Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

The Lions will Roar again

Happy day!

  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#41 roughyedspud

roughyedspud
  • Coach
  • 3,814 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 08:48 AM

Plenty of our GB teams have been all English - I don;t think that made them less credible.

GB was the principle "national team" back then.........now it is'nt....we have england,wales,scotland & ireland as the principle national teams....GB is supposed to be a amalgamation of all 4.....but it won't be for a very,very long time

OLDHAM RLFC
the 8TH most successful team in british RL


#42 roughyedspud

roughyedspud
  • Coach
  • 3,814 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:03 AM

just to be clear........im not anti GB....far from it,i was gutted when GB was disbanded...but as a internationalist i saw the value of promoting the 4 national teams that played in the world cups over 1 team (GB)that did'nt...the grand plan of having a GB tour every 4 years should have fitted in well within a 4year international schedule..world cup,GB tour,4nations,4nations,world cup..


but its not worked out like that....and now any GB team will be seen as a rebadged england team....and it will be

OLDHAM RLFC
the 8TH most successful team in british RL


#43 Exiled Wiganer

Exiled Wiganer
  • Coach
  • 6,203 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:23 AM

But couldn't we have the best of all worlds? The non English players can play for GB on tour if good enough and their own country in 3 years out of 4.
Not wanting to have to give my head another wobble, taking 2 non Welsh examples - McIllorum and Brough might choose to play for Ireland and Scotland most years but could make a 24 man squad for GB once every 4 years.

#44 Kenny Bania

Kenny Bania
  • Coach
  • 502 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:10 AM

In cricket there wouldn't be any nationalities except English and South Africans.

Simon Jones
Geraint Jones
Ed Joyce
Eoin Morgan

None of them English but all have represented the England cricket team in the last decade. (Thought about putting Scotland's Gavin Hamilton in there too, but that would weaken rather than strengthen my point).

As for RL, I miss the old GB identity (and that beautiful blue and red chevron). It would be good to have it back, as part of a four-yearly touring cycle. Let's keep plugging on with the other home nations in the meantime though.

Edited by Kenny Bania, 12 April 2013 - 10:38 AM.


#45 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,081 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:27 AM

GB was the principle "national team" back then.........now it is'nt....we have england,wales,scotland & ireland as the principle national teams....GB is supposed to be a amalgamation of all 4.....but it won't be for a very,very long time

So? Give people something to work towards.

 

Brough is a good example - he will probably play for Scotland again, and it looks like he won't be selected for England under McNamara - yet somebody like Noble may select him for a GB touring team.



#46 RugbyLeagueGeek

RugbyLeagueGeek
  • Coach
  • 632 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:35 AM

Simon Jones
Geraint Jones
Ed Joyce
Eoin Morgan

None of them English but all have represented the England cricket team in the last decade.

This is the problem from my perspective. If you are serious about your cricket, you will opt to play for England as Ireland are not afforded the same competitive opportunities.

Likewise in Rugby League, Scotland, Ireland, and - to a lesser extent - Wales are not afforded the same opportunities as England. This is not just in terms of playing the big nations, but also in terms of the off-field support and developmental player pathways.

Currently, any young and talented Irish, Scots or Welsh players with an English grandparent would have to seriously consider playing for England if they had any aspirations of having a successful international career.

Personally I would do away with the Exiles (the concept has a limited shelf life anyway as imports continue to be reduced) and instead have a European championships each Summer (e.g. two or more tiers whereby the highest ranked 4 nations play each other, and then the next highest 4 nations play each other etc). Autumn internationals could then involve GB in test series or 4 nations, and all home nations players would therefore be eligible for selection. Separate home nations could be retained for World Cup years.

This would offer the best of both worlds, as home nations would still have numerous opportunities to play as separate nations, but also it wouldn't prevent players from playing at the highest level in being selected for GB against Aus or NZ. This would therefore strengthen the other home nations by preventing any migration of talent looking to play for England.

#47 Rugby League Wiki

Rugby League Wiki
  • Players
  • 18 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:52 AM

I'm really glad there's a chance GB&I is coming back. 2015 is the best year to do it too, as it leaves 2016 for teams entering the WC to build up to it, and the year after any World Cup will be there for the WC teams to capitalise on successes.

 

The 2015 GB team maybe all English. We can't predict what a 2019 team will look like if the incentive is there to declare for the other home nations.

 

Yes, and deciding whether to run Lions tours on guesswork about whether non-England players will make the team isn't a practical way to go about it. We need to have a longer fixed schedule of internationals.

 

Here's one thing that might help reduce concerns about an English-only team though: mid-week tour games.

