Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Future is League

Dave Woods is on the money.

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Dave T said:

See, I agree with the time and resources, and momentum around England, but they aren't the points I am challenging. Plenty of us have watched GB with only English players and it was never grumbled about.

 Couldn't agree more that we should just be cracking on instead of mucking about!

It's always been a grumble of mine whenever I've watched GB with only English players. It's the exact reason why I was so for the split.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

It's always been a grumble of mine whenever I've watched GB with only English players. It's the exact reason why I was so for the split.

Sometimes you will have Welsh in, sometimes you wont. But the concept of a GB team having only English in isnt an odd concept.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Sometimes you will have Welsh in, sometimes you wont. But the concept of a GB team having only English in isnt an odd concept.

If memory serves, the last few GB teams from 2001 onwards had very few if any other home nations players in there. There wasn't anyone moaning about that at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

The period of 1995-2007 is 12 years.

It's been 12 years since we last split in that basis.

I'd say what was regular has changed.

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. 

Share this post


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

If memory serves, the last few GB teams from 2001 onwards had very few if any other home nations players in there. There wasn't anyone moaning about that at the time.

In 1994 the 2nd Test had only English born players. People weren't clamouring for GB to be scrapped.

Over the years it has often been all English, or one or two Welsh/Scottish/Irish. We could easily have seen Grace and Knowles in that GB team this year.

There were many bad things about GB, I dont think we need to overstate some of them.

Share this post


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

If memory serves, the last few GB teams from 2001 onwards had very few if any other home nations players in there. There wasn't anyone moaning about that at the time.

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jim Prendle said:

Really? We seem very keen to pick them because they are old. Does old make them better players? No, it doesn't.

You can't tell me that Smithies would have done any worse than any of the forwards who have played on this tour.

You mean experienced. All the 'old' players picked on the tour have very good track records internationally. It's much easier to pick someone with experience and a good, recent international performances. Hall, McGilvary, Graham, Hill have been excellent performers for England for a long time, their time is probably up now but they rightfully had the shirts based on performance.

Smithies has been an ok performer for Wigan for 3 months and got beaten up by Mossop and Dudson in his most high pressure game to date where he looked nothing like ready for international football. I'm sure he will be a top level player for many years but sending him on tour to get smashed up by those forward packs could have quite easily set him back rather than helping him develop.


Formerly Alistair Boyd-Meaney

fifty thousand Poouunds from Keighley...weve had im gid."

3736-mipm.gif

MIPM Project Management and Business Solutions "

Discounts available for forum members contact me for details

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tex Evans Thigh said:

You mean experienced. All the 'old' players picked on the tour have very good track records internationally. It's much easier to pick someone with experience and a good, recent international performances. Hall, McGilvary, Graham, Hill have been excellent performers for England for a long time, their time is probably up now but they rightfully had the shirts based on performance.

Smithies has been an ok performer for Wigan for 3 months and got beaten up by Mossop and Dudson in his most high pressure game to date where he looked nothing like ready for international football. I'm sure he will be a top level player for many years but sending him on tour to get smashed up by those forward packs could have quite easily set him back rather than helping him develop.

Sorry mate, but that is absolute garbage.

If you are past it, you are past it. You should not be awarded a place on tour because you have "performed" in the past. You should get a shirt for your ability, form, fitness and suitability for the team, not because you had a decent game 5 years ago.

If we carry on as you suggest, we will always be five years behind as we will spend that time pandering to players who have earned their spot due to past performance. 

There are at least 6 players in that team that should have been nowhere near the squad, and the most laughable bit is Bennett claiming he was being experimental. What is experimental about Graham, Hill, Hall and McGillvary? Nothing.

He should have put some of the young players in. Then he would have a had a ready made excuse for losing every game of the tour. At is stands now he looks like a coach who is as past it as some of his players.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

Sorry mate, but that is absolute garbage.

If you are past it, you are past it. You should not be awarded a place on tour because you have "performed" in the past. You should get a shirt for your ability, form, fitness and suitability for the team, not because you had a decent game 5 years ago.

If we carry on as you suggest, we will always be five years behind as we will spend that time pandering to players who have earned their spot due to past performance. 

There are at least 6 players in that team that should have been nowhere near the squad, and the most laughable bit is Bennett claiming he was being experimental. What is experimental about Graham, Hill, Hall and McGillvary? Nothing.

He should have put some of the young players in. Then he would have a had a ready made excuse for losing every game of the tour. At is stands now he looks like a coach who is as past it as some of his players.

 

 

Can we attribute our downfall to keeping O’Loughlin in then Jim?  Been a very good player but the last 2 years selected on nothing but past history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Sometimes you will have Welsh in, sometimes you wont. But the concept of a GB team having only English in isnt an odd concept.

Agreed, the GB Curling team are all Scottish but everyone supports them at the Olympics. ? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

Sorry mate, but that is absolute garbage.

