Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

On 20/10/2021 at 16:45, Bring back GB said:

The GB brand should NEVER have been abandoned in the first place. The GB brand is synonymous with RL, the England brand, not so. And the Scottish and Irish sides are a complete farce.

Ask any high profile player which means more to them, playing for England or playing for GB and they overwhelmingly say GB.

Also, I have a rather superb cotton GB shirt from the 2003 era which I want to wear with pride again !!!!!

It would be useful to hear these high profile players state their preference for GB rather than England. 

Keep it as England .it's 2021 not 1914. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Dave T said:

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!

If you exclude the England games against Russia you are looking at 4000, 3600, 2500, 2100 for the England games. Remember this was essentially the England Knights side, those attendances are better than some Super League games.

These tournaments between England Knights, France, Wales, Ireland and Scotland should have continued, if they’d of done that the other sides would have improved and interest grown. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

If you exclude the England games against Russia you are looking at 4000, 3600, 2500, 2100 for the England games. Remember this was essentially the England Knights side, those attendances are better than some Super League games.

These tournaments between England Knights, France, Wales, Ireland and Scotland should have continued, if they’d of done that the other sides would have improved and interest grown. 

People complain about the Knights playing Test nations and call it disrespectful. 

IMHO the most important thing is to create a credible Euro Championship for Wales, France, Scotland, Ireland plus others and support them putting on quality events with regularity that allows them to build them up. I've watched a fair few Scotland games in this tournament over the years, and it's all been very random - but despite that there has been a bit of interest - even getting 1500 at Gala on a freezing Friday night. These should be crowds to build on. We have also seen some half decent crowds in France for games against Wales and Scotland. 

I am less bothered about whether England should be in in any form - the Knights' don't offend me like they do some other people, but I think we need to be careful making it all about England. The Euro Championships has been very competitive, with various winners, playing home and away, or at least more games between these teams could be good and I think there is plenty of room for growth for that tournament. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

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

I remember that. That was when the referee blew the match up early because the last 20 minutes had just turned into a war zone and was frankly embarrassing. Any play just kicked off another fight. The referee had lost all control, through no fault of his own I hasten to add, and the Tonga players had just lost the plot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Dave T said:

People complain about the Knights playing Test nations and call it disrespectful. 

IMHO the most important thing is to create a credible Euro Championship for Wales, France, Scotland, Ireland plus others and support them putting on quality events with regularity that allows them to build them up. I've watched a fair few Scotland games in this tournament over the years, and it's all been very random - but despite that there has been a bit of interest - even getting 1500 at Gala on a freezing Friday night. These should be crowds to build on. We have also seen some half decent crowds in France for games against Wales and Scotland. 

I am less bothered about whether England should be in in any form - the Knights' don't offend me like they do some other people, but I think we need to be careful making it all about England. The Euro Championships has been very competitive, with various winners, playing home and away, or at least more games between these teams could be good and I think there is plenty of room for growth for that tournament. 

It might suggest looking towards cricket for some kind of structure to our international game. In cricket there are the test nations and then everyone else. The test nations play each other regularly and smaller, non-test nations play each other and never play the biggest nations outside of world cups. 

In RL we talk about the tier 1 nations but this doesn't seem to actually mean a whole lot outside of it being a badge of honour. It would maybe be an idea to have a small group of elite teams who play each other regularly and only meet smaller nations in the world cup. It could be made that if a tier 2 nation gets to the point that they are constantly battering other tier 2 nations in their annual continental cup, they could be awarded tier 1 status and participate in tier 1 tours. Ultimately that would be the structure: tier 1 nations would tour each other, tier 2 nations would play in a continental cup. 

I suppose in a sense we already do this in that tours outside of world cups do tend to just be between the top 3 nations but its not an official thing as such, its just that those nations tour because we know they'll be the tours that make the most money and those organisations have just enough money to fund a tour in the first place.

It would be great though if Tonga, Fiji and Samoa were seen as tier 1 "tour" nations and we could see them coming over here more frequently or have England going down there to tour more often, at the same time having a continental cup played. This would ensure there was annual international RL games played on both sides of the world and games for fans everywhere to attend even if it didn't involve their own nation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

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

You’re right that lessons should be learned from previous failed attempts to have a tournament involving England with France, Wales, Scotland, Ireland etc.

