Damien

You can have both, it's no different than clubs like Wigan.

I'd say he is in a strong position to make the role right for him with the autonomy that he needs.

He says the right things anyway. Good luck to him.

Fair points.

I think the Cricket comparisons are really poor. If I'm a Cricket fan in Wigan of course I'll follow Lancashire as its the cricket team that represents me and is the professional tier of competition. If I want to watch Cricket at the best domestic level it's Lancashire. In RL its far from the same. The equivalent of Lancashire for me is Wigan, we are not a profesional game based on counties or provinces. It's a club game. A Lancashire v Yorkshire game is just another match that is a worse standard than Wigan v various SL teams and will be far worse than dozens of SL games. Sure I'll watch it on TV, as I will pretty much watch any RL, but there is absolutely nothing about that game that would make me bothered about watching it live.

I think at underage level this stuff works fine generally as it is, certainly from a Lancashire and Yorkshire perspective. It gives young players a representative game at a higher level of competition and considerations like crowds and selling the game to the wider public do not matter. That does not mean it works at professional level or serves any purpose.

To what purpose? If the argument for Lancashire v Yorkshire is a higher tier of competition then something like this certainly isn't that. It would be mediocre, Championship level stuff at best and all rather pointless.

I never get that impression from listening to him speak, always seems articulate enough to me. Phil Clarke also went to University so is certainly educated.

I think it would depend on what is on offer and what changes are happening at Hull FC. Taking over a cashed up Hull FC would be an attractive gig for any coach, particularly when they've hit rock bottom and the only way is up. You'd imagine there'd be plenty of time and scope to make the necessary changes too. A bigger version of Salford with the same financial constraints less so.

France certainly can choose to be better than they are. Catalans players don't have to drop out with 'injuries', they don't need to schedule a France game on the same day as a Toulouse one, they can work much harder to develop and expand the game in France and their players pool etc. There is heaps France can do to improve themselves. Yes sure they still probably won't be good enough in the foreseeable future but it's plainly false to say there is nothing they can do. Sure Lancashire and Yorkshire players can choose to bother not trying. However there is ample evidence, going back to the first one of these games I watched in the 1980's, to say they won't.

I know what France is like, no one is sugarcoating that. The trouble for you is I also remember what low quality the Lancashire v Yorkshire matches were like.

I haven't misrepresented anything, so don't make things up, and I didnt even mention France v England. I fully acknowledge the flaws with that fixture and have long pointed them out on here and how it can be improved. I am merely pointing out the double standards of all these Lancashire v Yorkshire arguments and almost every criticism of England v France also applies to any county game. Those arguing for Yorkshire v Lancashire keep choosing to ignore that though.

So one England team is close to reserve international standard but splitting that in two is somehow a higher standard. Gotcha, that makes complete sense.

Your words were as follows. You either stand by them or you don't. If you don't and wish to apply double standards then that's fine:

The argument that it is slightly better than a poorly done England v France, which is what the people arguing for it keep reverting to in one form or another to justify it, is a really, really poor one. That shouldn't be the measure of success and certainly is no reason to bring it back.