Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Yorkshire v Lancashire instead of England v The Exiles


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#61 roughyedspud

roughyedspud
  • Coach
  • 3,528 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 08:10 AM

word is a pacific island "all stars" team is going to be the 4th team in next years 4nations which is being held down under.....


i've also got a gut wrenching feeling "great britain"....is gonna be the 3rd team....along with australia & nz

OLDHAM RLFC
the 8TH most successful team in british RL


#62 nec

nec
  • Coach
  • 2,289 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 09:29 AM

I've no problem with GB playing overseas series but we should not have GB in 4 Nations one yr and England the next, it looks stupid
Rugby League is a sport that desperately needs to expand its geographical supporter base and its player base. This imperative means that all other requirements are secondary until this is done.

All power in the game should be with governing bodies, especially international governing bodies.

Without these actions we will remain a minor sport internationally and nationally.

#63 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,548 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 09:36 AM

Leave GB. I'd rather England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Why have one team when we can have four?

Or shall we merge Wakey/Cas/Fev whilst we're at it...?
Posted Image

#64 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,616 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 10:04 AM

Leave GB. I'd rather England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Why have one team when we can have four?

Or shall we merge Wakey/Cas/Fev whilst we're at it...?

To have a stronger side?
No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#65 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,294 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 10:45 AM

There's only one Melbourne player I'm aware of that's from Victoria.


Does that make Australian expansion a failure?

#66 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,471 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 10:53 AM

word is a pacific island "all stars" team is going to be the 4th team in next years 4nations which is being held down under.....


i've also got a gut wrenching feeling "great britain"....is gonna be the 3rd team....along with australia & nz


Is that based upon anything (other than a feeling in your gut :) )?
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#67 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,677 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 11:19 AM

Does that make Australian expansion a failure?


There's a genuine argument that its a yes.

Despite dominating Australian RL for years they still get crowds lower than most NRL sides and similar to a rubbish Super 15 RU side. That's not to compare them to the AFL sides who can get up to 80k in the same city.

The test of Melbourne is when they're languishing around the bottom.

#68 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,616 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 03:47 PM

There's a genuine argument that its a yes.

Despite dominating Australian RL for years they still get crowds lower than most NRL sides and similar to a rubbish Super 15 RU side. That's not to compare them to the AFL sides who can get up to 80k in the same city.

The test of Melbourne is when they're languishing around the bottom.

That is one of the bugbears of being based in an AFL stronghold like Melbourne though and doesn't truly reflect on the of the viability club or the NRL in Melbourne. You really do have to take the background into account. I'll never forget when the NRL pulled the plug on Adelaide and they had been averaging around 15K at the Oval; I guess short termism isn't just a UK problem.

Edited by Bulliac, 31 March 2013 - 03:47 PM.

No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#69 roughyedspud

roughyedspud
  • Coach
  • 3,528 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:26 AM

Is that based upon anything (other than a feeling in your gut :) )?


nah just a gut feeling.....my guts pretty good though

OLDHAM RLFC
the 8TH most successful team in british RL


#70 roughyedspud

roughyedspud
  • Coach
  • 3,528 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:28 AM

To have a stronger side?


a current GB team would be the same team as the current England team.....hth

OLDHAM RLFC
the 8TH most successful team in british RL


#71 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,548 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 09:56 AM

Does that make Australian expansion a failure?

They'd have to be trying to expand to deem it a failure or not! 2 out of 16 teams are expansion teams (NZW and Storm).

For a country that has league as one of the top two sports, commanding a billion dollar TV contract, huge media interest and has potential clubs lined up all over the place; how they're still looking at a league with 9 Sydney teams is beyond me!
Posted Image

#72 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,770 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 01:33 PM

I've no problem with GB playing overseas series but we should not have GB in 4 Nations one yr and England the next, it looks stupid


Bear in mind that with the world cup every four years, the 4N is not down under quite as often as every 2 years. The main benefit of playing as GB (rather than the bear certainty of England as the NH qualifiers) downunder is that it allows the Celtic nations a chance to play on a major stage. This means they are more likely to opt for Wales etc rather than England. Also GB has a better chance of winning

#73 roughyedspud

roughyedspud
  • Coach
  • 3,528 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 01:48 PM

Bear in mind that with the world cup every four years, the 4N is not down under quite as often as every 2 years. The main benefit of playing as GB (rather than the bear certainty of England as the NH qualifiers) downunder is that it allows the Celtic nations a chance to play on a major stage. This means they are more likely to opt for Wales etc rather than England. Also GB has a better chance of winning



BUT IT DOES'NT THOUGH!!!!


theres not one celtic player that would displace a england player for a GB spot...


thats why i go on about the celtic tigers.......if you want celtic players a chance to play on the major stage...give them a team they have a chance of playing in..the CELTIC TIGERS

OLDHAM RLFC
the 8TH most successful team in british RL


#74 superten

superten
  • Coach
  • 364 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 08:30 PM

BUT IT DOES'NT THOUGH!!!!


theres not one celtic player that would displace a england player for a GB spot...


thats why i go on about the celtic tigers.......if you want celtic players a chance to play on the major stage...give them a team they have a chance of playing in..the CELTIC TIGERS

IVE been going on about celtic nations team for ages even named a squad made up totally of super league players theres around 26 to 30 players who would qualify I went with the name celtic tribes.
Chief Crazy Eagle

#75 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,446 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 09:54 AM

I'm sorry Yorkshire but no one other than yourselves cares about the county they are from.


