Wellsy4HullFC

You don't develop AT the top level. You develop FOR the top level. Suggestions like cutting the quota just mean throwing in more kids that aren't ready for this level, reducing the quality of the league overall and putting a ceiling on their end development. The issue is the systems below. We're not getting enough kids playing, they're not playing at a good enough standard often enough, and thus aren't at a stage that should be when we need them introduced to the top level we want them to be. Sort that out and overseas quotas won't matter because these will be better options.

It's essentially the same format as what they did in 2008 (except not a stupid B & C groups that only get 1 place between them and play midweek games!) A terrible format then too. World Cup needs quarters otherwise just do 2 groups of 4.

My bad, I've had a brain fart and mixed up the competitions I think you'd be better having the top 3 of the "super group" and the top of the other group into the semis. But personally I'm not a fan of "super groups". We either accept what a decent number is for competitiveness, or accept that there will be some blow outs in the early stages.

Not to mention they're not even a first team they're being convincingly beaten by, so it's hardly something supporters are going to get excited to watch, or feel huge pleasure in finally defeating England's second string, or players clamour to be a part of.

Is your point not that we should have a team that isn't England's first string playing against the first string Welsh/Irish/Scottish sides? If it's not, then I clearly have misunderstood your argument and I apologise. But if it is, I don't see how I'm being obtuse? That response has caught me a bit off guard; I didn't think that was the tone this conversation was going.

I don't get how that's better? You've created a competition with less teams and even less ways to progress based on a weighted system that eliminates teams in one group effectively after one loss.

I had 20-18 to Tonga in my score prediction comp so I'm happy

37 in 31 minutes

Because it wouldn't achieve anything. PNG are rugby league mad and starved of much top level rugby league (not for much longer). France have 2 Super League teams. No one would be interested in this fixture.

How does Wales vs England B help anyone grow? How is an A team v B team a competition that would be taken seriously? We're just advertising that these nations are so insignificant that can't even beat our reserves. Why would we highlight the weaknesses of the international game when we don't need to? Again, you can achieve these things without the 2 meeting. These nations are of a similar level. That gave legitimate competition against each other. They don't need our development teams squashing them. We can have development teams go on tour where they'd learn far more. If we want to do something at home, there'd be more competition in just doing Red Rose vs White Rose and you don't p*ss on the reputation of the Celtic nations then. I just don't get who England A vs Wales/Ireland/Scotland is meant to excite and develop. Certainly not sponsors are spectators. Players aren't going to dream of playing against a B team. I certainly wouldn't be excited about the Aussies sending a reserve team over to play us whilst the real team play in the Pacific Cup, and they probably could.

I think we can achieve having players in top level camp without having them muller other nations' first teams. I don't think Wales, Ireland or Scotland will benefit from being beaten by our reserves/youth. I wouldn't describe it as anywhere near a REAL test match. I don't think anyone from either side will be enthusiastic about this type of match. But this isn't England. This is a reserve/youth/made-up team. If anything, having them makes it worse credibility-wise. You could at least still it as first team level.

I know you're saying they wouldn't be part of the comp (as they were before), but even one off tests between them I don't think we should do. I don't think it benefits anyone that they play each other.

You've misunderstood my point. I'm completely for a Celtic Cup. I'm completely for England reserve/youth fixtures. I'm completely against mixing the two together.

It's a 5-6 week competition though. They need to play at least 3 games to make travel and commitment worthwhile. It's hard to get a weighted format that's good in that constraint.

I didn't mean you specifically; I meant the game. But again, I don't understand who this is meant to benefit? How is putting the first team of some nations against the reserve team or youth team of another nation "hard work"?