far more complex. And both games approach the tackle and subsequent recycle differently.

Think we will have to agree to disagree mate. For me and my experience in both codes it is much easier for a good Union defender to transfer to League than vise versa.

Well, the hypothesis is testable: how many ex-union forwards are currently doing well in SL? How long did it take them to adapt? Then contrast with the number of known flops.

Actually, it's not testable. Not that way, anyway. The paucity of Union converts in League nowadays is an indication of the relative amounts of money sloshing around in each code, not the alleged difficulty of the transition.

How is that a testable hypothesis? The data is totally skewed by the fact that there are very few Union players in League than there are League in Union because of the geographical limitations of our code and also the differential in the salary cap.

Realistically the only thing you can test are historical figures factoring number of players who have crossed codes and formulating this into a percentage.

Without the obvious examples of Faz who could not transfer to flanker and more recently Burgess who cannot hold down a spot at flanker in Union, add to that SBW who is used as a back.

How many RL forward have made the transition to Union forwards? The only ones I can think of are the lads that were originally Union players, Brad Thorn I can think is the only one still doing the rounds and he was trained in Union as a kid.

I wasn't going to respond as I can see the way this is going but I will guarantee you Union forwards have made a much bigger impact on League than vice versa, and most of the lads that have been successful converts have come from the backrow due to the similarity in demands of the roles and the transferable skills.

This.. and it's rather obvious to be honest.

Look, convince SL coaches. Take your pick from any and ask how long it takes for a virgin Union forward to make a complete transition. If you find some who say less than three years - congratulations.

As for the previous post saying Union forwards are entirely outside of League's paygrade. This is nonsense. Union's wage pyramid is roughly equivalent to any other professional sports. A small group of "elite" superstars eat up all the cash and the remainder is distributed among the overwhelming majority.

Uncapped forwards aren't all earning a king's ransom. If a SL coach genuinely thought he spied a bargain I'm sure it wouldn't break the bank to acquire his services. The fact that almost no Union forwards come to league says more about the differences between the two sports than I ever could.

[del[/del

I seriously think you don't really understand Union. We can only deal with what has and is happening. No league forwards go to Union and play in the pack. Most Union converts that have come to League in the pack have had decent careers but it simply doesn't happen anymore due to finances.

I can name probably 3 or 4 times as many Union forwards who have been successful and made careers in League than League forwards who have gone to Union and that to me tells a story.

You have made your mind up however it seems and so have I do we will agree to disagree.

I don't have a dog in either fight and if I'm wrong I'm wrong. But seriously, why don't you ask the next SL coach you see and report back what he says?

The last coach I spoke to about Union players was McCrae and he didn't show any enthusiasm at all.

Ok I will base my opinion on what is actually happening and is backed up by examples, lots of examples, throughout both codes and you base yours on what McRea said.

Each to their own.

Actually I said that I'm not invested in either side of the debate. I then said, why don't you ask a coach. I'm not sure why you are getting all hufty about it since a) I thought you'd be interested in a coach's opinions anyhow and b) I'd be interested to hear what he says, too.

It seems you just can't talk "seriously" to adults these days ...

The basis of the conversation is flawed and I tried to leave it on several occasions because I could see where it was going.

I am presenting facts things we know to be true, ie there are many many fewer forwards who have made the transition to Union from League and been successful than vise versa.

I feel backrow Union forward are suited to league because of the similar skill set required. I have highlighted examples of why this is and also highlighted league forwards that have failed to make an impact in Union.

Talking to adults has nothing to do with it. I don't talk to SL coaches anymore but when I did they were far more relevant than McRea was in the modern game.

I am happy for you to name the successful League forwards that have made an impact in Union, I will name you 4 times more that have been successful the other way.

You are also way out on your comments about the salary cap differential.

I don't mind having intelligent conversation but the response that McRea said it so it must be true is not the train of thought held be an adult. Present an opinion present evidence to back it up.

I tried to walk away from this thread on several occasions but when you post ridiculous "tests" as to back up your stance or to attempt to disprove a hypothesis I felt obliged to comment.

I won't be responding again as I am sure we both have better things to do, unless you present something mildly valid to back up your opinion other than "ask a SL coach".

Like I said lets agree to disagree.

Over to you for the last word as unless it adds weight to your opinion I wont waste both our time by replying.

I don't think you two are even arguing over much TBH.

Sticking to my time from 1981+ I remember the days of union players coming to RL, and it was hugely hit and miss except for wingers and centres (even then there were spectacular flops like Carrington at Sts and Sailor was tailor-made for RL but not for RU). I suspect the same would have been true in reverse, and the same would happen today in either direction.

For every Quinnel (lets call him a success) there were many forwards who were virtual flops (Dai Young at Leeds still makes me cringe). Even in the halfs very few made it - and most not in the same position. Kevin Ellis was probably the only genuine halfback I can think of who made a good fist of halfback in league. Jonathan Davies was OK at 6, but miles better at fullback and often played in the centres.

I've said time and again that the biggest single mistake RL used to make when going for RU players was chasing names and not identifying 'natural' RL players in Union. John Gallagher etc etc [insert name here were great in RU, but almost entirely unsuited to league.

Luckily RU seems to be making the same mistake in reverse - Farrell, Paul and Harris were ideal RL players, but whilst they did OK in Union I don't think its just down to age etc that they weren't a staggering success. Burgess strikes me in exactly the same way - if he sticks to RU I've no doubt he'll end up being a good player, probably an international. But the completely dominant player he can be in RL? Not a chance IMO.

I say luckily because if RU actually put a bit more thought and effort into raiding SL, they could gut the sport and get far more benefit for themseleves. As it is every high-priced flop or star RL player turned average RU player helps keep them at bay.

I think Farrell is a completely different case. For me RU bought Farrell the coach and Owen Farrell rather than Andy the player.