Jump to content

Fuzzy

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Fuzzy


  1. No opportunity it's to say both

    i believe we should have England for WC every four years and a four nations Four years

    the years between are full series and tours playing as GB

    when we tour as GB the England knights or u23s play a European championship against the home nations plus France 

    so

    year one- World Cup as England etc

    year two - Aussie tour as GB with European championship for England knights Andy other home nations 

    year three - four nations as England etc

    year four - NZ tour UK - repeat European championship 

    Repeat  


  2. 15 hours ago, DC77 said:

    It’s more a rugby league issue as GB RL team to all intents and purposes are England, so naturally the two are viewed as interchangeable. Even when there was the odd Welsh or Scottish RU convert playing for GB (Davies, Tait) they were still playing a predominantly English sport. The Lions in RU have a much more UK/Ireland wide identity, so it’s much harder to make that same mistake of not differentiating between the two.

    True, we often used to joke about this years ago, but for me the GB shirt is iconic, it means a lot to the players and is a genuine opportunity for those eligible for Wales, Ireland and Scotland to play at the top level in a GB shirt, leaving them to also represent their home nation

    The tour wasn't great but that's nothing to do with the shirt we played in, it would have been the same had we played as England 

    this seemingly contempt for GB by Bennet is ridiculous and this mindset harms the GB concept

    this hasn't done untold damage I find those thoughts extreem, sadly the awareness for international game isn't as high as the club game

    four nations doesn't allow full series or world cups

    playing as a home nations or European comp as England wouldn't be competitive enough and the clubs and players who play SL wouldn't be engaged 

     


  3. 10 hours ago, yipyee said:

    I think it's not having an impartial ref that was the issue.

    Clearly events leading up to the final effected the impartiality of the ref and he shouldn't have been put into the position of the final.

    This is the RFLs error and they should apologise 

    It didn't clearly affect his impartiality, that's only your assumption based purely on an error by the ref. The RFL shouldn't apologise for your or anyone else's assumptions, what if s different fan, such as me thinks he was impartial and just made an error? 

     

    Why didnt the club complain before the game is the bigger question, they only mentioned it after they lost


  4. Some really good discussion on the development of players in the home nations, and the commendable work that goes on

    in terms of the OP, its apparent some value and like the GB brand and concept and some dont

    i very much do, I believe it's the pinnacle for our players and is iconic, historic and recognisable. I understand others don't have the same affiliation as I do, no end of posts will change either view 


  5. 51 minutes ago, Shaggy said:

    Negativity from whom?

    Not respected by whom?

    Which people wanted three tests?

    Well obviously I don't know the by name, but all the same sources you see people saying it should come back

    if it's as popular as you say, are you seriously suggesting the powers thought, hang on this is excellent and everyone likes it, let's drop it? What's their motivation for removing something if it was liked, successful and respected ? 

    Im not saying I didn't like it, just that many sources said it wasn't working 


  6. 3 hours ago, yipyee said:

    The wrongdoing of not going to video ref

    The wrongdoing of not admitting the mistake

    The wrongdoing of the RFL in backing the ref that made the error

    A public apology by the ref and the RFL would have took control of the situation. Instead McManus said what he did to his own fans in a closed public platform

    Yes he didn't go to the screen and he should have

    players dropped the ball and shouldn't have

    Wrong doing of McManus backing his players when he should have brought them out in public to apologise for their wrongdoing

    fact is, refs shouldn't be publically humiliated, just like anyone in employment. It may make fans feel better who are calling for blood over a ref errro, but human dignity determines that  any discussions are done in private. People mistake the lack of public humiliation with nothing happening, that's entirely their assumption based solely on suspicion

    we struggle for officials as it is, don't make their job harder than it already is

    players make errors, I don't what be them being humiliated either

    the ref messed up in the 4th minute of a game, it didn't lose saints the game, lose with dignity

     

     

     

    • Thanks 1

  7. 1 hour ago, yipyee said:

    So why doesn't the RFL and Hicks all sit down and Hicks can explain his decisions in a full and transparent manor.