If you are past it, you are past it. You should not be awarded a place on tour because you have "performed" in the past. You should get a shirt for your ability, form, fitness and suitability for the team, not because you had a decent game 5 years ago.

If we carry on as you suggest, we will always be five years behind as we will spend that time pandering to players who have earned their spot due to past performance. 

There are at least 6 players in that team that should have been nowhere near the squad, and the most laughable bit is Bennett claiming he was being experimental. What is experimental about Graham, Hill, Hall and McGillvary? Nothing.

He should have put some of the young players in. Then he would have a had a ready made excuse for losing every game of the tour. At is stands now he looks like a coach who is as past it as some of his players.

 

 

The same garbage principle that Queensland followed?

Loyalty and consistency aren't bad qualities if the players had good records. Don't confuse this with me thinking Bennett has done a good job or picked the right squad. Hall hasn't played enough this year and someone like Grace or Handley should have been in, because they have played well. Whilst Hill and Graham maybe in decline, I've rarely seen them play badly for England, up until this tour and had no qualms about them being in along with standout performers in SL like Walmsley and Thompson.

I'm against throwing young players in just because they are young and have potential. Newman and Smithies didn't justify an international jersey last season. If you want an international jersey you need to earn it, not have the potential to earn it. I repeat, those players would have likely been set back by going on this tour rather than developing.


Formerly Alistair Boyd-Meaney

fifty thousand Poouunds from Keighley...weve had im gid."

3736-mipm.gif

MIPM Project Management and Business Solutions "

Discounts available for forum members contact me for details

Share this post


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

Chicken and egg...

An analogy which I'd very much agree with....if RL was just starting out in international competition.

As it is, it's something like 119 years and IIRC, ironically enough that first international team was Wales. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lowdesert said:

Can we attribute our downfall to keeping O’Loughlin in then Jim?  Been a very good player but the last 2 years selected on nothing but past history.

If my memory serves me correctly, O'Loughlin started 1 test 7 games ago, and hasn't played since, so I'm not sure that is the best example.

We currently look like Dad's Army.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

An analogy which I'd very much agree with....if RL was just starting out in international competition.

As it is, it's something like 119 years and IIRC, ironically enough that first international team was Wales. 

We haven't had GB for 12 years, and how much have the other home nations developed in that time? In a WC year (or 4N in the case of Scotland) they can pull a competitive team together. Otherwise, they've made next to no on-field progress in that time. 

Top class Welsh, Scots and Irish players aren't going to be making themselves available for those nations unless there's a high profile event for them to play in. The WC one year in four ticks that box. So would a GB Lions series. At present, the other 3 years of the 4 year cycle means the top Welsh, Scottish and Irish eligible players (and I'm including heritage players) will either not make themselves available for those nations, or - worse still - defect to England! So unless there's a GB, they'll never be a need for GB!

Case in point, what odds will you get on Joe Philbin playing for Ireland (playing against whoever they may play against) instead of England (playing in an Ashes series) next year?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I agree with a lot of what you say mate. I just don't think we play enough games as England, Wales, Scotland (and Ireland) to justify it at the moment.

Let’s be honest , there is no Scotland, Ireland and only a tiny bit of Wales; I can’t see that ever changing in a meaningful way

Share this post


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

We haven't had GB for 12 years, and how much have the other home nations developed in that time? In a WC year (or 4N in the case of Scotland) they can pull a competitive team together. Otherwise, they've made next to no on-field progress in that time. 

Top class Welsh, Scots and Irish players aren't going to be making themselves available for those nations unless there's a high profile event for them to play in. The WC one year in four ticks that box. So would a GB Lions series. At present, the other 3 years of the 4 year cycle means the top Welsh, Scottish and Irish eligible players (and I'm including heritage players) will either not make themselves available for those nations, or - worse still - defect to England! So unless there's a GB, they'll never be a need for GB!

Case in point, what odds will you get on Joe Philbin playing for Ireland (playing against whoever they may play against) instead of England (playing in an Ashes series) next year?...

The number of top Irish and Scottish players emerging is directly proportional to the effort put into developing players in those areas, I think the technical term is Jack She!t. 

Joe Philbin is English. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Joe Philbin is English. 

He was Irish in the last WC. But next year he will probably be English because they're playing the big games, so the decision to play as England instead of GB is directly weakening the Irish player pool.

16 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

The number of top Irish and Scottish players emerging is directly proportional to the effort put into developing players in those areas, I think the technical term is Jack She!t. 

But how does this link to the GB Lions issue? Are you saying that we should be investing more time and money into developing those countries? Because I agree 100%. But it doesn't alter the argument about GB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, iangidds said:

Let’s be honest , there is no Scotland, Ireland and only a tiny bit of Wales; I can’t see that ever changing in a meaningful way

Scotland have played England once and were ahead at half time in the past 3 years. Ireland were clamouring for a game against England after they brought together a formidable team for the world cup and England got a full house against them in 2013. Its criminal that we don't play Wales regularly in the same way we don't play France. 