I can understand that. B)
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#76 giwildgo

giwildgo
  • Coach
  • 4,048 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 10:15 AM

I know Parky mentioned it earlier, but my preference for a two game series would be a first game of probables vs possibles, with the second game against the Exiles. It would have multiple benefits - firstly it would force McNamara to pick depth in all positions based on a 34 man squad, it would create better competition for places and it would motivate possibles to prove they are more deserving than the probables. Even excluding overseas additions I'd love to see the likes of the following positional match ups.

FB Tomkins v Lomax
WGs Hall / Charnley v Briscoe / Cockayne
C Watkins / Cudjoe v Atkins / Welham
SO Sinfield v Myler
SH Chase v Brough
P Crabtree / Mossop v Hill / Lynch
H Roby v McIlorum
SR Westwood / Hock v Farrell / Bateman
LF O'Loughlin v Ward

Plenty of others you could sub into most positions as well.

#77 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,446 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 10:33 AM

I know Parky mentioned it earlier, but my preference for a two game series would be a first game of probables vs possibles, with the second game against the Exiles. It would have multiple benefits - firstly it would force McNamara to pick depth in all positions based on a 34 man squad, it would create better competition for places and it would motivate possibles to prove they are more deserving than the probables. Even excluding overseas additions I'd love to see the likes of the following positional match ups.

FB Tomkins v Lomax
WGs Hall / Charnley v Briscoe / Cockayne
C Watkins / Cudjoe v Atkins / Welham
SO Sinfield v Myler
SH Chase v Brough
P Crabtree / Mossop v Hill / Lynch
H Roby v McIlorum
SR Westwood / Hock v Farrell / Bateman
LF O'Loughlin v Ward

Plenty of others you could sub into most positions as well.


I can see the benefits of that as a coaching tool.

Would folk flock in to watch it ? Probably not.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#78 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,677 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 10:42 AM

That is one of the bugbears of being based in an AFL stronghold like Melbourne though and doesn't truly reflect on the of the viability club or the NRL in Melbourne. You really do have to take the background into account. I'll never forget when the NRL pulled the plug on Adelaide and they had been averaging around 15K at the Oval; I guess short termism isn't just a UK problem.


It wasn't that long ago that Melbourne nearly had the plug pulled. Crowds had dropped to around 8k and they were not doing well on the field.

The Storm are basically the Broncos if they'd dominated Super League. They do have the benefit of being full of Australians in an Australian country even of they are from NSW or QLD. You could argue that the Broncos and British RL have done a better job at actual expansion, ie getting locals to play the game and then in the squad.

#79 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,677 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 10:47 AM

I can see the benefits of that as a coaching tool.

Would folk flock in to watch it ? Probably not.


I think this is key. We should probably give up trying to create a commercially successful origin series. The only realistic candidate is France but they are far from competitive.

We should use it as a competitive trial and I think the Exiles is the best for that. It allows England to at least try out patterns and get used to playing together.

#80 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,471 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 02:08 PM

I know Parky mentioned it earlier, but my preference for a two game series would be a first game of probables vs possibles, with the second game against the Exiles. It would have multiple benefits - firstly it would force McNamara to pick depth in all positions based on a 34 man squad, it would create better competition for places and it would motivate possibles to prove they are more deserving than the probables. Even excluding overseas additions I'd love to see the likes of the following positional match ups.

FB Tomkins v Lomax
WGs Hall / Charnley v Briscoe / Cockayne
C Watkins / Cudjoe v Atkins / Welham
SO Sinfield v Myler
SH Chase v Brough
P Crabtree / Mossop v Hill / Lynch
H Roby v McIlorum
SR Westwood / Hock v Farrell / Bateman
LF O'Loughlin v Ward

Plenty of others you could sub into most positions as well.


I have always thought this was an option worth exploring, not necessarily instead of the Exiles game, but as well as. The problem is that England do not get any games, outside of those against the Kangaroos and Kiwis, that really test them, or where they are put under serious pressure. Opinions are mixed about whether the Exiles do the job, but the event does give the England coach the opportunity to give his team a run out against the best non-English team available.

Who are the only other group of players available during the season likely to give England a game? Those who desperately want to take the places of the first team. I can think of no better motivation for players, other than playing for their nation, than to come up against the players that are standing in the way of them realising that ambition. If the second string, given a chance to shine against their equivalents in the first team, couldn't provide a decent test then I don't know who could.

It would almost certainly be more intense than a Lancashire v Yorkshire game. Imagine the coach of the 'Possibles' attempting to motivate his squad - he'd show each player a photo of his opposite number and tell him that this player is deemed to be better than you; go and prove to the world that he is not and take the shirt off him. Would it attract a crowd (would it matter?)? It would at first out of sheer curiosity; after that it would depend on the intensity. And who would the crowd shout for? Easy, the crowd would be English; they'd shout for the underdog! Put the established team under the pressure that they need to learn to deal with.

It's worth a shot!
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users