 

There'll be a greater opportunity for all four home nations to be represented, if we send enough tourists to play two games a week. The weekend matches would be the primary competition (Ashes and/or Baskerville) as usual, while the mid-week matches could be against Pacific nations, All Star selections, clubs, etc. The mid-week team could also head off to another location for a two or three days, in some cases, to play some of these matches. It would also keep the more of the squad match fit and being allow players not picked for Tests a good way to compete for a place. It could bring in more money too, through attendances and probably media deals.


Edited by Rugby League Wiki, 12 April 2013 - 10:58 AM.


#48 nec

nec
  • Coach
  • 2,353 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:00 AM

What time of year are we anticipating this tour happening? Post season?
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.

#49 Rugby League Wiki

Rugby League Wiki
  • Players
  • 18 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:37 AM

What time of year are we anticipating this tour happening? Post season?

I expect it to end the season.



#50 boxhead

boxhead
  • Coach
  • 3,086 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:01 PM

Is it a serious proposal or Pie in the Sky expanded WCC series stuff?

#51 nec

nec
  • Coach
  • 2,353 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:12 PM


I expect it to end the season.

so a tour at the time of year the Aussies claim they don't want to watch rl? It will be a one off then, no midweek matches and a warm up v Fiji or presidents 13
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.

#52 boxhead

boxhead
  • Coach
  • 3,086 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:21 PM

so a tour at the time of year the Aussies claim they don't want to watch rl? It will be a one off then, no midweek matches and a warm up v Fiji or presidents 13

Australians usually move from Winter sports to Summer games as it warms up, come November its Cricket.

Edited by AndyCapp, 12 April 2013 - 12:22 PM.


#53 roughyedspud

roughyedspud
  • Coach
  • 3,814 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 02:01 PM

So? Give people something to work towards.

Brough is a good example - he will probably play for Scotland again, and it looks like he won't be selected for England under McNamara - yet somebody like Noble may select him for a GB touring team.


if u want to give celtic players something to work towards give the celtic nations their own team...the celtic tigers! give them a team they have a cats chance in hell of playing for!!! celtic tigers v england would be the nearest thing to a "GB" origin we could muster!!!!

OLDHAM RLFC
the 8TH most successful team in british RL


#54 Rugby League Wiki

Rugby League Wiki
  • Players
  • 18 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 02:04 PM

so a tour at the time of year the Aussies claim they don't want to watch rl? It will be a one off then, no midweek matches and a warm up v Fiji or presidents 13

Depending on what they plan, at least part of the tour would use the same slot as the Four Nations.

 

Australians usually move from Winter sports to Summer games as it warms up, come November its Cricket.

That's the conventional wisdom, though I'm sure we could get by. Play the Australian matches first.

 

If it happens, my guess is that they'll opt for the short tour format we've seen recently. A tour short tour would probably include a warm up and then three tests (4 weeks total). While the last time the 4N was in the southern hemisphere, England played a match against the Maori and then the four week tournament began (a potential for 5 weeks down under, inc.the final).

 

If we could squeeze a couple more weeks out, we could have a warm up match and then two three-match series (e.g. Aus and then NZ). Or a series and e.g. one vs PNG and two vs NZ, like 1992.

 

Whatever is chosen, mid-week games would allow twice as many fixtures and give a boost to our international and media profile. We should probably do the same for the Four Nations campaigns too, now I think about it (England in that case).


Edited by Rugby League Wiki, 12 April 2013 - 02:05 PM.


#55 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,081 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:05 PM

if u want to give celtic players something to work towards give the celtic nations their own team...the celtic tigers! give them a team they have a cats chance in hell of playing for!!! celtic tigers v england would be the nearest thing to a "GB" origin we could muster!!!!

England would just batter them, people won't turn up to watch, it'll be scrapped.



#56 Kenny Bania

Kenny Bania
  • Coach
  • 502 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:14 PM

Here's one thing that might help reduce concerns about an English-only team though: mid-week tour games.

Ahoy-hoy! I think you're on to something here. I like this.

#57 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:28 PM

1. Playing as GB was unique in major team sports because it was a sign of rugby league's failure to develop the game throughout Great Britain and Ireland. The game's 'national' team became Great Britain (or Great Britain and Ireland, occasionally) in order to utilise the rugby union converts from Scotland and Wales, not out of any great enthusiasm for the Union. We may as well revert to having a national side called the 'Northern Union'. And, again, if a side made up of English players cannot play as well playing as England as they would being called Great Britain, then that is an issue for English rugby league to sort out. It is not a reason for rolling back the little progress the game has made in the other nations.

