Because the NRL is a superior competition? As in all sports if you're playing at the highest level you're likely to improve. Tomkins is not playing at that level.

Yes, just what we need. One of 2 bona fide world class players super league has, leaving the competition.



Give it 5 years and the standard across the board of super league will be of Cas, wakey, widnes and hull kr standard

Superleague has bottomed out in terms of quality and intensity, we have only a few english superleague players who are or potentional world class. Tomkins to be honest has not been really been tested because of superleagues slack defences, he would have to play against his own team Wigan to be tested.

The other side of the coin is that all our best players could be in the NRL, the international team would be stronger but superleague weaker and weaker.

How woud you address that situation?

I was being sarcastic. If you look at Ellis' and Morley's international performanes they were better before they went to the NRL, and Thorman was a great prospect before the NRL coached the flair out of him. The NRL is not the be all and end all. The focus has to be on improving SL, and we're never going to do that if all our best players go to the NRL.



Saying that if him going to the NRL meant he stayed in RL then thats fair enough.

I agree the SL will be a weaker comp if players like Sam leave but surely it has to be better than going to the dark side.

I still feel that the quality of RL players in SL has diminished because of the overseas quota.



We don't have the talent pool in this country to improve matters as it stands, so why increase the number of teams and decrease the number of available players?



Quality will out. Burgess, Tomkins et all would break into teams regardless of the make up of that team. Without the overseas quota, they might have to work harder to do that, but surely THAT is a good thing for the players, league and international team? Players that have pushed and earned the jersey are going to be better and more loyal than those who get praised to high heaven just because they happen to be young and British.

To me Union still appears the most likely move. England are hosting the 2015 world cup, a global event. I would not underestimate the power of the RFU and the pressure they will exert on Tomkins and his advisers if he is still wanted by the England coaching team that will include a certain Andrew Farrell. If Tomkins is ambitious to test himself on the international stage Union is the only option. Plus they have the financial clout to tempt him or any other British League player.

Unfortunately that sounds right to me to. Also interesting to note is the 2016 Olympics in Brazil will have Rugby Sevens for the first time. If he does defect to the lesser code I hope he shows the Sevens lads a thing or two, he'd be the best on the circuit since Ryder.

Whats the point of walking out to a rapturous applause from 80,000 fans at Twickenham, if after the whistle is blown you are bored 5hitless and freezing cold?



Money aint everything and if it was, i am sure the NRL can offer untold riches.

I think he will go to the NRL.



I get the impression sam doesn't see union as his next destination. Obviously money can dictate matters but I do think sam has a big urge to play in the NRL.

You'll improve SL by getting more players playing the game. You get more players playing the game by having a thriving international game (see Union). A successful England is something any man on the street can identify with, random clubs in expansion areas aren't. The way to get more coverage for RL across the media is through England (see Union).



Having more of our players competing in the best league in the world can only be good for England, and in turn good for the sport.

I think that's a bit of a simplification myself. I agree that people get behind the England Rugby team, I know this from my own family who care nothing for the sport. However I think it runs a little deeper. They don't watch England rugby because England are a great Rugby team, they watch it because the media tell them that international Rugby matters.



Until we have the same relevance, by way of media promotion, I don't think it matters one little bit whether our England League team is strong or not.



It all comes down to legitimacy. International Rugby has it, international League does not. There are a 1001 reasons why and each reason is correct, to a degree.



The game, in my opinion, has deep rooted problems that aren't easily solved, or even recognised.



I agree that having players in the NRL and by extension fielding a better England team is great, but I don't believe it will bring interest in itself. What we need to realise is that the games problems aren't necessarily with the game itself, but in the coverage and promotion of the product. The England Rugby team is none better or more competitive than the English league team, so it's not that, in my view.