Six Nations Oct/Nov 2018

[B rad]

Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France, Lebanon, Italy That sounds fairly competitive to me. Could even put USA and Canada in there instead of Lebanon and Italy. 

[Tommygilf]

8 hours ago, roughyedspud said:

Or or or or..the knights play and everyone stops bleeding whinging?

In the LE article the Irish CEO (who is the one advocating the 6 nations) wants a full English team to play in Dublin. He even makes the point that 'SL clubs will not release players such as Amor to play against England B' and how a proper England team would be a the only one worth selling. This is all in the frame of the wider discussion about the credibility of the international calendar and how clubs often give England internationals more time off than those for other nations.

[Mattrhino]

I have to laugh at RL amnesia. We tried the Knights, just reintroducing something after a few years is not suddenly going to make it work. Just like promotion and relegation in SL it hasn't improved anything the issues why we scrapped it are still there. When are we gonna bring back the exiles and pretend it is a ground breaking new invention and totally ignore that we did it several years ago.

If we give people enough time, market it a little bit and you can still fill a Headingley or Langtree for a England friendly against France, Wales or Ireland

 

[David Shepherd]

Some serious negativity here.

You can't have a 6 nations without including England, where would the fans come from to fill the stadia otherwise?  95% or more of RL fans in the British isles are English. And if you were brave enough to take it round the country, England has by far the largest potential audience.

On the flip side, you can't have a full strength England team because they'll end up scoring 436 for 7 declared.

Don't see the problem with calling a second string England team just plain old "England".

There's huge potential here for the game, meaningful internationals every year are the only way we're going to pick up casual fans outside the heartlands.  The average southerner, Scot, Cornishman etc will not have a clue or even care that it's not the full England team.

And playing Ireland in Dublin is genius.  Who doesn't like a jolly up on the emerald isle? Maybe even have a triple header.  England v Ireland, Scotland v France, Canada v Wales etc to try and drag lots of locals in for a full day of International Rugby League.

Bring it on.

[David Shepherd]

5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Because with a second string England team, you will also end up with a second string Ireland team, a second string wales team and a second string Scotland side and a second string France side and now you have a second string competition and no meaningful internationals.

And you know that for a fact how?

[David Shepherd]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

Its what they have said would happen, it has happened before, and it is the logical conclusion to make.

Can you provide a link to where the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French and Canadian/Italian teams/coaches/officials have said they will field second string teams?

I can't think of a single logical reason why they would do this.

 

[David Shepherd]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

 

Can't see anywhere that the Irish CEO says he will field an under strength team.  He just wants the full England team, which I think initially is a mistake. The series is unlikely to capture the public imagination if England rack up a cricket score every week. Nor is it likely to improve the standard of the other 5 nations.

I'll concede the wider issue of players being released, but again there is no concrete evidence that refusal is guaranteed for the player quoted or any other. It's just a bit of complaining from one bloke.

It just makes a stronger case for a proper international window and refusal to release players should not be an option.  Can you imagine a top RU club refusing to release a player for international duty?

[audois]

56 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Don't see the problem with calling a second string England team just plain old "England"..

In the union game at Lyon the publicity was that the All Blacks would play France twice in November- but just four days after the first.  A  number of players from both sides appeared in both - lads who where replacements in Paris turned out on the Tuesday. The only thing I picked up was that France wouldn't award caps. But all the reports I saw here just refered to 'France v All Blacks' on both occasions. The shirts worn identical in the two Tests. The public accepted it as a bonafide fixture.

[JoneslessBishop]

its either the European Championship or the 6 Nations for most of these teams. So the addition of the Knights can only be an improvement. If it’s a full England team in 1 game as a NZ warm up, even better. The Knights should win it anyway, especially if the full strength team play Ireland, who are the only ones who could probably compete with the Knights.