But I do think something is happening in French rugby league and there is an opportunity to help them to help themselves.  There’s a context that’s different to previous failed attempts.

I also think a broadcaster would be much more likely to pick up a tournament with England in it and I would retire the England Knights branding that isn’t attractive.

When it comes to Knights then strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony!  You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

It might suggest looking towards cricket for some kind of structure to our international game. In cricket there are the test nations and then everyone else. The test nations play each other regularly and smaller, non-test nations play each other and never play the biggest nations outside of world cups. 

In RL we talk about the tier 1 nations but this doesn't seem to actually mean a whole lot outside of it being a badge of honour. It would maybe be an idea to have a small group of elite teams who play each other regularly and only meet smaller nations in the world cup. It could be made that if a tier 2 nation gets to the point that they are constantly battering other tier 2 nations in their annual continental cup, they could be awarded tier 1 status and participate in tier 1 tours. Ultimately that would be the structure: tier 1 nations would tour each other, tier 2 nations would play in a continental cup. 

I suppose in a sense we already do this in that tours outside of world cups do tend to just be between the top 3 nations but its not an official thing as such, its just that those nations tour because we know they'll be the tours that make the most money and those organisations have just enough money to fund a tour in the first place.

It would be great though if Tonga, Fiji and Samoa were seen as tier 1 "tour" nations and we could see them coming over here more frequently or have England going down there to tour more often, at the same time having a continental cup played. This would ensure there was annual international RL games played on both sides of the world and games for fans everywhere to attend even if it didn't involve their own nation. 

There are some very good points here.

However, a big difference between cricket and rugby league is that skill tends to be the determining factor in cricket, whereas physicality tends to be the determining factor in rugby league. The physical difference between full time and part time players is therefore far more evident in rugby league compared to cricket. This is important to acknowledge, because the only full-time pro clubs in European RL are in England and France. Which means that any non-English or French players will ultimately be able to represent England or France on residency grounds, regardless of where they were born.

So if the game decides to go down a route of Tier 1 and Tier 2 nations, then it has to accept that talented non-English and non-French players will most likely choose to represent these countries internationally, because they will be afforded far higher profile playing opportunities. In which case, it would likely lead to a player drain and prevent the other European nations from ever getting close to being able to compete with England. If we chose to go down the tier 1 and tier 2 route (which I'm not a fan of personally), then I think it should definitely be GB&I instead of England as the tier 1 'home' nation, as it at least provides opportunities for talented Welsh, Scottish and Irish players to maximise their playing career and play on the biggest stages. They would also then be able to represent these other nations in World Cups etc, without having to have committed to England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

You’re right that lessons should be learned from previous failed attempts to have a tournament involving England with France, Wales, Scotland, Ireland etc.

But I do think something is happening in French rugby league and there is an opportunity to help them to help themselves.  There’s a context that’s different to previous failed attempts.

I also think a broadcaster would be much more likely to pick up a tournament with England in it and I would retire the England Knights branding that isn’t attractive.

When it comes to Knights then strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony!  You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! 😉

I'd keep England out of a Euro Champ personally, but that doesn't mean these teams shouldn't play England, particularly in mid-season or as warmup tests for major tournaments. 

In terms of TV, I think we accept that Euro Championships wouldn't have a TV valur at day one, and growing it into a regular credible tournament would help that. Even if free coverage can be gained on secondary channels as a starter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'd keep England out of a Euro Champ personally, but that doesn't mean these teams shouldn't play England, particularly in mid-season or as warmup tests for major tournaments. 

In terms of TV, I think we accept that Euro Championships wouldn't have a TV valur at day one, and growing it into a regular credible tournament would help that. Even if free coverage can be gained on secondary channels as a starter. 

Where I think we probably agree is the NH international fixture list needs to happen on a regular basis especially if we want to develop nations and build tradition and prestige in tournaments.

England playing France somewhere in France on an annual basis seems to have come of age for me now, particularly if Toulouse and Catalans can flourish in terms of producing players.

Obviously for England the greater learning/test is against the SH nations, but as we know we can’t control what the NRL dictates (I wish we could of course) in terms of fixtures.

