Do you honestly believe that the players you mentioned are better than the ones I put forward?

Someone mentioned Saints and their youth development.

Last Friday Wigan had seven players who came through their academy team in the 17, Saints had six, and one of them only played because Meli hasn't yet got his visa.

I still don't understand why you think buying Union players would result in Super League developing better players.

In some instances I do and in others I don't but that is subjective and irrelevant. Are the Aussies that our current players face "better" than the Aussies the palyers you mentioned faced?

What's relevant is whether we're producing players good enough to win consistently at international level. We're not. We weren't when Tait, Offiah, Bateman, Gibbs, Bentley, Davies and Ellis played so what's your point?

Of course you can randomly pick players from past era's and say they were better than player X from the current era but, again, its' hardly the point is it.

When we had carte blanche to raid Unions ranks we didn't beat the Aussies or win a world cup. Why on earth would it be any different now?

I stood on the terraces with old boys in the 1980's and they said the exact same things you are saying. Take it back 20 years and you will always have "better" players.

I do believe that the 1982 Kangaroos were a class apart compared to the players they churn out now (the '86 roos were pretty awesome too), but in 1990 their team was lead by Meninga in the twighlight of his career and contained some average players. Our team was as good as theirs back then, clearly not the case at the moment.

I think we've got a discussion at two levels here.

Brian Noble thinks this is a way to help the home nations improve.

Rogue's Gallery asks wouldn't we, as spectators, like to see players of a similar ilk to those he's listed.

Noble's point is demonstrably barmy.

Rogue's Gallery makes a decent point but my answer will still be no. THIS generation of Leeds players is the greatest in our history. Unquestionably. Why would I hanker after a David Young or John Gallagher in preference to the current crop of players?

On another point, we have seen the big money being spent in Union before. Remember Richmond? That club is now back where it was when it started as a junior club. Sport has a nasty habbit of biting back when you try and run things un-economically and Union won't be profitable if they are paying players 300K a year - even in France. They also have to have huge squads 30-40 players, it's not vaible as a business and it will eventually collapse.
I hope we don't try and compete salary cap wise, long term it would be the end of the game. There will always be quality guys who want to play RL, and who just don't suit RU. I'd prefer financial stability to watching Shane Williams in a Leeds shirt for 2 years.

Players are produced to fit the game they play. League is a different game now, as it is in each progressive era. The players are now standardised, interchangeable and much of a muchness. It's difficult for them to stand out as they conform to the role in the structured game-plans they're expected to carry out.

Once he got to grips with the game Offiah was a thoroughbred in a competition filled with carthorses. Those days are gone, I'd imagine his equivalent would find it very different today.

Noble's off his rocker. There's nowt to stop us trying to sign RU stars now, other than the fact that the money we have available under the SC is likely to be too low. What he's effectively advocating is paying untried union players far more than their league counterparts - not a great way to build team spirit in my view. Maybe we should let wigan go down this road & see exactly where it gets them?

That would be funny in the short term but massively regressive for the game in the long run.

Ah, sod it. Let's live for today