240 replies to this topic

[Northern Sol]

Yes, but they still played in front of packed crowds who really didn't give a toss about all that. That's my point. Let those who bother about the politics stew in their own juice. Everyone else can just get on with enjoying the sport on offer.

I'm not sure there would have been packed crowds if not for the Olympics. I think that the English sporting public cares more about England than GB.

[Northern Sol]

But they're supposed to be independent national governing bodies - that is what the game is telling the the government sports bodies in those jurisdictions, and is the basis on which they win state support. RLI's difficulties in gaining recognition from the sports council was partly down to there being a perception that they were not a subsidiary of a British governing body. If the RFL turn around and then impose a 'national' team on the RLI, even if it is only every four years, and that affects or diminishes Ireland's playing opportunities, then that recognition would, rightly, be questioned.

Similarly, the state sports bodies of Wales and Scotland require a certain amount of independence in their NGBs as a condition for backing them. Even if you were to include a token number of players from each nation in a GB squad, then it still takes them away from their nation during the only international period they have.

They might be theroretically independent but they simply don't have the cash to be truly so.

The SFA doesn't need the English FA in order to survive, the SRU aren't exactly millionaires but they don't need handouts from the RFU.

The Irish, Welsh and Scottish RL bodies are dependent on the goodwill of the RFL. The only two "Celtic" semi-pro sides even play in the RFL's comp.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

How many is some though? And at what point are the numbers reduced? I agree that reliance on heritage players isn't the way to go long term, but how are the likes of Ireland supposed to compete in World Cups (which they were automatically entered into) without using heritage players? The standard of their league set up isnt going to produce professional standard players. The only reason Ireland were given full international status was because of the performances of teams packed with heritage players. And why have many of those heritage players switched their allegiances from Ireland? Because we got rid of the GB team. Guys who used to play for Ireland have ditched them for the chance to play in the 'big matches', which means playing for England. If we hadn't ditched the GB team, Brough, Harrison, Bridge, Evans, etc., probably wouldn't have switched, and the likes of Ireland and Wales would still get the benefit of them.

Yes, the game should be looking to develop homegrown players in Ireland and Scotland, but if the game wants these teams competing at the level they are now, then they will have to use heritage players for a very long time to come.

Honest question to those that believe this myth, do they honestly believe that had GB still been around that the likes of Brough, McIllorum, Carvell, etc would not have jumped at the chance to play for England during the World Cup as they'd have a far greater chance of winning? Some might have, some might not have. But there'd still be nation swapping, and there's still a greater incentive to play for England (they have a greater chance if success).

[thirteenthman]

Honest question to those that believe this myth, do they honestly believe that had GB still been around that the likes of Brough, McIllorum, Carvell, etc would not have jumped at the chance to play for England during the World Cup as they'd have a far greater chance of winning? Some might have, some might not have. But there'd still be nation swapping, and there's still a greater incentive to play for England (they have a greater chance if success).

Hard to say, but I'd hardly call it a 'myth'. Look at the Ireland team that played in the 2000 World Cup - not a bad team by any accounts, and many of them actually switched from England. And if the likes of Brough, Carvell etc., didn't have to make the choice then who knows? As you say, some might have, but some might not have. But as we don't have a GB team, it's impossible to say.

[Johnoco]

Hard to say, but I'd hardly call it a 'myth'. Look at the Ireland team that played in the 2000 World Cup - not a bad team by any accounts, and many of them actually switched from England. And if the likes of Brough, Carvell etc., didn't have to make the choice then who knows? As you say, some might have, but some might not have. But as we don't have a GB team, it's impossible to say.

The major stumbling block is though, that as good as that side may have been, there was only one bona fide Irishman in there. (Carney)

That's not to decry the efforts involved because I took some of my brothers to that QF at Headingley (supporting Ireland) and we had a great time. We met Tommy Martyn in the Skyrack afterwards and it could have been George Best, so impressed was my brother.

But the future HAS to involve mainly genuine Celtic players.

[thirteenthman]

The major stumbling block is though, that as good as that side may have been, there was only one bona fide Irishman in there. (Carney)

That's not to decry the efforts involved because I took some of my brothers to that QF at Headingley (supporting Ireland) and we had a great time. We met Tommy Martyn in the Skyrack afterwards and it could have been George Best, so impressed was my brother.

But the future HAS to involve mainly genuine Celtic players.

I wouldn't argue with you on that, but the question is how are Ireland going to produce bona fide internationals of the standard that the Irish national team appears to be playing at? How many genuine Irishmen will be involved next year? In fact you could ask the same question of any of the countries which don't have access to pro or semi pro leagues. The only way round it is either rely on heritage players, or accept that without them many nations will probably never be able to achieve the same level without massive investment in their domestic set ups, something that is unlikely to happen any time soon.

[roughyedspud]

ppppsstttt ireland want nothing to do with GB...



hth

[Lesmets]

Not entirely true ,I'm from Ireland and I always supported GB!

[roughyedspud]

im on about RLi....the governing body of the game in ireland.....they want ireland to be a stand alone test nation..

[Lobbygobbler]

When there are quality Celtic players good enough to play for GB that will be the time to bring back GB as a touring team. Right now GB would just be England wearing different shirts. What's the point?