If you look at the history of it, this wasn't the reason that we were GB. It was because the team was a representation of British RL and yes mainly to include Welsh and Scottish converts (even though they were previously included in the 'England' sides that toured).

The Northern Union argument is a false one, sports in this country have a choice to go separately or together. Some choose England (admittedly the 3 biggest) but some choose GB like athletics, Ice Hockey, Basketball and previously Rugby League.
 

2. The problem was that England very rarely got any game time outside of world cups, quite an issue for England's coaches trying to build for the game's premier international competition. It also caused the other three nations to lose their best players if they were called upon to help out GB.

I personally think that those nations should play in competitions that reflect their strength, ie very much second or even third tier competitions.

3. Genuine Welsh players should not be allowed to play for England, full stop (unless they are dual qualified). That is something, again, for the game's authorities - and the players - to deal with. And, as for tradition, the major representative side from these islands was England before the war, so the current situation is traditional. It's just that now the game is laying down new traditions in the three other nations.

As I pointed out earlier, the 'England' side before the war was not strictly 'England' in the modern sense, it was more in the sense of being the English game against the Australian game and reflected this with Welsh and Scottish players playing for England.

The tradition argument is not a huge factor I'll admit but I in my opinion we lost something (that may now be gone for good) when we ditched the Lions. Almost everybody involved in the game had grown up with them and many people became fans supporting GB in the huge Ashes tests of the 80's and 90's. I know as a child I grew up dreaming of playing for GB. They are a direct link but at the end of the day it was GB that were robbed in the last minute of the second test in 1990 and it was GB who battered them 33-10 in Melbourne in 92. It was also GB I saw in 2006 beat the Aussies in Sydney.

Switching to England hasn't quite had the same feeling for me and it doesn't quite work just transferring England over to them. Of course there are a number of factors contributing to this such as our continued failure to beat them but there never seems to be the same excitement around the games. The inverse is true of football, GB had a weaker side in the World Cup but I found I had little affinity with that brand either. There just wasn't the history behind it for it to mean anything.

I can appreciate that the game, like the rest of society, is going through some rough times at present. Major sponsorship problems, top level expansion that has failed/is failing, an apparent cooling towards the game by the major broadcasting partner, and a definite lack of vision in the wake of Richard Lewis' departure, but this is not a time for the game to be withdrawing back into its regional comfort zone.

A Great Britain (with or without Ireland/Northern Ireland) tour down-under once every four years is one thing, but there should not be composite sides in the game's major tournaments. England are big enough to stand on their own!

I fully understand the reasons for the splitting to the home nations and at the time I was in some agreement with it. I think now we have made the decision that we are very unlikely to go back to the old situation of a GB always at the top level. However, I think the idealistic reasons that led to it are very unlikely to ever actually come to fruition.

I do take umbridge also with the idea that it is a backwards step, I accept that it looks this way but as I have pointed out and it has still to be addressed, I think it does these nations damage that we bring GB out so rarely. The Evans brothers might be a travesty but they are also a reality, they haven't flip-flopped (like Brough) but they have chosen to play for England through perfectly legitmate ways, in ways that will stay legitimate.

If the current situation we have now had been in force across the 90's until now, I doubt very much that even Wales would have been competitive never mind Scotland or Ireland. Their success has been included a great number of players that also played for GB. I seriously doubt that many of those players would have done if picking Wales meant never playing at the top-level of RL. Look at the heroic 2000 side, they including two half-backs born and bred in England and their two star players (Cunningham, Harris) were English born too.

So the question is whether their games are really being benefitted by the current system more than they would be with a GB system? I'm very sceptical of whether they are. If we're realistic, none of those nations are likely to be truly competitive in our lifetimes, if ever. RL is not a sport that is kind to plucky minnows and without some radical changes you'd have to question whether any of those nations are likely to be able to create a big enough playing pool. There's very little being done that I don't think could be done under a GB system. The home nations could still play each other as they do now and play in regular competition but leave the main competitions to GB, which would clean up the flip-flopping of players. For instance the last Scotland-Wales game before GB was disbanded drew a crowd of 1,000. The one last year got a crowd of 700. It seems to be much of a muchness.

Like I said, I doubt it will change and despite the length of my posts I don't see it as a huge issue of the game, more a preference thing. Whatever happens, I'll be happy to see GB if they do come back even if just every 4 years. If it was truly regular and set it stone maybe it will be enough to at least persuade some future Harris's, Cunninghams, Evans's and Broughs to play for their first choice home nation.

Edited by Maximus Decimus, 12 April 2013 - 03:32 PM.