Re: EXACTLY : Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:19 am  

Dropkick Murphy wrote:

I'd prefer to do away with the four separate nations, and just have GB. That means if any player (Regan Grace being the most obvious current example) does develop into potential international standard then they know who they can represent. The Ireland, Scotland and Wales RL teams don't represent those countries in any way. Their players are heritage players, and what few fans they have are generally heritage fans with northern English accents too. If anyone from those countries happen to come across them on TV (or social media) then they aren't going to hear that and relate to that team as their own.

Those teams might make up the numbers at the World Cup, but a smaller number of more competitive countries wouldn't do the tournament any harm. It's not as if Ireland, Scotland or Wales are going to win it. Just end the confusion by sticking with GB and using the rest as development teams playing games against each other (and maybe England Knights and France) only.

Limit them to three heritage players each as I would say that's a happy medium. A team full of development players getting walloped by England Knights wouldn't do them much good, so a couple of Super League players with a Scottish grandparent there to help them out could be beneficial. An entire team of heritage players doesn't develop anyone though.

Although your sentiments are correct, if we do away with the "other" home nations sides, you just about kill any prospect of a RL world cup.
I get what you say about having fewer "proper" sides but, you cant claim to have a "world" cup if there are only half a dozen sides competing and we still come back to the GB side basically being England, under a different name.
I get what you are saying about players like Regan Grace but, would his inclusion (or others of his ilk) really inspire the fans to turn up and watch ? - I dont think so

Re: EXACTLY : Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:44 am  

We should keep England and the home nations for the World Cup, 4 Nations and a European Five Nations but use GB and Ireland Lions for tours.
The argument that Ireland, Scotland and Wales don’t produce the players is circular. They never will have the numbers if eligible players have to opt to play for England for top international experience. But providing an incentive in the form of the Lions gives heritage and home grown players the chance to play for their home nation and still represent GB&I.

Re: EXACTLY : Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:47 am  

We should keep England and the home nations for the World Cup, 4 Nations and a European Five Nations but use GB and Ireland Lions for tours.
The argument that Ireland, Scotland and Wales don’t produce the players is circular. They never will have the numbers if eligible players have to opt to play for England for top international experience. But providing an incentive in the form of the Lions gives heritage and home grown players the chance to play for their home nation and still represent GB&I.

Re: EXACTLY : Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:16 am  

Does Aussie Rules worry about a World Cup? Does Gaelic football? Of course not. If they had one then Australia and Ireland respectively would win them at a canter demolishing a few countries with heritage players who had Australian or Irish accents. Those are the kind of sports rugby league is on a level with. Not rugby union, not cricket and certainly not football. I'm deliberately leaving the big American sports out of it because there is huge money in those sports, but they obviously don't have World Cups either.

I'm not saying RL shouldn't have a World Cup, but the "home nations" just pad it out and make up numbers. That would be fine if the players were from those countries, and the general public there were glued to their tellies hoping for an upset when they play, but that isn't the case. I'd prefer an eight, or even six, team World Cup if need be than an excessive number of pointless teams.

Keeping the home nations as developmental sides and GB+I as the Test side also removes the ridiculous option of a player playing for either Scotland, Wales or Ireland then going on to play for England once they're good enough to make the team, or vice versa once they drop out of England contention. You can naturally play for any of those sides and also play for GB+I at Test level. Obviously far fetched, but if an option ever came about to get RL into the Olympics (personally I would prefer this to a World Cup, but realise many would disagree) them it would have to be part of Team GB anyway. That would remove Ireland admittedly, but off the top of my head there's only Brian Carney who would have been affected in the 25 years I've been watching RL.

Re: EXACTLY : Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:44 am  

Brick with eyes wrote:

It’s the not money , it’s the product & the occasion.

I was on the last GB tour of Australia 1992 when around 10,000 British supporters piled into Lang Park , Brisbane for the deciding test match.