 

Criticism if reverting to the Knights is maybe valid unless there is better structure to it. A 6 Nations, if held 2018 and 2020, would provide that structure. 2018 Ireland, 2020 France would work for me. Send the top Celts on your as a B team for the GB tour in 2019, with playing in that and the 2021 mandatory to ensure a strong Celtic turnout in the 6 Nations. A mid-season Celtic GB in 2019 as a warm up, selection try out and relaunch of the GB brand. Would be a pretty strong team:

 

Tierney
Russell
Wardle
Evans
Grace
Finn
Sneyd
Amor
McIlorum
Singleton
Ward
LMS
Flower

Mullally
Dudson
White
Knowles

Addy
Kopczak

[BenGilesRL]

Full England side or no England side for me.

Commit to playing it, and it's up to the other sides to field players that want the opportunity to cause an upset.

And vice versa, players that want the opportunity to cause an upset will put their hand up for the other sides.

No good can come from England Knights being involved. If they win it, it shows how bad the other sides were. If someone else wins it, it wasn't England's first team anyway, and the others won't win it, because their best players won't bother playing in it unless it's England's first team.

[nadera78]

Why are Scotland being considered for this? The game doesn't exist north of the border, and the RLIF rules are pretty clear on this.

[deluded pom?]

27 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

Why are Scotland being considered for this? The game doesn't exist north of the border, and the RLIF rules are pretty clear on this.

The rules have been clear for a long time nad but they still let Scotland play in the WC.

[deluded pom?]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

There is a fine line to walk between pushing Scotland to move forward and removing any catalyst for it to happen.

I think its disappointing that there seems to be no movement in Scotland, but international RL is the only thing which is likely to spark it .

The have had two WCs and a 4N and the game has gone backwards. Why should other nations, with far more domestic development than Scotland, continue to lose out? 

[bobbruce]

On 20/11/2017 at 2:39 PM, Man of Kent said:

Not really a reserve side. Wouldn't be the NRL players of course, but young up and coming/fringe English players.

For England v Ireland, you'd hope the likes of Amor and McIlorum would be packing down against, say, Watts and McMeeken.

No because Watts and McMeeken will be with the England squad playing NZ. Plus Amor and Mcllorum are just as likely to play for England A as they are Ireland. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

For the sad practical reason that Scotland can put out a reasonably competitive squad and nobody else can, and we can hope that international RL can be the catalyst for domestic RL

If there are other nations who could put out  a reasonably competitive squad that have more developed domestic competitions that are being kept out because of scotland, lets go for it but ive a feeling there isnt.

It wont be a catalyst for anything though unless there is actually a plan to develop the game in Scotland and resources available to do so.

[Man of Kent]

2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

No because Watts and McMeeken will be with the England squad playing NZ. 

That remains to be seen.

2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Plus Amor and Mcllorum are just as likely to play for England A as they are Ireland. 

No, they stick with Ireland and likely get picked for the Lions

[Bramstein]

15 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

For the sad practical reason that Scotland can put out a reasonably competitive squad and nobody else can, and we can hope that international RL can be the catalyst for domestic RL

If there are other nations who could put out  a reasonably competitive squad that have more developed domestic competitions that are being kept out because of scotland, lets go for it but ive a feeling there isnt.

I'm not sure. I would give games to France and PNG before Scotland enter my thoughts. Both the aforementioned countries produce rugby league players, people actually want to watch the game in these countries in decent numbers (excellent numbers in the case of PNG) and both can put competitive teams out.

I think Australia PM XIII playing PNG every year is a great thing but I'd like us to try and get more games in against PNG when they can get their strongest team on the pitch.

[deluded pom?]

45 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

For the sad practical reason that Scotland can put out a reasonably competitive squad and nobody else can, and we can hope that international RL can be the catalyst for domestic RL

We can hope all we like but it isn't happening. They had a free entry to the WC in 2013 and 2017 plus a 4N in 2016. During that time the game in Scotland has virtually died. It appears international RL hasn't helped to grow the game north of the border one iota.

[JoneslessBishop]

14 hours ago, BenGilesRL said:

Full England side or no England side for me.

Commit to playing it, and it's up to the other sides to field players that want the opportunity to cause an upset.

