RP London

cheers.. i hadnt seen anything so wasnt sure..

sadly not. I played a bit at Hillsborough Hawks but then family commitments, work and age got in the way. Now Coaching at Sheffield Tigers Rugby Union with the Under 11s as my son plays there. He is enjoying playing with his mates so hence union rather than going over to league but as he grows up i'm hoping he gives it a go. He loves watching it and going to the games more so than union and the way they play at under 11s isnt far off league anyway, and from what he is saying the bits he is enjoying is more league than union so think he will, then i'll get back involved i think. The union club dont mind a few league minded individuals getting involved, i'm not the only one! Try to get to as many Eagles games as possible and head to other matches too (we're off the semi at Bolton and the cup final [his first])

Think i may have played against you in 2003 ish.. had an RLC cup match for South London Storm again Aberavon (1/4 final i think)... was hurling it down when we arrived.. and you were watering the pitch!!! it was a muddy game, good game though! we won which helped.

born in sheffield in the late 70s so assume i count.. went away to school at Malvern so very RU centric. Played Union growing up but my grandparents on my mums side were from Warrington and used to go to Wilderspool every weekend before moving over to Sheffield in the late 1940s early 1950s. Used to watch the ashes tests, internationals and cup matches on BBC when they were on and used to love it, then go and "play league" in the garden. Growing up always felt it was more my sport but with no ability to play. Went to Birmingham Uni in 1997 and they were setting up a league team so went along to try out (also had been playing Union at Uni) and loved it so gave up union and never really looked back. Then ended up at South London Storm meeting Number 16 and a fair few others in the early 2000s to carry on playing post Uni.

have either Blake Austin or Jackson Hastings officially said they put their hand up for England (as surely they need to do that to be considered for GB) or even just for GB? this debate could be utterly pointless if either/both dont want to play for England/GB

yeah true.. thats why i thought i'd write that but then not get myself back embroiled. I had mentioned a few things like "very complicated" and "too long winded for message boards" but thought it best this time to prove the point.. that is a tiny tiny bit of the "growth of football" debate and its still long winded! Think i've said my piece now, I know people may disagree with the interpretation of the historical events, that is the beauty of historical discussion, but it shows its not all as one sided as some are making out.

i agree but many competitions in their first year get things wrong, as long as they learn and tweak it then i think the competition has legs. if they dont it will go the way of so many RFL ideas.

this is my last post on this as its off topic... I should hope you can quote more and I can quote books and chapters and paragraphs from umpteen other sources interpreting the influence in different ways... as with politics, in history there are very few times when there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs and they mostly involve body counts (thanks Jed Bartlett)... history is about interpretation history is not just about the retelling of facts, though that is, of course, interesting in itself that is more "story telling". you talk about the FA and their attitude which is, to an extent, fair but the FA were not representative of "the English" which is what other people are talking about, a single Englishman doing something off their own back is an englishman helping to expand the game.David Argylle is an Australian helping expand the game but you couldn't say that the NRL is expanding the game. As I have said there is right on both sides of the argument and there are degrees of right but you are being hugely (and almost embarrassingly) simplistic in your argument and interpretation.. You are quoting facts without looking at what leads up to it. a few examples: There are arguments around the Wars (which also helped spread the game) and whether other games would be growing in a bigger and better way without them. Tony Collins also has a great podcast that talks about the strength of other sports around the Wars and how the war halted that growth and other games took over. The popularity of football, for example, was helped by the outbreak of war, football was a uniting past time something most people could play and something that didn't need huge resources to do so. It was something that brought together the different allies and antagonists as it was the only sport played by most, therefore, growth and the unifying state of football can be seen and can be spread amongst the workers more. other sports were damaged by this inability to play etc. You quote the insular nature of the FA and the Hungarians beating them changing that.. thats an interpretation of the facts and one that is not necessarily fair. The facts are that England won most of their matches, they played the home internationals and a lot of friendlies year in year out and they won the majority of the games, if they lost it was not a hammering. Since WW2 (when everyone had a bit of insularity) off the top of my head they had played 57 times before the first of 2 beatings by the hungarians in 1953, of those they had won 37 and lost 8, playing the likes of Switzerland, Portugal (10- 0 win), Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Norway, France, Argentina etc in friendlies outside of the world cup. It wasnt insularity that Hungary broke it was a bit of invincibility.. before 1953 they had already played, and lost to the USA, in the world cup, they had been playing 3-4 international friendlies a season outside of the home nations championships and before the first world war they were doing it too. They had rejoined FIFA and taken part in the 1950 world cup any insularity that the FA had was already gone, hence actually playing Hungary in the first place. People use the fact we were not in the first 2 world cups as insularity of the FA yet the reasons for missing the first world cup are complicated (though arrogance is a part). European teams were finding it difficult to travel logistically, and because players would need to be away from domestic leagues for 3 months during the season. By february 1929 no teams from Europe had entered and invites were re-sent and by November 1929 there were still no European teams down to participate. England were very much not alone in not wanting to go down from Europe to play, it was only the fact Jules Rimet put pressure on that got 4 teams to go, England were not part of FiFA at the time and pressure was difficult to apply. England were not insular, or at least no more so than anyone else in Europe, they were just practical (lets not forgot what was happening in Europe at this time and what had happened in the previous 10-15 years, socio economic considerations have to be thought of). 1934 we did not participate because it was a FIFA tournament and we were not members of FIFA. The FA also believed that the other nations were not strong enough for it to be a world cup so declined their special invitation (again superiority not insularity) they felt the home nations was more of a world cup (Rugby League Tri Nations vs World cup argument too). In the preceding years England had only ever lost to France in 1931 and Spain in 1929 outside of the home nations (and they were playing international friendlies at the time) so although hugely arrogant (not a rarity in English culture at the time) it was based on some truth. There is also an argument around the fact it was very much a propaganda tool for Mussolini and there is a debate around whether pressure was put on the FA (this has never been backed up by facts AFAIK but I believe it is the same debate as whether GB should have gone to the 1936 olympics and IMHO is more about 20:20 hindsight than anything else). I don't believe the description of insular is fair, they felt superior. They still played the other nations they just beat them. To say they didn't help the international game is debatable, they certainly played a large number of internationals for the time and against more than just the home nations. To say the game against hungary made the English embrace the world outside the island is also missing the fact that the Second president of FIFA (the first was only there for 2 years) was an Englishman (Daniel Burley Woolfall) who helped organise the first major international tournament (the 1908 olympic tournament) and also drafted both the FIFA constitution and helped to push the "english laws" to be taken on around the world. He also brought in members from South America and the USA into the fold. The first world war interrupted the world of Woolfall who then died in office in 1918. Rimet arguably was simply continuing on the work started by the Englishman, leading (again arguably) inevitably towards a world cup. The FA made stands later about post WW1 central powers being in FIFA and then about Broken Time Payments but they embraced the game outside the island but they took stands too against what they did not like (rightly or wrongly) I know this is a long post and i apologise but the point of it is to show that there are different interpretations of each event but more so that each event cannot be taken in isolation from other events around and a conclusion be drawn from other things must be taken into account and other previous events must be looked at to form a round picture... but it also highlights what i have said all along, which is that you are IMHO being too simplistic and an internet message board is not the place to debate this complicated subject, to a point you are right in what you say but to discount those with counter arguments is wrong because they are also right and the truth is, as always, somewhere in between. lets move on as this is about Rugby League and its about how people view us, its not about who developed football around the world.. if you really want to learn i suggest you read more than simply Tony Collins (though his books are very good.. i recommend "blood, sweat and beers" its a great read, not about this though.) as it is a fascinating topic.

