Combined Nations to play England again next year & GB to return

[Keith989]

6 hours ago, Big Picture said:

You're incorrect about them beating South Africa in 2019, the Springboks won 26-3 according to Wikipedia.  As you can see here, the 1995 Japanese RU team only included two foreign-born players whereas this list of their players in 2019 includes 12 foreign-born players.  They were playing at home in 2019 as well, that likely helped them too.

Heritage players excepted, that isn't going to happen with Wales or Scotland and other than Regan Grace we'd probably all struggle to name any other Welsh or Scottish born RL players good enough to represent either country.  Until the sport once again has the sort of money to entice top Welsh and Scottish RU players to cross over, unfortunately Wales and Scotland aren't going to give England much of a challenge.

Indeed, Japan beat SA in the 2015 world cup. In the 2019 world cup they beat both Ireland and Scotland and gave a good account of themselves in the QF against SA.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

9 hours ago, Big Picture said:

were there any Scottish players in the game before Alan Tait?

Yes. Quite a few.

9 hours ago, Big Picture said:

you Brits all need to understand that to the Irish Ireland is not a British isle at all.

I'm well aware thank you. It's why I put GB&I in the post you quoted, rather than just GB. 

[Tommygilf]

10 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Maybe they were copying cricket in allowing Welshmen to play for England (were there any Scottish players in the game before Alan Tait?) or maybe as @Tommygilfsays the English arrogantly equated England with Britain back then.

Its not an English thing, most of the world did it. Thinking its English arrogance is a fundamental misreading of history.

[The One]

As a fan it’s hard to get interested in this fixture, but it serves a purpose in giving England players a chance to play together against a strong team.

[Big Picture]

58 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its not an English thing, most of the world did it. Thinking its English arrogance is a fundamental misreading of history.

Do you have some evidence that most of the world did it?  I've only encountered it in RL circles and never seen it anywhere else.

[Tommygilf]

31 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Do you have some evidence that most of the world did it?  I've only encountered it in RL circles and never seen it anywhere else.

See German/French/Russian maps of Europe prior to both world wars and their correspondence during both conflicts.

Great Britain and England are used interchangeably.

[Grand Est]

On 20/10/2021 at 18:22, Ray Cashmere said:

I'm glad there will be another All Stars game next year, I just hope it is part of a longer-term strategy and the RFL will invest their energy in marketing it as it *could* be a very useful tool for growing the game domestically.

 

Could it? In the real world?

[pahars]

8 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I have to mute most of them when the Six Nations rolls round because, frankly, that many updates on exactly how great Wales are and England aren't in a tournament I have no interest in gets very dull very quickly.

So, it's more an observation that they will passionately - genuinely so - support Wales against England in everything else but then have absolutely no issue supporting a team that is called England, acknowledges only the cross of St George and does absolutely nothing to indicate that it is actually meant to be the Welsh national team as well.

I was watching Sri Lanka v England  in Galle about a decade ago sat next to a guy from Swansea with a big Welsh flag who was passionately cheering on England.

I asked him if Wales had a team would he support them and he replied that it wouldn’t give him what he enjoyed.

He loved test cricket and the craic of long tours against the good nations. If Wales had a team they would probably never get test status and even if after many years they did it would be one off tests against the likes of  Zimbabwe. 

[Big Picture]

21 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

See German/French/Russian maps of Europe prior to both world wars and their correspondence during both conflicts.

Great Britain and England are used interchangeably.

Assuming that I can find any of those that's three countries, hardly "most of the world" though.

[Tommygilf]

5 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Assuming that I can find any of those that's three countries, hardly "most of the world" though.

At the time their empires covered over half the world but in any case, ever heard an American say "Queen of England". England and Britain were largely interchangeable.

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

At the time their empires covered over half the world but in any case, ever heard an American say "Queen of England". England and Britain were largely interchangeable.

She is the Queen of England. The title of Queen of Britain doesn’t exist.

[Tommygilf]

27 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

She is the Queen of England. The title of Queen of Britain doesn’t exist.

Quite, but they're not calling her the Queen of Scotland either to clarify.

[Gerrumonside ref]

To slightly get us back on track, I used to be a big believer that GB or GB&I was the way to go and that test matches with Australia were the biggest money-spinners.  I think though John Drake persuaded me otherwise in a post on here in that ultra rare occurrence of ‘man changing his mind on a subject after an internet discussion’ haha.  There’s more potential in developing the separate identities.

There’s a long road ahead with Wales (and an even longer one with Scotland and Ireland), but the future development of France seems within our grasp if we can build upon the success of Catalans and Toulouse while getting some central funding from the French authorities for a RL World Cup in France.

To aid that, I think it shouldn’t be beyond us to plot to have a northern hemisphere tournament series including England, France, Wales and one other.  I would drop the ‘England Knights’ and just run as ‘England’ but accepting that the games will be development games for England fringe or youth players.  I think England does have to be in there for the sake of attracting broadcasters to show the tournament.

I know the purists will be up in arms but when you look at soccer, England do play much weaker teams from time to time but they don’t use a whole new pseudonym to do it they simply take it as an opportunity to try different players.  I believe England RL should do the same.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

34 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

To aid that, I think it shouldn’t be beyond us to plot to have a northern hemisphere tournament series including England, France, Wales and one other.  I would drop the ‘England Knights’ and just run as ‘England’ but accepting that the games will be development games for England fringe or youth players.  I think England does have to be in there for the sake of attracting broadcasters to show the tournament.

I know the purists will be up in arms but when you look at soccer, England do play much weaker teams from time to time but they don’t use a whole new pseudonym to do it they simply take it as an opportunity to try different players.  I believe England RL should do the same.