And vice versa, players that want the opportunity to cause an upset will put their hand up for the other sides.

No good can come from England Knights being involved. If they win it, it shows how bad the other sides were. If someone else wins it, it wasn't England's first team anyway, and the others won't win it, because their best players won't bother playing in it unless it's England's first team.

It’s not about what it looks like, it’s about providing a level of opposition to improve the N Hemisphere nations. There was a separate thread about ‘will there be a plan to improve the Celtic nations’. This is far as the RFLs remit goes to delivering it. Also gives a bigger opportunity for more England players to train in an England environment, with the Knights then heading over to Ireland.

Another  compelling reason why it doesn’t matter what it looks like is that media focus won’t be on the 6 Nations. It will be on England v NZ. But great to show in highlights or on the red button that there is some structure/ depth beneath.

 

England could play a first strength team against Ireland as a warm up, and the NZ tour has been billed as to Europe, not England, so there is a big game for France as well.

 

So it doesn’t need to be full England or nothing. It can be a bit of both, with plenty of benefits.

[deluded pom?]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

That is possibly true, but im pretty confident that not playing international RL isnt going to do any better. As i say, if there is an opportunity cost from keeping Scotland in, im with you lets swap them. But it seems more likely that kicking Scotland out simply results in less international RL. I can't see that as a good thing.

It wouldn't be a good thing but then neither is awarding Scotland a place at the top table when they don't meet the current criteria to the detriment of countries that do meet that criteria. Scottish domestic RL couldn't get much lower with or without the RLIF turning a blind eye and favouring Scotland at major tournaments.

[Spidey]

24 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

It wouldn't be a good thing but then neither is awarding Scotland a place at the top table when they don't meet the current criteria to the detriment of countries that do meet that criteria. Scottish domestic RL couldn't get much lower with or without the RLIF turning a blind eye and favouring Scotland at major tournaments.

Scotland qualified for past tournaments when they did fulfill criteria. Whether they do for the future is open for debate. As they didn’t make QF this time around they have to qualify for 2021, if they don’t fulfil RLIF criteria they may not be allowed to compete in the qualifiers

[deluded pom?]

Just now, Spidey said:

Scotland qualified for past tournaments when they did fulfill criteria. Whether they do for the future is open for debate. As they didn’t make QF this time around they have to qualify for 2021, if they don’t fulfil RLIF criteria they may not be allowed to compete in the qualifiers

They haven't fulfilled RLIF criteria for several years but are still allowed to compete in RLIF events against the RLIF's own rules.

[Spidey]

Just now, deluded pom? said:

They haven't fulfilled RLIF criteria for several years but are still allowed to compete in RLIF events against the RLIF's own rules.

The qualification process was prior to that though. It’ll catch up with them in the next lot 

[damp squib]

54 minutes ago, Spidey said:

The qualification process was prior to that though. It’ll catch up with them in the next lot 

At the time they qualified for the 4 Nations they didn't meet the criteria.

I can accept the argument that Scotland are a necessary presence in the World Cup - as much as I love Serbia their result at Wales showed they're not at that level yet - but they should never have been allowed to compete in the 4 Nations. It was a shameful waste of the only available place in a competition that could have had a real impact in France. Instead everybody wet themselves over a draw with NZ that didn't even get a line in the paper in Scotland (I live in Scotland).

In this instance I will happily say "I told you so" (not you specifically Spidey) because I pointed this out at the time and was shouted down by the the head in the sand, "every criticism is moaning" crowd (the forum's other, less well known, cliche).

[deluded pom?]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

But thats the point im making. Is it to the detriment of the countries being left out. Can any of them realistically put a squad together anywhere close to Scotlands. If they can, brilliant we go with them, if they can't theres no downside to Scotland.

If its a choice between Scotland and a similar squad from a nation with a more developed domestic scene, im with you. Bring em on in.

If its a choice between Scotland and less international RL. We go with Scotland

So what's the incentive to develop the sport domestically when you can simply scour the top competitions in the world for heritage players?