    McManus as you say was outspoken but if he was given a voice internally and the ref and RFL admitted their wrongdoing and compensated for their error then I am sure he wouldn't have felt the need to do what he did and in some opinion gain a fair crack with the SL final officiating.

    Refs always make mistakes, should this explanation be required after every game?

    what explanation is expected? I didn't think he got it down so didn't go to the screen. It would take 10 seconds 


  8. 2 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

    Unfortunately I agree. But the short-sightedness of the clubs needs to be challenged in the long term interests of the sport.

    Firstly, I do not think it would be as one-sided as people think. Especially over time. Secondly, while RL fans may not be keen, it is the countless numbers of the wider viewing public that this would need to attract. I had workmates who had little interest in RL who went to Coventry and loved watching England play Scotland. It was competitive, and they thoroughly enjoyed themselves. They were far less interested in the more closely matched Australia v NZ game that followed, purely because it wasn't England. It is these types of people that are out there waiting to be converted to our sport. They won't be the least bit bothered about England winning comfortably all the time - they'll enjoy it. And the other home nations all love an opportunity to knock England off their perch. This is the same in any sport.

    Do you mean the one with the full England side and Wales? Jettisoned after one season.

    From memory it  included France but not England and ran for a few seasons 

    id support this of it will included Welsh players rather than filled with English, the standard would Ben less at Dorset but its developing Welsh players rather than the English SL players in a different shirt  


  9. 2 hours ago, Johnoco said:

    Eh? You just suggested that very thing as the Welsh were only interested in RU. 

    It's quite simple,99% of rugby fans in Wales follow RU, some will have a passing interest in league.

    If we are referring to players,then 100% of Welsh rugby league players will, I suspect aspire to play for Wales and GB. It's just that the pool will be small, so the point stands you won't grow this small pool if you remove the pathways. 


  10. Just now, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

    This is why there has to be a significant tournament at the end of the season for players to want to be a part of, so that they put their hands up for selection in the Summer. If players want to be part of a World Cup or GB series that Autumn, then they'll need to put themselves in the frame by playing in the Summer.

    The clubs issue is a bigger sticking point, which is why it would need strong, persuasive leadership, and also excellent organisation to get all the ducks in a row. It's for this reason why I think it unfortunately won't happen.

    I just don't see it being supported. If it's not competitive then it wouldn't gain respect or interest.

    there was a Euro comp with France, I really enjoyed this comp, what happened to it?


  11. 26 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

    I won’t quote all the responses but the long and short of it is, you either work at something and bear with it until it bears fruit. Or you don’t.

    Wales etc having no games is part of the problem. The answer isn’t to say ‘they don’t have enough meaningful games, let’s pretend they are playing for GB’. It’s to actually develop those players OR just admit your team is comprised solely of English players and call it England. 

    Or have both? Wales playing regular against similar teams at their level, using the opportunity to gain a slot in the GB team at a higher level, I don't think a GB team stops development in Wales, just enhances it 

    • Like 2

  12. 1 hour ago, Johnoco said:

    So you develop those countries instead of constantly just having bogus GB squads. Getting to the stage where a competitive Wales team could play involves long term planning though, something RL just can’t be arsed with. 

    They have tried and continue to try but the Welsh prefer RU. We only got Welsh into GB because we were professional and they weren't. So we can blame RFL or anyone we care to point a finger at but RL in Wales is very small and will always be. Yes we can improve the standard of that small percentage but not to a level that will consistently challenge England. If the RFL invested half their available budget there would soon be people complaining they are wasting money.

    so it's nothing to do with not being arsed, it needs to be achievable and within budget

    i feel this wish of a consistently competitive Welsh RL team is well meaning but not likely in the grand scheme of things. Competitive at their level against similar nations yes but not the big four 


  13. 1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

    It has to be the full England side, otherwise it won't have a sufficiently high profile, and consequently broadcasters, players and spectators won't buy in to it, and it'll die on its backside straight away.

