Replacing this year’s series with Australia?

[Hela Wigmen]

9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

 Mr Wane and his seconds would still be selecting all the player's involved in the game.

That’s a glorified opposed training session, no?

If you’re going down that route, it’s surely better for the integrity of the match itself to have the “Probables“ coached by someone independent, who doesn’t know the plays and lines players are being trained in for England. I don’t know if he has anything to do with the full team but Paul Anderson is the England Knights coach and I’d happily see him coach the “Probables” if he’s independent. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Hela Wigmen said:

That’s a glorified opposed training session, no?

No not really, how would you perform if a National jumper was at stake?

 

[Hela Wigmen]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

No not really, how would you perform if a National jumper was at stake?

 

If it’s coached by the same people who do the national side, it largely is a glorified training session. An independent coach is going to work harder to beat the national side, IMO, than one of Wane’s assistants. 

[Pickford]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

A real test in name only, either wouldn't be much better than an opposed training run for England, they would be good mind for Wales or France but that is not the point of the excersize. 

But it should be one of the points. To raise the standards of two national sides that could give England future competitive games. 

Wales were due to play Spain this year. A game Wales should win comfortably. Should Wales not bother because only Spain would benefit from such a match? 

I don't understand the 'what's the point in playing them' attitude towards England's opponents. Why is seeing England play, maybe seeing young players making their debuts, trying new combinations and tactics, seeing how players interact in camp, creating future rivalries seen as negatives. Because England should win? What a terrible thing to happen. 

If the Exiles or Rest of the World return v England then great. Any chance to see England play is a positive, but there should be room, and not just this year because of the circumstances, for Tests v Wales and France. And why not have the Exiles play them aswell. It's seems strange to create a team only for the benefit of another.

The Southern Hemisphere sides are close to getting to the point where they can play amongst themselves. Where would that leave England? France have plenty of SL players to pick from. Wales have a decent side and have focused on youth development rather than heritage. A game v England could see further development. Which Welsh player doesn't want a crack at England? 

First post, go easy, I've seen what you lot are like

[Gerrumonside ref]

1 minute ago, Pickford said:

But it should be one of the points. To raise the standards of two national sides that could give England future competitive games. 

Wales were due to play Spain this year. A game Wales should win comfortably. Should Wales not bother because only Spain would benefit from such a match? 

I don't understand the 'what's the point in playing them' attitude towards England's opponents. Why is seeing England play, maybe seeing young players making their debuts, trying new combinations and tactics, seeing how players interact in camp, creating future rivalries seen as negatives. Because England should win? What a terrible thing to happen. 

If the Exiles or Rest of the World return v England then great. Any chance to see England play is a positive, but there should be room, and not just this year because of the circumstances, for Tests v Wales and France. And why not have the Exiles play them aswell. It's seems strange to create a team only for the benefit of another.

The Southern Hemisphere sides are close to getting to the point where they can play amongst themselves. Where would that leave England? France have plenty of SL players to pick from. Wales have a decent side and have focused on youth development rather than heritage. A game v England could see further development. Which Welsh player doesn't want a crack at England? 

First post, go easy, I've seen what you lot are like

Welcome - I think you make a lot of good points.

It’s going to be hard to balance what’s good for the northern hemisphere game in the long run versus what’s good for England’s World Cup preparation in the short term?

 

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, Pickford said:

But it should be one of the points. To raise the standards of two national sides that could give England future competitive games. 

Wales were due to play Spain this year. A game Wales should win comfortably. Should Wales not bother because only Spain would benefit from such a match? 

I don't understand the 'what's the point in playing them' attitude towards England's opponents. Why is seeing England play, maybe seeing young players making their debuts, trying new combinations and tactics, seeing how players interact in camp, creating future rivalries seen as negatives. Because England should win? What a terrible thing to happen. 

If the Exiles or Rest of the World return v England then great. Any chance to see England play is a positive, but there should be room, and not just this year because of the circumstances, for Tests v Wales and France. And why not have the Exiles play them aswell. It's seems strange to create a team only for the benefit of another.