However we can control the destiny of the NH and because increasing the talent pool in France has upsides at club and international level, there shouldn’t really be opposition to it except maybe only amongst those lacking vision that a strong France will strengthen England too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Where I think we probably agree is the NH international fixture list needs to happen on a regular basis especially if we want to develop nations and build tradition and prestige in tournaments.

England playing France somewhere in France on an annual basis seems to have come of age for me now, particularly if Toulouse and Catalans can flourish in terms of producing players.

Obviously for England the greater learning/test is against the SH nations, but as we know we can’t control what the NRL dictates (I wish we could of course) in terms of fixtures.

However we can control the destiny of the NH and because increasing the talent pool in France has upsides at club and international level, there shouldn’t really be opposition to it except maybe only amongst those lacking vision that a strong France will strengthen England too.

This is the thing isn't it, the reason we tour, and receive tours from, Aus and NZ is because we want a competitive game which as a result will attract fans and more media attention. The reason 30,000 fans go to watch England v one of those is because they know they'll see a good game. The reason only 5,000 show up to Leigh on a Wednesday night to watch England v France... well so many reasons... 

If we can help France really develop and get them to a level where they will be seriously competing with England and create a really exciting game (yesterday's was great once France got into it) there is no reason England couldn't play a series against France with maybe a couple of warm-ups against Wales and Jamaica or something say. A lot cheaper than touring NZ, a lot easier to organise, a lot more fans from England will travel to France, BBC can show it at a decent time and so will probably get more viewers. So many benefits if only we can actually actively work with the French. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/10/2021 at 13:05, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

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.

I still don’t want GB to return at all but this is the best argument I’ve heard for it and is worth some consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/10/2021 at 13:05, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

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.

Players switch to England because they are really English and only pretend to be foreign to play international footy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the GB&I thing could be used in the way the other nob use that lions thing, a biannual (or more/less often) tour to somewhere with a proper mixed squad. Run the women's tour alongside it, use it to spread the good word....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, yipyee said:

Players switch to England because they are really English and only pretend to be foreign to play international footy

Eoin Morgan is the prime example from cricket. Ireland have an international team, but he's captain of England's one day side. England's gain is Ireland's loss.

In rugby league you've got examples such as the Evans brothers who were signed by Warrington as teenagers and opted to join the England pathway because it offered more opportunity, despite being Welsh. Whilst they've subsequently switched back to Wales this is most likely because they weren't getting the opportunities they'd hoped for with England. The most talented players will get those opportunities and won't switch back. So this strategy will consign the other home nations to Tier 2 status for evermore. If that's what people want, then fine. But I don't believe that's going to help develop the international game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Literally the only reason to bring GB back would be because people like the kits/badge/brand.

Everything else is counterproductive. It limits our international scope, reduces the number of potential matches/opponents for absolutely no gain as none of the players of those nations are likely to make it into the GB team.

Seriously, the RFL should just take ownership of the GB Lions brand, change it to the England brand and everyone will likely stop clamouring for days of yore.

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Literally the only reason to bring GB back would be because people like the kits/badge/brand.

In your opinion. Not in my opinion.

1 hour ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Everything else is counterproductive. It limits our international scope, reduces the number of potential matches/opponents for absolutely no gain as none of the players of those nations are likely to make it into the GB team.

You're viewing it as an either/or. I don't view it like that. As I've posted previously on this and many other threads, IMO GB&I should exist to complement an expanded international calendar - not as a replacement for England in a limited calendar. 

While none (or very few) of the genuine Welsh, Irish and Scottish players might currently make it in to a GB&I team, what about having this as a carrot to encourage future players? By removing GB&I completely, you are forcing the other home nations players to (a) be consigned to playing low-key internationals in tournaments with zero media profile, or (b) switch allegiance to England in order to maximise their playing potential and enjoy the best opportunities. A World Cup every 4 years does nothing for the other home nations in the intervening 3 years - the best players just come out of the woodwork for the major tournament but invariably are unavailable for the other games.

An annual European Championship played in the Summer (which could double up as WC qualification points) including England would provide more regular, high profile fixtures than the home nations currently enjoy. Add in a WC, a biennial GB&I series, and the once-promised Confederations Cup, and you've got high profile Autumn fixtures every year as well. And every talented home nations player would have the opportunity to play in all of those Autumn comps, so wouldn't have to chop and change their allegiance in order to maximise their playing career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

You're viewing it as an either/or. I don't view it like that. As I've posted previously on this and many other threads, IMO GB&I should exist to complement an expanded international calendar - not as a replacement for England in a limited calendar. 

