Jump to content
Sir Kevin Sinfield

Generational divide Great Britain or England poll

Generational divide Great Britain or England poll  

154 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we play internationals as GB or England?

    • Great Britain I’m aged 40+
      46
    • England I’m aged 40+
      52
    • Great Britain I’m under 40
      20
    • England I’m under 40
      36


Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

What about the eight years when we did have GB and Wales?

I would argue that they were still stronger than they are now. However, alot of Wales's fixtures during that time clashed with GB fixtures, which is ludicrous IMO. For the matches that didn't clash with GB (such as those played in the Summer or during World Cups) they tended to get stronger teams out.

My view on how GB should operate has been entirely consistent - I'd like to see a comprehensive home nations fixture schedule with regular meaningful European internationals every Summer (instead of the sodding loop fixtures) with tournament qualification points at stake. Then every Autumn alternate between an international tournament (e.g. World Cup or the much talked about Continental Cup that never happened) and a GB Lions series. These would hopefully act as a selection carrot to encourage players to make themselves available for the Summer internationals. It would also give the home nations the same or greater number of fixtures that they currently have, but they would be higher profile.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Pretty much yes. Personally I don't see that as a problem. It's the same reason that Tonga have recently become so competitive. These players were able to make themselves eligible for Wales at that time, because they were still able to play for GB in the Autumn and therefore weren't waving goodbye to their international career.

Maybe not their international career but a sizeable chunk of their Welsh one when GB games tended to clash with Welsh ones. 


rldfsignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, deluded pom? said:

Maybe not their international career but a sizeable chunk of their Welsh one when GB games tended to clash with Welsh ones. 

I agree that is stupid, and not how I envisage that GB should be working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I agree that is stupid, and not how I envisage that GB should be working.

You posted your previous response as I was typing mine, hence the repeat question.


rldfsignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 17 stone giant said:

Maybe the RFL have got it right for once.

I'm not convinced to be honest - seems more by chance than by design. Plus I think abandoning virtually all home nations activity in favour of GB is daft and a missed opportunity. I'd love to be watching a Summer European Championships where the likes of Lachlan Coote, Kane Linnett, Michael McIlorum, Louis McCarthy-Scarsbrook, Regan Grace, Ben Flower etc are all representing their respective home nations to put themselves in the shop window by bashing the English in a bid to gain selection for the Autumn GB tour. And I know alot of those names are heritage players, but I don't care!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I'm not convinced to be honest - seems more by chance than by design. Plus I think abandoning virtually all home nations activity in favour of GB is daft and a missed opportunity.

I agree that there should be a better plan, but I was meaning that in the absence of such a plan, just having GB appear every four or five years as a touring side is better than nothing. At least the RFL can sell a few different bits of merchandise and make some more money. It keeps the history alive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 17 stone giant said:

I agree that there should be a better plan, but I was meaning that in the absence of such a plan, just having GB appear every four or five years as a touring side is better than nothing. At least the RFL can sell a few different bits of merchandise and make some more money. It keeps the history alive.

Fair point. Despite what some people on this forum think, I'm a big fan of the history side of it, and was very disappointed when so much history got jettisoned. It's what other sports use so well to help build up the prestige of their events.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

surely it should be a north hemisphere team then we might actually beat Australia more often than we loose to them IN RUGBY LEAGUE!

united we stand divided we loose!

but gb rugby league team is better than playing as England, WALES, SCOTLAND, IRELAND!

Edited by Stevens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stevens said:

surely it should be a north hemisphere team then we might actually beat Australia more often than we loose to them IN RUGBY LEAGUE!

united we stand divided we loose!

but gb rugby league team is better than playing as England, WALES, SCOTLAND, IRELAND!

?

It would still be England under a different name.

And it would be even more of a joke. It's the same reason we don't play as Europe.

The Down Under lot would improve loads by selecting from a huge pool of players. We'd maybe get one French forward, but doubt that even.

  • Like 1

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, roughyedspud said:

You dug up a thread for that??

 

 

Bizarre. But it does highlight most people wanted to play as England not GB even before this tour.

I bet if the poll was re-run now even more people would be in favour of playing as England, GB has been shown to be completely pointless.

Edited by Sir Kevin Sinfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


Toronto Wolfpack Global Ambassador

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 


Four legs good - two legs bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


?

Quote

The dominant ideas in society are always and everywhere the ideas of the ruling class. And always and everywhere they portray us as stupid, untrustworthy with bad motives. Show us respect sir. We gave you everything progressive there is. We gave you democracy. We demand some too.

 
Eddie Demsey RMT
 
Quote

There were 17.4m people who voted to leave the European Union.

"Any attempt to try to cast their vote aside, as if they didn’t mean it or didn’t understand the consequences, whereas everybody else did, is a bit of a slur on the individuals who took the time to vote, many of them for the first time

Ian Lavery - Labour party chair  - 29th March 2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...