The Southern Hemisphere sides are close to getting to the point where they can play amongst themselves. Where would that leave England? France have plenty of SL players to pick from. Wales have a decent side and have focused on youth development rather than heritage. A game v England could see further development. Which Welsh player doesn't want a crack at England? 

First post, go easy, I've seen what you lot are like

Welcome

I agree the aversion to playing anyone but Australia and New Zealand is silly. Its also endemic in the game.

We should be aiming to guarantee England 6 games a year at least - that we don't is an example of how tunnel visioned our administrators are/have been with the unwavering focus on Australia and what scraps they leave us (1 off Pacific tests etc.). We have teams on our doorsteps and countries that need our help and frankly with the rise of the Pacific game we need to help them improve.

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If you want to grow the international game outside of england, england need to make the first move and make the commitment. 

It needs a long term commitment and plan to play, to get players playing, to keep players playing.

RL is stuck in thinking that other nations exist to prepare England for Australia. So england dont care about the games and the other nations dont care about the games.against england. Fans don't bother watching, players dont bother playing. 

What we do with the wider international game is a different question to this because the reason this game/series will exist is to prepare England. Exactly the problem that needs to be avoided. 

No nation should play England as Englands development tool. We need to see them as more than that, they need to see themselves as more than that.

East v West series, test twice the players. If nobody watches it doesnt matter.

Then put in place a nations league/magic weekend series every year, mid season for NH nations and institute.salary cap dispensations (or preferably a points system with lower points) for internationals for the developing nations to encourage players to play for and stay playing for them

Thats all well and good, I agree with a lot of it.

I think for long term success there needs to be a realisation that the best teams have the most professional players. Improving the player pools at the top level is essential.

NZ are a top rate nation because the Warriors aren't the only team with Kiwi juniors - same for Samoa, Fiji, Tonga etc. The number of Super League level French players not at Catalans can be counted on 1 hand. It will be only slightly better for the Welsh off the top of my head.

Salary Cap dispensations should be in place for Non-English northern hemisphere players at Super League squads and an attractive international calendar, ie, one that includes games against England, needs to instituted.

[Pickford]

57 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Welcome

I agree the aversion to playing anyone but Australia and New Zealand is silly. Its also endemic in the game.

We should be aiming to guarantee England 6 games a year at least - that we don't is an example of how tunnel visioned our administrators are/have been with the unwavering focus on Australia and what scraps they leave us (1 off Pacific tests etc.). We have teams on our doorsteps and countries that need our help and frankly with the rise of the Pacific game we need to help them improve.

I agree. Playing 6 games would be ideal. As an example, this year could've had the match v Exiles, tests v France and Wales, and then the Ashes series. Could room be made in the domestic season? Probably, but that's another discussion. 

England can't continue relying on whether Australia or New Zealand fancy it. Games v New Zealand in recent years have been overkill. 

Could England not aiding development in the NH actually damage England long term and leave them isolated ? Like you say with the rise of the Pacific teams, England's preferred opponents Australia and New Zealand don't need too look far for a game. 

It's frustrating when you can see the potential, even taking into account the time it might take, but the will to do it just isn't there. 

 

[17 stone giant]

32 minutes ago, Pickford said:

It's frustrating when you can see the potential, even taking into account the time it might take, but the will to do it just isn't there.

Who do you think could do it, if they had the will? And why do you think they don't have the will to do it?

[Pickford]

4 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

Who do you think could do it, if they had the will? And why do you think they don't have the will to do it?

Who do you think could do it, if they had the will?

To develop the international game in the Northern Hemisphere, England. 

And why do you think they don't have the will to do it?

Because, outside of World Cups England only want to play 2 teams. Neither of which are in the Northern Hemisphere. 

[Tommygilf]

37 minutes ago, Pickford said:

I agree. Playing 6 games would be ideal. As an example, this year could've had the match v Exiles, tests v France and Wales, and then the Ashes series. Could room be made in the domestic season? Probably, but that's another discussion. 

England can't continue relying on whether Australia or New Zealand fancy it. Games v New Zealand in recent years have been overkill. 