The least we could do is play these nations on our doorstep to help them develop their national awareness. It doesn't have to be the first choice England XIII who would play the Aussies, it could be a bit experimental with different halves etc. This happens in every team sport. Equally we could play our "best" side, purely so that when they do come up against the Antipodeans they don't look like they've never met before till the 2nd half of the 3rd test. 

Whilst you can have arguments over the authenticity of these teams, they can raise them and be fairly competitive and we can help them out by at least playing them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d bin England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales and play as GB from now on. Scotland, Ireland and Wales are redundant, they’re totally pointless. Firstly, the number of genuine Scots, Irish or Welshmen in those three teams is probably no more than about ten and most of those will be from Wales, so why do we persist with these nations and their qualifiers in Police Grounds in front of less than 300 people? 

The number of amateur teams in Irish, Scotland and Wales is minimal. Do they even have amateur clubs in Ireland or Scotland? Most of the amateur clubs from those three countries will be from Wales. 

Looking at the squads of these nations, it’s just English blokes pulling on the shirts of these nations. We’re not going to get anything different without funding in these countries, which there isn’t and likely won’t be going forward, and there’s no amateur clubs, so there’s going to be next to no players coming through anyway.

By binning these wastes of time, Regan Grace can play for GB without being prejudiced against for being Welsh and coming from Port Talbot. It also means that if any club decides they want to convert a RU player and sign one that is from Ireland, Scotland or Wales and they turn out to be good and worthy of selection at International level, they can be picked without then having to play with a load of part-time players at Police Grounds in the middle of nowhere. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

He was Irish in the last WC. But next year he will probably be English because they're playing the big games, so the decision to play as England instead of GB is directly weakening the Irish player pool.

But how does this link to the GB Lions issue? Are you saying that we should be investing more time and money into developing those countries? Because I agree 100%. But it doesn't alter the argument about GB.

That’s ignoring the issue that players should not be allowed to switch between nations, certainly not at the start of their career. (There could be an argument for older players representing developing nations)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

That’s ignoring the issue that players should not be allowed to switch between nations, certainly not at the start of their career. (There could be an argument for older players representing developing nations)

 

Again, that's a separate argument. It doesn't change the fact that focusing purely on England as opposed to GB will likely force players' hands to confirm their eligibility for England in order to avoid missing out on the biggest games. This happened for years with State of Origin and players having to confirm allegiance to Australia in order to get selected.

By dismissing Philbin as English, you're reducing the Irish player pool, and therefore making their national side weaker. If the same standard was applied to Tonga, then the likes of Taumalolo, Fifita, Jennings, Lolohea and probably several others would not be able to play for them either. In terms of competitive top tier nations, we'd be back to just Eng, Aus, and NZ. Is this how you want the international scene to look? How is this developing the home nations?

The argument about developing the home nations is separate to the GB issue. I would imagine a majority of posters on here would be in favour of developing home-grown players in those countries. But the reality is that for those nations to be competitive, they're still going to have to rely on a critical mass of heritage players, because the likelihood of 25 world class home grown players springing up from almost nothing is next to zero. France still can't manage it even with a team in Super League and one in the Championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Scotland have played England once and were ahead at half time in the past 3 years. Ireland were clamouring for a game against England after they brought together a formidable team for the world cup and England got a full house against them in 2013. Its criminal that we don't play Wales regularly in the same way we don't play France. 

The least we could do is play these nations on our doorstep to help them develop their national awareness. It doesn't have to be the first choice England XIII who would play the Aussies, it could be a bit experimental with different halves etc. This happens in every team sport. Equally we could play our "best" side, purely so that when they do come up against the Antipodeans they don't look like they've never met before till the 2nd half of the 3rd test. 

Whilst you can have arguments over the authenticity of these teams, they can raise them and be fairly competitive and we can help them out by at least playing them.

There is no real RL in these countries, there never will be either. There are no pro leagues just a bunch of guys that qualify through parentage; there is next to no supporters because there is no real Rl in these countries for them to follow

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Eddie said:

Agreed, the GB Curling team are all Scottish but everyone supports them at the Olympics. ? 

The olympics is different though, this country only enters as GB, so they can’t realistically enter as Scotland. 
And even then, most people are aware that they are made up entirely of Scottish people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread proves what I've always said...GB damages the England brand

 

2017 England lose a world cup final "by a ankle tap"

2018 England move up to 2nd in the IRL rankings...and we actually start gaining the respect of the Aussie's..finally..

2019 a weak GB team loses all 4 games and now England is a laughing stock again..all the old wounds have reopened,a decade of hard work ###### away..

 

Nice one...

  • Like 1

OLDHAM RLFC

the 8TH most successful team in british RL

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...