That is exactly my point, we have no English world class half backs.

I think you're being a bit too quick to write off Eastmond and Tomkins given their respective ages. Thurston was hardly the complete player at the same age and look at him now. There's no knowing how well Eastmond and/or Tomkins will develop yet.

It wasn't the halves that let England down in the deciding match against Australia.

So, what are you advocating then? Cap space for 4? 5?



The fact is, most 'World-Class' Australians don't reject Super League because of a lack of pound signs, but because they won't be eligible to play for the national team whilst playing here. Barrett came over because he was coming towards the end of his career and wasn't first choice for his country, the salary cap has absolutely nothing to do with your argument.

Thats not the point!!!

Que?



Let's look at the facts. Both Eastmond and Tomkins played blinders against a fearsome Australian team (one of their best). Indeed, at times both gave their illustrious counterparts fits. Neither cost England a match. We blew it in the outside backs.



Players who outplay world class opponents are - by definition - world class. Period.

Course it is, Was Matt King an Aussie international when he signed. He came for the £££. Cap space for "how ever many you can afford" should be the answer. Its not a big factor not playing for Australia as there are plenty of world class players in oz who will not get a sniff so dont care Orford being one.

Spot on.

I should have mentioned this earlier (I've been keeping away to retain what shreds of sanity I possess) but an old (and usually reliable) contact from Usenet days who works in the Aussie media told me there was a hell of a lot of NRL interest in both Eastmond and Tomkins around the time Eastmond signed his two year deal. Preliminary contact was made with Eastmond by at least one club. He is certain that Tomkins will receive a massive NRL offer when his contract is up. Ditto Eastmond, but there is a lot of Union interest too. Which is problematic because even the NRL can't outbid the rugger buggers.



I don't have a problem with either going down under. I'm sure they'll do fine. But if Eastmond goes to Union (and I have a nagging suspicion that he might) I'll jump off a cliff.

Why don't you have a problem with Eastmond going down under? I do. I want him to stay here and enhance the British game, with Saints.

The NRL is like the Premiership compared to Super League being the Championship. The best talent should be playing in the best competitions IMO.

I don't want to see Eastmond go either. But we have to be realistic. Class players are in demand and there are agencies out there who can offer the kind of money and lifestyle that Saints cannot. The protracted contract negotiations with Kyle suggest to me that whilst he is prepared to give his all for the club - he is also smart enough not to rule out options that could well set him up for the rest of life. And I don't blame him. League is a rough game. He could rupture an Achilles tomorrow and be on the scrapheap thereafter - no money, no job, no means of supporting himself.



Look, if it comes down to a bidding war with another SL team then yes - break the bank. The fans would torch the new stadium if he went to the Pies. But if the NRL is serious about taking him we will struggle to keep hold. I mean, if you were faced with a choice of McManus or Russell - let me introduce you to my Hollywood pals - Crowe you'd be crackers not to get on the plane.



If he goes to the NRL at least we have the consolation that he'll become ten times the player he is now and will shaft the Kangaroos royally come the internationals.