Could England not aiding development in the NH actually damage England long term and leave them isolated ? Like you say with the rise of the Pacific teams, England's preferred opponents Australia and New Zealand don't need too look far for a game. 

It's frustrating when you can see the potential, even taking into account the time it might take, but the will to do it just isn't there. 

 

Yeah I think we in England need to buck our ideas up because we've seen quite vividly and in perhaps cruelly stark terms how the Pacific can drop us and still be have very competitive international RL this year. The Aussies also did it the year before meaning the GB tour was bunged into an Oceania Cup.

I think mid season is ideal for a couple of internationals plus maybe even a game before the SL season kicks off. If we drop loop fixtures that gives us 6 weeks to play with too.

End of season can vary between Northern and Southern Hemispheres with tours/cups/4 nations etc. So over 4 years it could be:

Y1: pre/Mid season European/Pacific opposition, post season World Cup

Y2: pre/Mid season European/Pacific opposition, post season tours

Y3: pre/mid season European/Pacific opposition, post season tournament (4 Nations, 8 nations, Euros/Oceania cup)

Y4: pre/Mid season European/Pacific opposition, post season tours

Back to Year 1 again.

We do have a barebones version of this, but its barebones at best and still doesn't account for getting England to play anyone in the Northern Hemisphere.

We're acting a bit like football was in the 50s before the Mighty Magyars beat England in 1956. We think we're too good for most opposition and have a god given right for the Australians to play us.

[Harry Stottle]

This thread if I am not mistaken was for suggestions that minus playing the Aussies what would be our best preparation for the WC, like many threads it has taken on a somewhat different direction in what should be done to assist other nations to develop their game. 

All very well, but that is not what England needs at this moment in time, the player's are not going to improve by playing against any opposition who is not going to challenge them with the required intensity, playing France, Scotland, Wales or Ireland is not going to provide that.

The biggest criticism of our game in comparrison to the NRL competition is that it is a long way of the week after week intensity and effort that the NRL player's are subjected to continously, and anyone who has been watching the NRL for the past couple of weeks cannot miss that the game is so much faster than SL. Playing against opponents/teams who are inferior to England is not what we need in the build up to the WC what will we learn by putting 50 or 60 points if not more on the board, I would suggest zilch all, the only two options are a select team of England non-qualifying resident SL players, or those who are in contention of selection for England playing a no holds barred game. 

On going England should concentrate on playing Southern Hemisphere teams annually and put the Knights in regular contention against France, Scotland Wales and Ireland, if we find that the Knights ars not good enough - though I very much doubt that will be the case - then promote those nations who can beat the Knights to play the full England team. 

[Pickford]

25 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Yeah I think we in England need to buck our ideas up because we've seen quite vividly and in perhaps cruelly stark terms how the Pacific can drop us and still be have very competitive international RL this year. The Aussies also did it the year before meaning the GB tour was bunged into an Oceania Cup.

I think mid season is ideal for a couple of internationals plus maybe even a game before the SL season kicks off. If we drop loop fixtures that gives us 6 weeks to play with too.

End of season can vary between Northern and Southern Hemispheres with tours/cups/4 nations etc. So over 4 years it could be:

Y1: pre/Mid season European/Pacific opposition, post season World Cup

Y2: pre/Mid season European/Pacific opposition, post season tours

Y3: pre/mid season European/Pacific opposition, post season tournament (4 Nations, 8 nations, Euros/Oceania cup)

Y4: pre/Mid season European/Pacific opposition, post season tours

Back to Year 1 again.

We do have a barebones version of this, but its barebones at best and still doesn't account for getting England to play anyone in the Northern Hemisphere.

We're acting a bit like football was in the 50s before the Mighty Magyars beat England in 1956. We think we're too good for most opposition and have a god given right for the Australians to play us.

Plenty of options for the international calendar if the needs of all are considered, and not just what Tier One nations fancy doing that year. It needs a strong IRL to get Tier One nations to see the long term benefits of doing what they currently don't want to, which is playing Tier Two nations. 