Was at all 3 games in that series with my standout match in Melbourne, being the first Ashes Test played in Victoria which attracted a crowd of over 30,000 and it appeared half supported GB. Noise was immense and GB scored a resounding win by 33-10 the highest score GB had made in Aus since the 50's.

Andy Platt won MOM but was ably assisted by Schofield at six. Daryl Powell was at centre and Phil Clarke at lock.

Thought we were on a roll to beat the Aussies at Lang Park and take the series but we couldn't manage it......again!

Re: EXACTLY : Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:10 pm  

Dropkick Murphy wrote:

Does Aussie Rules worry about a World Cup? Does Gaelic football? Of course not. If they had one then Australia and Ireland respectively would win them at a canter demolishing a few countries with heritage players who had Australian or Irish accents. Those are the kind of sports rugby league is on a level with. Not rugby union, not cricket and certainly not football. I'm deliberately leaving the big American sports out of it because there is huge money in those sports, but they obviously don't have World Cups either.

I'm not saying RL shouldn't have a World Cup, but the "home nations" just pad it out and make up numbers. That would be fine if the players were from those countries, and the general public there were glued to their tellies hoping for an upset when they play, but that isn't the case. I'd prefer an eight, or even six, team World Cup if need be than an excessive number of pointless teams.

Keeping the home nations as developmental sides and GB+I as the Test side also removes the ridiculous option of a player playing for either Scotland, Wales or Ireland then going on to play for England once they're good enough to make the team, or vice versa once they drop out of England contention. You can naturally play for any of those sides and also play for GB+I at Test level. Obviously far fetched, but if an option ever came about to get RL into the Olympics (personally I would prefer this to a World Cup, but realise many would disagree) them it would have to be part of Team GB anyway. That would remove Ireland admittedly, but off the top of my head there's only Brian Carney who would have been affected in the 25 years I've been watching RL.

At last, someone speaking sense.

Re: EXACTLY : Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:42 pm  

Freddie Miller. wrote:

Was at all 3 games in that series with my standout match in Melbourne, being the first Ashes Test played in Victoria which attracted a crowd of over 30,000 and it appeared half supported GB. Noise was immense and GB scored a resounding win by 33-10 the highest score GB had made in Aus since the 50's.

Andy Platt won MOM but was ably assisted by Schofield at six. Daryl Powell was at centre and Phil Clarke at lock.

Thought we were on a roll to beat the Aussies at Lang Park and take the series but we couldn't manage it......again!

to go slightly off track, i was working at our satellite office at the time in horsham, and despite the distance from the heartlands we had the Lang Park game on the radio (was a morning kick off over here) and everyone was rooting for GB to win that last test. i was the only northerner.

how times change

Re: EXACTLY : Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:42 pm  

Woods is spouting rubbish.
The results would have been the same regardless of the shirt.
What we are called is irrelevant. The blame should fall with the coach and the RFL in general.

Re: EXACTLY : Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:54 pm  

Dropkick Murphy wrote:

Limit them to three heritage players each .

Whilst I agree with much of your post in principle, I have to ask how competitive Tonga, Samoa or Fiji would be if the same rules were applied to them?
Tonga had 28 of their 29 2019 Squad born outside of Tonga. If you limited them to just 3 heritage players then Australia would put 50 on them in the 1st half, so the question is, do we want to be seen as relevant on the international stage at any cost, or do we accept that we are a minor sport and do the growth thing organically?

Re: EXACTLY : Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:47 pm  

Dropkick Murphy wrote:

I'm not saying RL shouldn't have a World Cup

Hows this..... have a international league every 4 years.

GB
Australia
New Zealand
Samoa
Fiji
PNG
France
Tonga
2 smaller sides


1 league table.....play it over 2 seasons... everyone plays each other H and A... kind of treat it like a long champions league.... top 2 play off in a straight up final at the end.... have 2 years off and start it again.

Everyone gets lots of gametime at international level and we get rid of these silly teams.. The smaller nations can still play in the minor nations stuff and possibly qualify.

and i get loads of competitive international RL to go and watch.