2019 showed it is either/or. England didn't play a single game all year because of the return of GB.

Yes you may envisage something different, as everyone does on here when it comes to international RL. However the reality is we are struggling to get any international matches at all and the only real slot is at the end of the season when it is precisely an either/or situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

You're viewing it as an either/or. I don't view it like that. As I've posted previously on this and many other threads, IMO GB&I should exist to complement an expanded international calendar - not as a replacement for England in a limited calendar. 

But why should it exist at all though? It's not even a nation, it's an amalgamation of nations; a "combined nations" ironically. The Irish don't identify with it. The Scottish less and less so. Who is the contrived side serving to benefit? Traditionalist northerners, and that's it.

This side would take away potential fixtures from Wales, Scotland and Ireland. I'm presenting it as an either/or because it is. There is limited time in the international calender and this takes away from that whilst contributing nothing an England side wouldn't and taking away 3 extra opponents for other nations 

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

While none (or very few) of the genuine Welsh, Irish and Scottish players might currently make it in to a GB&I team, what about having this as a carrot to encourage future players? By removing GB&I completely, you are forcing the other home nations players to (a) be consigned to playing low-key internationals in tournaments with zero media profile, or (b) switch allegiance to England in order to maximise their playing potential and enjoy the best opportunities.

Doesn't this apply to all nations outside of the big 3? Why should only the (some of the) Irish, Welsh and Scottish benefit from this fabricated side? Why not go the whole hog and have Europe XIII?

It all comes down to tradition with little benefit to me and stacked against the other nations we should be building - less opportunities for them and less potential matches.

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

But why should it exist at all though? It's not even a nation, it's an amalgamation of nations; a "combined nations" ironically. The Irish don't identify with it. The Scottish less and less so. Who is the contrived side serving to benefit? Traditionalist northerners, and that's it.

This side would take away potential fixtures from Wales, Scotland and Ireland. I'm presenting it as an either/or because it is. There is limited time in the international calender and this takes away from that whilst contributing nothing an England side wouldn't and taking away 3 extra opponents for other nations 

Doesn't this apply to all nations outside of the big 3? Why should only the (some of the) Irish, Welsh and Scottish benefit from this fabricated side? Why not go the whole hog and have Europe XIII?

It all comes down to tradition with little benefit to me and stacked against the other nations we should be building - less opportunities for them and less potential matches.

We'll have to agree to disagree. The current scenario isn't working. Apart from the 2019 anomaly, GB&I haven't played in a series since 2007. How much have the other home nations developed in that time? Not at all. So in 14 years' time they'll still be in the same situation - feeding off the scraps that England leave them. With the current model, we're never going to have competitive home nations if the only time they can get a full-strength side out is for a World Cup every 4 years.

The current reality is that there is a limited international window, and there isn't room for both GB and England - on that we can agree. My argument is that the game needs to expand the international scene if it wants to grow the game, which probably is unrealistic due to the short-sighted governance within the sport. But it would be infinitely better than what we have now IMO, which is a game that becomes ever more irrelevant to the wider public by the year.

Arguing about whether it should be England or GB when they only play 3 games a year anyway is like moving deckchairs on the Titanic. Bottom line is they need to be playing at least 6-7 internationals a year IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

We'll have to agree to disagree. The current scenario isn't working. Apart from the 2019 anomaly, GB&I haven't played in a series since 2007. How much have the other home nations developed in that time? Not at all. So in 14 years' time they'll still be in the same situation - feeding off the scraps that England leave them. With the current model, we're never going to have competitive home nations if the only time they can get a full-strength side out is for a World Cup every 4 years.

The current reality is that there is a limited international window, and there isn't room for both GB and England - on that we can agree. My argument is that the game needs to expand the international scene if it wants to grow the game, which probably is unrealistic due to the short-sighted governance within the sport. But it would be infinitely better than what we have now IMO, which is a game that becomes ever more irrelevant to the wider public by the year.

Arguing about whether it should be England or GB when they only play 3 games a year anyway is like moving deckchairs on the Titanic. Bottom line is they need to be playing at least 6-7 internationals a year IMO.