Anyway, that's me done. The boy wants to watch Star Wars. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Pickford said:

Plenty of options for the international calendar if the needs of all are considered, and not just what Tier One nations fancy doing that year. It needs a strong IRL to get Tier One nations to see the long term benefits of doing what they currently don't want to, which is playing Tier Two nations. 

Anyway, that's me done. The boy wants to watch Star Wars. 

Would you regularly play SL teams against Championship League 1 teams in the hope it would improve them?

[Tommygilf]

41 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

This thread if I am not mistaken was for suggestions that minus playing the Aussies what would be our best preparation for the WC, like many threads it has taken on a somewhat different direction in what should be done to assist other nations to develop their game. 

All very well, but that is not what England needs at this moment in time, the player's are not going to improve by playing against any opposition who is not going to challenge them with the required intensity, playing France, Scotland, Wales or Ireland is not going to provide that.

The biggest criticism of our game in comparrison to the NRL competition is that it is a long way of the week after week intensity and effort that the NRL player's are subjected to continously, and anyone who has been watching the NRL for the past couple of weeks cannot miss that the game is so much faster than SL. Playing against opponents/teams who are inferior to England is not what we need in the build up to the WC what will we learn by putting 50 or 60 points if not more on the board, I would suggest zilch all, the only two options are a select team of England non-qualifying resident SL players, or those who are in contention of selection for England playing a no holds barred game. 

On going England should concentrate on playing Southern Hemisphere teams annually and put the Knights in regular contention against France, Scotland Wales and Ireland, if we find that the Knights ars not good enough - though I very much doubt that will be the case - then promote those nations who can beat the Knights to play the full England team. 

This thread was about solving a problem we've seen twice in two years when the Australians decide they don't want to play us. 

The obvious solution to that is have more teams to play and the way to make that happen is to improve other countries so that we don't feel like we're missing out when not playing those in green and gold.

Preparing England for the World cup is pretty simple, just play together. As long as the opposition is half decent it provides an environment for our players to get to know eachother. They already play at high standards at clubs so their capabilities aren't a huge concern. Our problem seems to be that we drop our players in against Australia and New Zealand after a few training sessions and expect them to be great.

Shaun Wane will want his team to be playing games as a priority first. If that restricts us in options thats because unlike the Ozzies we've not helped the game in our neighbours.

[headtackle]

Go back in time a bit.  Most sports had trials- probables v possibles Ahead of tournaments or test series

3 match series England Probables v England Possibles could be fun

everyone would have to up their game and may help settle a few positional debates

 

[Pickford]

5 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Would you regularly play SL teams against Championship League 1 teams in the hope it would improve them?

Yes, we kind of already do in the challenge cup.

A better comparison would be strong club teams play weaker club teams, within Super League, every week.

No one suggests they shouldn't. Everyone just gets on with it. Sometimes the weaker side causes an upset. Salford last season. And hopefully then that club pushes on and competes with the stronger sides. 

For some reason this isn't applied to the international game. The strong should only play the strong and the rest should know their place. I just don't understand that attitude. The lack of opportunity. Especially if there are potential gains from doing the opposite. Basically, you're not on our level so you're not worthy of our time. 

Should Wigan take that attitude next time they play Hull KR? No of course not, it wouldn't be acceptable. But it's fine for England to take that attitude with France and Wales. 

I should have just voted for Wales! 

[Harry Stottle]

10 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

SH teams are only going to play us post season and arent going to come here every year and we end up where we are now with England not playing for 3 years. 

The best of the NH nations arent going to bother playing the knights so it's pointless putting them in.

Off course SH teams will not interrupt their season and why should they? do you think that Hetherington, Leneghan, McManus etc would allow a break of about a month or so for their best player's to go down under, not a cat in hells chance so whay should they. We being the RFL upset the International applecart back in '95 when we switched the climatic season's we played the game, I said at the time we have mucked up proper international tours for ever more, being a 'proper fan ' I had saved and paid a deposit to secure my place on the Lions '96 tour which as we know was cancelled. So if we have to go down under annually so be it, but we both know that would not be the case, but I don't mind if it is either GB or England that is our representative team, the best team in the coaches opinion will get selected for either.