    England winning every year honestly isn't a problem - the wider public do not care one jot. It's only rugby league fans who care about that, and we need to use this tournament to broaden our spectator base.

    Moreover, I think it would make these other nations more competitive over time, and I'm not sure that it would be as one-sided as people think. Case in point, look how Tonga have shaken things up in the past 3 years. Would anyone have predicted that 4 years ago?

    Tonga story is brilliant 

    i don't think you would get a full England team, clubs would be against it and little motivation for players 


  14. 7 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

    It didn’t ‘harm the brand’ because it contained non English players and therefore was genuinely comprised of British players. All English players means it’s England. You seem to think people are going to have historical knowledge of the GBRL story, rather than just looking at it and thinking ‘how is that GB’? 

    As for your chicken and egg example, it’s actually better to do the groundwork and get Welsh and Scottish players involved who can then, primarily, represent Wales or Scotland. This should be the aim, not constantly harking back to the past. 

    How many non English players though? Still predominantly English, the professional game is predominantly English, it's pretty much all England. Other home nations contain mainly English heritage players, it makes no difference when representing GB. The only people who've mentioned it's mainly england are those looking to slag it off, it's GB because it represents all the Great Britain and Ireland.

    nobodys neglecting growth in other nations, but representing GB isn't harking back to the past, its following the proud footsteps of those who have represented the shirt before, from all home nations. I'd say those against a strong brand are holding the national game back by removing aspirations from all home nations, how do you inspire whilst withdrawing opportunity it's to represent GB? 


  15. 10 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

    It really does matter. GB was historically comprised of English,Welsh and the odd Scottish or Irish player. A casual Welsh viewer may have felt affinity if he saw it on Grandstand and Taffy Jones was playing, ditto if Jock McTavish was playing for Scottish viewers (other stereotypical names are available)

    Why would they feel any affinity with 13 English guys? They wouldn’t 

    If, or when, we have non English players knocking on the door of selection, then cool it’s GB again (and the ones we currently do have don’t seem to warrant selection) Until then it is totally pointless deciding that England are suddenly GB. All you’re doing is spreading thin resources even more thinly. 

    It would obviously be better if it had a spread of nationalities. There are a few knocking on the door but yes it's pretty much an English centred sport so naturally there's more English. With the exception of Welsh union converts how many other nationalities have ever played? I suspect very few and this didn't harm the brand and success before 

    the aWelsh schoolboys beat England In RL just the other year, so it's not that there isnt opportunity it has for growth. GB helps those young Welsh players with their aspirations for future potential to play in competitive international at the top grade.

    i have a friend who is Welsh and a big RU follower and casual RL follower. He contacted me about GB lions game but had never mentioned internationals before to my knowledge. So it shows me it does have reach.

    its chicken and egg, if you wait to have lots of home nations playing at a level to consider a GB team then we will never have one in my lifetime, if you create one you've more chance of having those players aim for it.

    i don't see any significant additional cost to touring as GB rather thanEngland so see no disadvantage. 

    GB generates more media coverage, maybe not significant but it's an easier sell and a historic brand many professional players aspire towards

    without doubt GB is a positive historic and recognised brand in a sport with little exposure, we should exploit this opportunity 

    • Like 2

  16. I grew up watching GB and like many others was disappointed when we started playing as england

    it doesn't matter if every player is English, they play to represent GB, in terms of promoting the sport it's an easier sell

    id prefer both, tour as GB, play world cups as home nations

    then its aspirational to aim for the GB shirt and creates more teams representing more home nations in world cups etc.

    i like the idea of a Euro championship but wouldn't send first England team, it wouldn't work mid season and would t work if England won every year, people and players would lose interest, maybe play under 23s

    we all want the international game to be strong, but with Aussie not interested it's difficult to grow or even get a good consistent calendar, maybe tonga have shuck things up a little? 

     

×
×
  • Create New...