i know its been ridiculously quiet and with no promotion but...you do know GB are touring at the end of the year dont you?

To quote 4 paragraphs leaves out all the pages and pages before and the pages and pages afterwards of information about who is doing what and where. Tony Collins would not simply quote a small section and use it as proof of an entire argument, entire books are written on single arguments with pages and pages of references at the end and even then if it is about "who did what and why and what influence it had" it is still down to opinion of the author... seriously.. I agree with part of what you are saying but with all due respect you are selectively quoting to make a point that doesn't need making nor is 100% correct. no one is laughing at Tony Collins but even he may be slightly miffed at the way you are representing this entire debate. Your example of "germany invaded Poland" as a fact that is irrefutable is true.. however, with this discussion that is likening it to "Brazil started playing football in xxxx" but what is being debated is more a kin to "who caused Germany to invade Poland and why" and for that you can go back to the 1840s and the beginnings of the unification of Germany for what leads to the likes of Hitler gaining power and before that why Wilhelm lost power, which social class or section of society may be to blame and so on and so forth. It is not as simple as quoting one person as fact nor is it as simple as selectively quoting to prove your point... as i have said before it is very very complicated and long winded and to try and get it down to an internet message board is pointless and fruitless and no one will agree... time to move on.

agreed...

equally, as someone who has done some research with Tony Collins and has a history degree (with sport & culture as a major topic and dissertation), its a hell of a lot more complicated than a 10 minute podcast (all of which are fantastic and well worth listening to) and an internet forum to discuss it... his podcasts are supposed to stir interest to go onto his website and to buy books and read up.. not as the defacto position FWIW you are both right to an extent.. but it is complicated with a lot of "buts" and "a bit here, a bit theres" There is growth in areas and growth in other areas done in different ways by different people.. codification of expansion versus actual expansion.. and so on and so forth.

netball too... sky and their super league have done wonders for their game in terms of money in, professionalising and the viewing of it.

I agree, and said earlier, you should easily have England v France I also have no issue with an England v "Celtic nations" either. There are super league players qualifying for the celtic nations some of which will expect to have a shot at GB.. Lauchlin Coote, Regan Grace, Morgan Knowles, Ben Flower, Michael McIllorum etc and to help raise publicity for the GB tour surely both could be done too England V France in France, England V Celtic nations in the UK (not Leigh) .. IMO its not about a benefit to "England" as such but a benefit to the game to be playing internationals and to have people know about them it helps the game grow if there is more of an international presence.

we need competitive matches.. not having them makes it more competitive. it also allows us to see the strength in depth of the england team.. I also dont see it being a massive issue selling the international without them either to be honest.. we see precious little international RL so anyone seriously having an issue needs to have a think on.. its how you rebuild the international scene in Europe and its International matches.. a few years and stronger "other nations" and then bring them back to play.