So why would the best of the NH teams not play the Knights? It can't be that the Knights would be inferior to any other NH team, in fact if the Knights were allowed into the Euro Championships I would wager the Knights would win the tournament - would you take the bet from that they wouldn't?

"Softly, softly catchee monkey" Scotchy playing the Knights for the other NH teams would still be a learning curve a step up and a good addition for those teams to compete against, unless of course you are talking about pride and the fear of losing against a 'second string' team is the reason you consider it 'pointless putting them in'.

 

[Harry Stottle]

12 hours ago, Pickford said:

Yes, we kind of already do in the challenge cup.

A better comparison would be strong club teams play weaker club teams, within Super League, every week.

No one suggests they shouldn't. Everyone just gets on with it. Sometimes the weaker side causes an upset. Salford last season. And hopefully then that club pushes on and competes with the stronger sides. 

For some reason this isn't applied to the international game. The strong should only play the strong and the rest should know their place. I just don't understand that attitude. The lack of opportunity. Especially if there are potential gains from doing the opposite. Basically, you're not on our level so you're not worthy of our time. 

Should Wigan take that attitude next time they play Hull KR? No of course not, it wouldn't be acceptable. But it's fine for England to take that attitude with France and Wales. 

I should have just voted for Wales! 

What a totally lame comparrison that is Pickford, have a think about what happens in the WC or any other multi-team/player competition, the best are seeded simply because it would be pointless to put them all together in the hat, also in our sport it would be  dangerous putting a collective of very good player's against those not so good, in our Challenge cup we have 4 rounds of seeding  and I did say Would you regularly play SLteams against Championship League 1 teams, perhaps my wording was not the best I was eluding to regular contests between L1 and SL clubs.

I can't see how you can measure Wigan v HKR the same as England/GB  v say Scotland or Wales, a L1 club would not get promoted directly into SL missing out the Championship and for that reason that is why I suggest these teams compete against the Knights it is still a step up for them.

[superten]

how about a five nations comp ? England , France , Ireland , Scotland , wales . All play each other once so 5 rounds with one team missing each week . Each round of matches a double header at various heartland grounds . Plenty of people been calling for a five or six nations so why not give it a go and see . week 1 Wales v France , Ireland v Scotland @ Racecourse Wrexham . 2. England v Scotland , France v Ireland @ Headingley Leeds . Week 3 England v Ireland , Wales v Scotland @ Wigan . Week 4 England v France , Wales v Ireland  @ Huddersfield . Week 5 England v Wales , France v Scotland @ Warrington    

[Hela Wigmen]

12 hours ago, Pickford said:

 

Should Wigan take that attitude next time they play Hull KR? No of course not, it wouldn't be acceptable. But it's fine for England to take that attitude with France and Wales. 

 

Wigan and Hull KR are in the same league, that’s not a comparison at all. 

 

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Wigan and Hull KR are in the same league, that’s not a comparison at all. 

 

They are in the same league yes, but he's right to point out that we all know who's going to win a game between them. Just like England v Wales. 

[Gerrumonside ref]

This thread has gone off on a tangent to the wider NH development.

I’m sure that can be discussed elsewhere.

I’d rather keep this focused on what is best for England as a warmup for the World Cup.

[Hela Wigmen]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

They are in the same league yes, but he's right to point out that we all know who's going to win a game between them. Just like England v Wales. 

We don’t know that when Hull KR and Wigan play. While Wigan are likely hot favourites, that doesn’t mean they can’t lose. As proven last year when Wigan played London, Salford, Wakefield, Castleford, Huddersfield and Hull FC and lost, games in which Wigan were likely hot favourites.

As two fully professional sides, it’s nowhere near as clear cut as a fully professional England, made up of at least a handful of NRL players, vs Wales, a side made up of little more than a handful of Super League players and made up of a high percentage of part-time players. 

[Harry Stottle]

11 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They are in the same league yes, but he's right to point out that we all know who's going to win a game between them. Just like England v Wales. 

Grasping at straws now Tommy.