Generational divide Great Britain or England poll

[MatthewWoody]

On 09/08/2019 at 17:37, 17 stone giant said:

Maybe the RFL have got it right for once. Maybe having GB tour every four or five years is about right, given the current circumstances. It means that the GB identity is kept alive, and it gives people the chance to buy a bit of GB merchandise and for the RFL to make a bit of cash from it. The rest of the time we play as England, so they can sell that merchandise too.

Quite a few sports run or accommodate both England and Great Britain teams. As more sports get into the Olympics, we're seeing a need for Great Britain teams to be formed - even if only once every four years. Consequently, sports are having to balance when they play as England and when they play as Great Britain. Hockey is a good example of a sport doing this.

Basketball, too.

[Fuzzy]

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  

[Bert1]

I don’t mind the GB Lions. Put it on ice until we have a pro team in Wales and or Ire/Scot and tour every 5 years.

[JohnM]

On 26/07/2019 at 06:15, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

My view is that the older generation want to bring back Great Britain for nostalgia purposes, whereas the younger generation are used to watching and supporting England and that is where their loyalties lie. I’d like to put this theory to the test in this poll. 

More of a hypothesis than a theory. 

[17 stone giant]

Quite an even split really. In my opinion this issue has damaged RL for quite some time. Switching between the two means interrupting the history of both teams. A big part of sport is about stories and memories - past matches etc. - and you lose that when you keep changing identities.

[THE RED ROOSTER]

Reviving this thread is a bit like reviving GB. I was against ditching the GB brand for Test matches - which was done IIRC for Sport England funding. But now It was a mistake to bring it back last year. Times move on and its England now for better or worse.

NB - Well over 40 poster

[17 stone giant]

3 minutes ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

I was against ditching the GB brand for Test matches - which was done IIRC for Sport England funding.

Is that true? I've seen several people make that suggestion - including Tony Smith (ex England coach). Yet I've seen old GB shirts with the Sport England logo on them, so I'm a bit confused. Did Sport England initially fund GB and then change their minds? I would find it disappointing if they did, considering that the GB team always was and is always likely to be overwhelmingly English. To me it would be a bit petty if they refused funding because it was GB and not England.

[Dunbar]

The most depressing part of this thread is that I was in my 40's when it started and now I'm in my 50's!

[jamescolin]

The circumstances should dictate. If it involves just the local nations and foreign players against us living in the UK or France, then England. If it involves overseas opposition from Down Under then GB. I am 86 and have seen both England and GB in my time.  I feel that we should have both depending who we are playing. I recently saw a replay of the Tri Nations involving GB, Australia and New Zealand.  It was far better having a full representation of GB players. So not either or but both.

[Tommygilf]

20 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

Quite an even split really. In my opinion this issue has damaged RL for quite some time. Switching between the two means interrupting the history of both teams. A big part of sport is about stories and memories - past matches etc. - and you lose that when you keep changing identities.

Its not particularly even its 86 vs 62 in favour of England. That supports the view that GB is a substantial minority opinion, but a minority opinion nontheless.

[17 stone giant]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its not particularly even its 86 vs 62 in favour of England. That supports the view that GB is a substantial minority opinion, but a minority opinion nontheless.

58% to 42%. Granted it's not quite Brexit, but I'd say it's the sort of split that makes it harder for the RFL to completely forget about GB.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, 17 stone giant said:

58% to 42%. Granted it's not quite Brexit, but I'd say it's the sort of split that makes it harder for the RFL to completely forget about GB.

Agreed, but if it has to be 1 or the other its a clear enough indicator, especially amongst under 40s. 

[17 stone giant]

11 minutes ago, jamescolin said:

If it involves just the local nations and foreign players against us living in the UK or France, then England. If it involves overseas opposition from Down Under then GB.

So, would it be GB for World Cups, Ashes, Tri Nations?

[Scubby]

Bringing back GB did nothing to add to that brand and  worked to damage England. England will now not have played a high level test match for 3 years leading into the WC. Not exactly a marketing dream.

We can blame Covid all we want, but the ####ing about with a brand - people in 2019 really didn't give a stuff about - set the ball rolling.

 

[DavidM]

Wow 7 months dormant then we all get the chance to make the same points over n over again !

[17 stone giant]

5 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Bringing back GB did nothing to add to that brand and  worked to damage England. England will now not have played a high level test match for 3 years leading into the WC. Not exactly a marketing dream.

We can blame Covid all we want, but the ####ing about with a brand - people in 2019 really didn't give a stuff about - set the ball rolling.

 

Maybe I notice it more because I don't support a club team, but I don't think RL has done well with the international game for the past 25 years - too much chopping and changing. Since the early 90's we've played World Cups as both GB and England, and not always every four years (although they seemed to have sorted that now), the Ashes became irregular and then got dropped after 2003(?), the Tri-Nations came and went. We've even had three different England badges.

I think the four year cycle is a big thing in sport - you see it in football World Cup, Euros, RU world cup, Olympics, etc. It really helps you as a fan to recollect events. For example, I have a good memory of all home cricket Ashes from 1989 to 2009, but in recent years when cricket didn't stick to the four year cycle (I think they were trying to align their competitions) I lost track of things.

Now that RL seem to have sorted the World Cup so that it's every four years (and not 1992, 1995, 2000, 2008, 2013), I hope they can do likewise with the Ashes.

 

[jamescolin]

2 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

So, would it be GB for World Cups, Ashes, Tri Nations?

YES.