The point is that having a Lions team for touring only, would make playing for Wales, Scotland and Ireland more attractive. The selectors would have to pick some Celtic nation players (even if they might not be the best) as they do in RU with Scottish reps. This would help players pick Celtic nations over England if they had a choice -e.g. Rhys Evans

[roughyedspud]

The point is that having a Lions team for touring only, would make playing for Wales, Scotland and Ireland more attractive. The selectors would have to pick some Celtic nation players (even if they might not be the best) as they do in RU with Scottish reps. This would help players pick Celtic nations over England if they had a choice -e.g. Rhys Evans

please please explain that????

why would players stick with wales,scotland & ireland cos they might tour & play big games with GB once every 4 years.....when they can just opt for england in the first place and play big games every year and go on tour every 2 years!!!!


having GB would'nt change a god damn thing..

Edited by roughyedspud, 10 November 2012 - 12:30 PM.

[L Bow]

please please explain that????

why would players stick with wales,scotland & ireland cos they might tour & play big games with GB once every 4 years.....when the can just opt for england in the first place and play big games every year and go on tour every 2 years!!!!


having GB would'nt change a god damn thing..

Agreed. Nail on head.

[ShotgunGold]

Meh no way would I ever support a GB team now in any matches. I feel no allegiance towards the Welsh, Scottish nor Irish.

It's England all the way now.

[Johnoco]

please please explain that????

why would players stick with wales,scotland & ireland cos they might tour & play big games with GB once every 4 years.....when they can just opt for england in the first place and play big games every year and go on tour every 2 years!!!!


having GB would'nt change a god damn thing..

Not only that, surely it brings into question their desire to genuinely play for that nation? It shouldn't be a case of 'well I aren't that bothered but it might get me a GB tour'.

[Methven Hornet]

No it's not a case of wanting it just to be GB Aus and NZ ,but for 100 years head start on union the game didn't grow much beyond the heartland ,so maybe put the money spent on expansion into the grass roots and concentrate on the great comps we already have!

The money being spent on expansion, or a substantial proportion of it, is being spent on grass-roots development. It might not get a lot of attention outside of Scotland but a lot of Scotland Rugby League's activity is at schools, youth and student level, providing opportunities for both participation and elite development. The investment put in also attracts further monies and resources from government bodies, local authorities, schools and sponsors. And these are early days as, although rugby league has had a presence in Scotland for quite a few years now, serious development programmes have only been on the go for the last three years or so.

Wales has similar development programmes but is a little bit further on, helped as they are by having semi-pro clubs. Ireland, having only just received recognition from the sports council based in Dublin, will almost certainly come up with similar efforts.

This isn't optional spending, or money that can be diverted to traditional areas to somehow protect the game there, but essential investment in the future of rugby league. Expansion is no longer an option, or a nice to have, but an absolute necessity if the game is to survive. There is no going back this time, no retreating to the traditional heartlands like it's a comfort blanket. There are many reactionary voices in the game who look to the recent past as it was some golden age, and who somehow want to recreate it. Water down the standard of Super League by bringing in more clubs/divisions/conferences, spread the elite game's resources too thinly risking our best switching to union (even bring back part time football so more clubs can compete), bring back GB...

But our biggest competitors have changed beyond recognition since the nineties. Soccer is rich beyond our wildest dreams and union is full-time - cutting off the supply of players for any GB team, and at the same time giving our best other career options. And the broadcasters increasingly want international sport - rugby league is missing out on millions by having a stunted international game.

The stark choice is growth or decline - the hard work must continue!

[Methven Hornet]

I cannot see Ireland/Walesor Scotland going on tour matches on their own any time this centuary. Wether there are any players good enough or not from said countries , a touring side called GB will probably generate more interest than just a England side.

Why? When watching GB tour games in the past the Aussies referred to them as England/the English anyway. And if the English game doesn't start to improve its international performances soon then interest down under is going to diminish anyway.

[Methven Hornet]

I agree in essence with a lot of what you are saying. But the fact is those players should not have been *allowed* to switch anyway- that's the real issue.

It will be a long route to get homegrown Celtic players up to a half decent standard. But there isn't really a way round this. It will take some years.

That is the reality, and the task has been neglected for far too long.

And not just the Celtic nations - England has to find a way of producing world class players from areas outside of the heartlands. Trying to beat the Aussies with players from isolated parts of just three counties is no longer enough.

[Methven Hornet]

The point is that having a Lions team for touring only, would make playing for Wales, Scotland and Ireland more attractive. The selectors would have to pick some Celtic nation players (even if they might not be the best) as they do in RU with Scottish reps. This would help players pick Celtic nations over England if they had a choice -e.g. Rhys Evans

So the GB touring team would be weaker than the England team - what would be the point?

[Methven Hornet]

They might be theroretically independent but they simply don't have the cash to be truly so.

The SFA doesn't need the English FA in order to survive, the SRU aren't exactly millionaires but they don't need handouts from the RFU.

The Irish, Welsh and Scottish RL bodies are dependent on the goodwill of the RFL. The only two "Celtic" semi-pro sides even play in the RFL's comp.

European rugby league as a whole wouldn't exist without the goodwill of the RFL. The only non-English professional side even play in the RFL's comp. Would that justify the RFL attempting to impose a European representative side without the acceptance of the French federation?

The RFL does underpin most development in the northern hemisphere, and provides much support, but it does so out of enlightened self-interest. It has to work with its partners and stake-holders in jurisdictions outside of England, and would gain nothing by alienating them.

The administration under Richard Lewis understood these basic facts of life and was sensitive to the environments in which developing nations operate. If we are to regress to the state where a supposed rep team of Ireland - which is what Great Britain and Ireland was when Brian Carney played the field - have to take to the field to the strains of God Save The Queen, then the days of progress in the international days are over.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Can I just ask, would it be right to bring back a side that isn't a national side? They are a collection of nations.

GB&I aren't a national side. Separating them stops the muddying of the waters.