So basically you think you are superior and better because you have a massive 2 less overseas players than us



Have you even read the original post?

Its not all about investing in youth.

Long time since 1966...

The England Union team hasn't been dramatically more successful internationally - they were getting massively more coverage well before the 2003 world cup, which is the only time they've ever won it (against our 3 wins). Same with cricket - until recently England have been well down the international "pecking order", but again they've always had much more press coverage.

There was hardly any national press coverage of our win in 1972 - compare that to the hysteria following the Union 2003 win. For example, do you seriously imagine we'd get the BBC "team of the year" in the unlikely event that we won the 2013 world cup?

Well, we did provide Tomkins, Brown & Robinson...some from other clubs might be a help.

Indeed, that goes without saying. But surely that doesn't stop Wigan from continuing to provide players? Saints provided two, and a third if you count Lunt, who was in Saints academy. I hope that won't stop Saints from developing further local talent who may (or may not, obviously!) be England players of the future.

Probably not TBH.

Football is arguably the world's favoured sport and therefore it is impossible to reach as high as football is.

So were left trying to catch up with Cricket and RU. The common denominator in those is a all-round strong international set-up. I reckon if you looked at domestic crowds at cricket and RU they're similar/less than the SL crowd's.

The only reason anyone takes any notice of RU/Cricket is because of the international strength. Quality of opponents, quality of the England team and ability to compete. RL has quality opponents in Australia and New Zealand. However for the latter, you'll struggle to come up with anything being perfectly honest.

That's why these sports are more noticed than RL.

Personally I don't buy into this boll*cks that RL is 'victimised' that it is ignored etc. RL is a victim of it's own self-destruction, it is ignored because the international scene is predictable - a Australia and New Zealand final. Even if it isn't and England get there, everyone knows/expects the Aussies/Kiwi's to win. To put it frankly international RL is a farce.

If you were the editor of for arguments sake The Mirror, and you weren't particularly a RL fan, would you take RL seriously given the international scene?

The international strength of Cricket and RU has very little to do with it. Cricket doesnt even have that strong an international setup and RU is no where as strong as it likes to make out. RU and Cricket are where they are because they are establishment sports, this is far and away the biggest common denominator between the two.

I also dont buy into the quality of the international team and ability to compete having an effect. In times when England were woeful at Cricket and RU these sports still got plenty of newspaper and television coverage. In Rugby League when England/GB have been successful it has never resulted in anymore publicity.

In Cricket the domestic game is watched by the proverbial one man and his dog and County games can sometimes be measured in tens never mind hundreds. Up until recently RU lagged way behind RL domestically crowds wise, as it still does for TV ratings, but it still got and still gets much more coverage. Despite this RU and Cricket gets far more money and coverage than it deserves for their domestic games. This isnt just because of an international dimension, which are seperate TV rights anyway, for a few extra weeks a year.