Exactly. I don't see what the game gained by having 'England Knights' play last week's fixture against Jamaica. Instead, it was just yet another missed opportunity. They would have got far more exposure had they repackaged it as England (even with exactly the same players) - there would have been a good story there with it being England's first ever game against Jamaica. Instead, nobody had the forethought to capitalise on that and make it in to an event, and they've just devalued and undermined the credibility of Jamaica ahead of this weekend's game against Scotland.

[Tommygilf]

21 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Exactly. I don't see what the game gained by having 'England Knights' play last week's fixture against Jamaica. Instead, it was just yet another missed opportunity. They would have got far more exposure had they repackaged it as England (even with exactly the same players) - there would have been a good story there with it being England's first ever game against Jamaica. Instead, nobody had the forethought to capitalise on that and make it in to an event, and they've just devalued and undermined the credibility of Jamaica ahead of this weekend's game against Scotland.

Its baffling, especially when the RFL will be asking people to take these games seriously come the World Cup.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

29 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Exactly. I don't see what the game gained by having 'England Knights' play last week's fixture against Jamaica. Instead, it was just yet another missed opportunity. They would have got far more exposure had they repackaged it as England (even with exactly the same players) - there would have been a good story there with it being England's first ever game against Jamaica. Instead, nobody had the forethought to capitalise on that and make it in to an event, and they've just devalued and undermined the credibility of Jamaica ahead of this weekend's game against Scotland.

I totally agree, I've made this point before that I don't see why it has to essentially be England B just because it is a reserve team that is picked. As I've said before, when England football play minor nations they often put out a load of kids that have barely been capped and who might usually find themselves in a reserve team say but they don't feel the need to call the team England B, it is just a weaker side of the first team because the big gun players aren't needed against San Marino say.

So I don't see why just because our regulars aren't playing it can't be England. If it was considered the England first team, there would be far more media coverage with the game probably on the beeb, more fans would be interested in attending, ultimately more money would be made from holding the game and the record books would say that England have played more games, the lack of first team games being something we are always complaining about on here. 

[Ray Cashmere]

10 hours ago, Grand Est said:

Could it? In the real world?

Yes. It could be a tool to celebrate Super League's best players, raising both their profile and the competition's profile whilst giving England a competitive, consistent fixture.

I accept that there's plenty of dour, cynical rugby league fans who will deride it on account of it not being the NRL's finest (and because they'll moan about anything) but they shouldn't be the target audience.

Newer fans, younger fans and those in the big cities who want an event should be.  

[Gerrumonside ref]

57 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

I totally agree, I've made this point before that I don't see why it has to essentially be England B just because it is a reserve team that is picked. As I've said before, when England football play minor nations they often put out a load of kids that have barely been capped and who might usually find themselves in a reserve team say but they don't feel the need to call the team England B, it is just a weaker side of the first team because the big gun players aren't needed against San Marino say.

So I don't see why just because our regulars aren't playing it can't be England. If it was considered the England first team, there would be far more media coverage with the game probably on the beeb, more fans would be interested in attending, ultimately more money would be made from holding the game and the record books would say that England have played more games, the lack of first team games being something we are always complaining about on here. 

Agreed mate, just made exactly that point in this thread.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

Yep. A four nations with England is the way to go. Strangely if you actually did this then any team that went to SH could actually be GB so as not to interfere with our 4 nations tournament.

But this is where GB&I could serve a purpose for me - i.e. having a 4 nations tournament in the Summer whereby players know they will be putting themselves in the selection frame for a GB&I tour that Autumn. It may encourage bigger names to make themselves available for the other home nations when they otherwise might not, and could therefore serve to help develop those nations instead of all of their best players switching to play for England.

[Dave T]

Some ideas here seem a little like this. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_Nations_Cup

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_European_Nations_Cup

[Big Picture]

32 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Some ideas here seem a little like this. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_Nations_Cup

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_European_Nations_Cup

Those tournaments were terribly organized, what moron thought it good to put Russia and England in the same group after the thrashings Russia received in the 2000 World Cup?

[Gerrumonside ref]

I just looked at my phone and it said it’s actually 2021 and not either 2003 nor 2004.

I’ll double check it again in an hour to make sure

Context matters, timing is important, but it’s true that you can learn from past mistakes ‘trial and error’ style to be generous.

 

[Dave T]

9 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Those tournaments were terribly organized, what moron thought it good to put Russia and England in the same group after the thrashings Russia received in the 2000 World Cup?

That's correct, however it is a warning that making bold statements about crowds and stuff won't make them happen. 

These games had England 2nd team playing against the likes of Wales, France and Ireland with very low interest. 

They also played Tonga one year with a fierce brawl at the end!

[Dave T]

8 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

I just looked at my phone and it said it’s actually 2021 and not either 2003 nor 2004.

I’ll double check it again in an hour to make sure

Context matters, timing is important, but it’s true that you can learn from past mistakes ‘trial and error’ style to be generous.

 

We have plenty of history of these teams playing, that shouldn't be ignored. 

[Buderus]

One thing I liked about it being Great Britain was that it is a unique brand. What I mean by that is the England rugby league team looks and is branded very similar to the England rugby union team. I like how the Great Britain Lions is unique and think it creates a lot of opportunities for the game in Wales and Scotland (Ireland should be left out of it).

The point has been made that Great Britain never played in Wales and Scotland. While this is true, I don’t see why they couldn’t in the future. I’m a believer that you need big events to attract interest and help the grassroots. An Ashes test against Australia in Cardiff would be a great example. I think you need to give aspiring Welsh and Scottish players who have multiple sporting options somethings to strive for. The ability to play in big games in Ashes series and World Cup finals is an attractive option for young Welsh and Scottish players to choose our code.