I disagree that they haven't developed.

Wales produce a genuine Welshborn side, have had a super league club and currently have 2 Semi Pro outfits. Wales u16s just beat their English counterparts recently iirc.

Scotland and Ireland have grown their domestic games despite significant lack of finances. Both have impressed with international sides in the past decade too, people are quick to forget that Scotland became the first tier 2 side to take points at a major tournament from one of the big 3. Only RFL obstinacy has meant no advantage at all was taken of these competitive international opponents.

I think that last point is the important issue here. The RFL don't know how to develop the sport in these areas, and they aren't really interested either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd go to see the combined nations again. I saw them at Warrington, if the crowd was larger the atmosphere would've been better. It was a decent game too which the combined nations won. Not bad considering they'd been together less than a week. Not too sure about GB though. They have the lions in union but union is more widespread than league. In Scotland, Wales and Ireland, league is miniscule in comparison to union. Team GB in rugby league would be more or less an English team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I disagree that they haven't developed.

Wales produce a genuine Welshborn side, have had a super league club and currently have 2 Semi Pro outfits. Wales u16s just beat their English counterparts recently iirc.

Scotland and Ireland have grown their domestic games despite significant lack of finances. Both have impressed with international sides in the past decade too, people are quick to forget that Scotland became the first tier 2 side to take points at a major tournament from one of the big 3. Only RFL obstinacy has meant no advantage at all was taken of these competitive international opponents.

I think that last point is the important issue here. The RFL don't know how to develop the sport in these areas, and they aren't really interested either.

It's not necessarily the RFL's fault. They aren't in charge of the international game. As well as this, are they responsible for the development of the game in Scotland, Ireland and Wales now? I thought the governance of those had been passed on to the relevant NGBs now?

The lack of a true international window is the reason why these nations have not been able to kick on. If there was one, having GB would undo any point of having one as there'd be less nations to play. France could have internationals against Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England regularly. Creating GB would reduce their options greatly.

Without that international calender, and without regular games against the Southern Hemisphere sides, these teams will lack credibility and thus struggle to attract top tier players. The push of big NRL stars by the stars themselves in to the Pacific sides has helped massively with creating a demand for international rugby league Down Under. It shouldn't be that way around, but it is what it is. We cannot replicate that here as we don't really have the players to do that. We did in the early 2000s and it would have been a great time to do it - Cunningham, Harris, Briers, Carney, McDermott, O'Connor, Prescott. There was a great opportunity and it was completely squandered.

Taking preferences aside, I'm not sure what the strongest side you could get for those home nations would be these days, but I doubt it would be anywhere near that level.

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bringing back "GB" which will be a team of English players (or england-eligible players) is totally stupid IMO.

The England RL brand is already very small in sporting terms and it will be made even smaller by diluting it with this "GB" nonsense.

I predict they will end up with 2 non-brands with both the GB and England teams playing sporadic, infrequent games. If they actually stuck with England and nurtured it (regular games, at proper venues - not Rochdale for example) they might have been able to grow England RL into a team that people would support. Now.... non Rugby League supporters will just be confused, (especially given that the very limited media coverage will be spread across these 2 teams).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I disagree that they haven't developed.

Wales produce a genuine Welshborn side, have had a super league club and currently have 2 Semi Pro outfits. Wales u16s just beat their English counterparts recently iirc.

Scotland and Ireland have grown their domestic games despite significant lack of finances. Both have impressed with international sides in the past decade too, people are quick to forget that Scotland became the first tier 2 side to take points at a major tournament from one of the big 3.

What metrics are you using to measure their development? The Scottish team have just drawn 30-all with a team that lost by 50 points the week before against England's second string. By any measure, that is significantly worse than their outings in the 4 Nations a few years back.

The Scottish team that you mentioned taking points from one of the big 3 had more top class players because they were in a major tournament. If there isn't a major tournament, then fewer top class players put their hands up to play. So how is the status quo going to enable these other home nations to develop? I just fail to see how there is going to be any difference in 20 years time unless there is a step change in the international game. Just carrying on doing what we're doing now isn't going to develop anything. It's just going to force any talented Scots, Welsh or Irish players to commit to England, because they're the only team that currently play any big games outside of the WC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.