17 stone giant

Was hoping for a Utd win, in order to keep Watford firmly routed to the bottom of the table.

You can't volley return a serve in tennis, so unfortunately DD and Tommy have gifted Scotchy the point. Away from the tennis, I think it can only be a good thing for rugby league if the sport is being talked about by politicians/members of the government.

I would assume that he was trying to say that RL in Australia was born/began in Sydney. Perhaps he should have added the "in Australia" bit, but given the audience he is speaking to, I think that part can be assumed. Unless he's genuinely not aware of the history of RL, which I'd find surprising.

I know you're being sarcastic anyway, but I hate that badge and I don't want it on any GB shirt. It's fine on the RU Lions, but not for GB RL.

That would be quite entertaining actually - drivers taking each other out with heat seating red shells and dropping banana peels to make other cars spin round. I think you're on to something there. As for Formula E, I watched a bit of the Saudi Arabia race but I got a bit bored and switched over. It was ok but the track was quite narrow and there wasn't too much overtaking going on. I'd be willing to give it another try though as I do like some motorsport - I've enjoyed the F1 this year. I expect they've got a website for it so I'll have a look and see when and where the other races are,

I don't support a club team in league or union.

Don't talk nonsense. It's only the answer if combined with good marketing.

That's clearly not true, because plenty of people on here have said that they care about GB. As for it being the time to move on, yes, it may well be. But we shouldn't do that without giving it some proper consideration and exploring the different options available.

I want the players to enjoy playing for England/GB and I hope they did enjoy the tour, despite the results. Yes, they're getting paid, but I still appreciate their efforts. They put their bodies on the line so that I can sit on my sofa and enjoy watching the matches. The players will be more disappointed than anyone that things didn't go well on the field. We didn't lose because of a lack of effort or because they didn't care. In sport you lose sometimes. Hopefully they can learn from the mistakes and do better next year against the Aussies.

Exactly. I would suggest that if the Kangaroos had the same circumstances that the All Blacks enjoy, they too would happily play a similar number of matches. It would be a no-brainer to do so, since those matches would be played in front of sell-out crowds in large stadiums. It would make the Kangaroos a fortune, just as it does the All Blacks.

All things considered, I think Australia playing four or five times a year is a good effort from them.

I first watched GB in 1990 (or possibly 1986 - I have a very vague recollection of watching the 86 series) and I didn't have a clue who out of the squad was English or otherwise. Neither did I care. It was Great Britain and so I knew to support them against Australia. It's only since the internet came along that people could easily check where the players were from. I think the argument over all the players being English, ONLY matters if you're trying to replicate the RU British and Irish Lions (which is kind of what they were doing with this recent tour). So, in that sense, by only having GB once every four years, yes I do think it's a bit farcical when you know your squad is basically the same as the England squad. Rather than it being something different and special (like the RU Lions), it becomes a pointless exercise of putting the same group of players in a different shirt for one tour. That, to me, is stupid. However, IF you're playing as GB all the time (or even three out of four years), then I don't think it matters if at any given time all the players are English. Obviously it would be great to have players from Scotland and Wales too (and really it ought to be possible to produce SOME that are the required standard), but if you're selecting the best 13 players from Great Britain, then so what if they happened to all be English? That doesn't matter in other sports. Other GB teams don't always have someone from all four UK nations. And whilst the Olympic Team GB as a whole often/always has competitors from all four nations in the team, in terms of individual events they can often be only from one nation. If you look over the years at the GB 4x100 and 4x400 meter relay teams, I bet you'd find quite a lot that were four Englishmen/women. That didn't stop that relay team running for GB - nobody ever said that's not GB because they're all English. I will happily support either Great Britain or England. I just happen to believe that GB is a better fit for rugby league in terms of the major events such as the Ashes and Four Nations. I wouldn't get rid of the individual teams. As others have said, you can still play England v Wales mid season, and then have GB play Australia in November. Leaving aside the GB kit and logo (which I think are good and would be recognisable if marketed well), there is also the history of GB. I liked hearing Jonathan Davies talking about how playing for GB was special to him. I don't want that history cast aside.

Yes, sorry, to be clear I was meaning that there is a long term precedent for playing at the World Cup as England, Wales, etc. I recognise that we haven't been 'splitting' since 2008 (perhaps even 2000). The last time GB played in a World Cup was 1992 - that's why even if GB was brought back for three out of four years, I think the World Cup maybe should be England still.

I would play as GB in the Four Nations too. The only tournament I'd consider splitting for is the World Cup - mainly because that's what we've done regularly since 1995, so there is a precedent for it.

1990 GB v Aus 1st and 2nd tests were great