Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Maybe Welsh cricket fans are Anglophiles?

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.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 hours ago, Pulga said:

In 1995 Japan lost 145 - 17 to the All Blacks.

In 2019 they beat South Africa as hosts of the World Cup.

Rugby League needs some vision. If getting flogged is the worst case then sign me up.

Let's follow your example.

For the 25 years following that defeat they played:

South Kora - 26 times

Hong Kong - 23 times

Canada - 19

USA - 18

Fiji - 15

Samoa - 15

Tonga - 15

Wales - 8

They had 10 games agaist A teams, or Junior teams or World XV's. 

They played England once, NZ & SA 3 times, and Australia twice.

This all includes the major World Cup tournaments.

Games against the World's top 5 accounted for 6% of all their matches. 

So really whilst you may hold that up as a good point, it doesn't suggest that Wales just playing against England every year is an effective plan at all. In fact it suggests that 95% of Wales games should be against teams more around their level.

In fact it suggests that you need a hell of a lot of investment and other activity and just playing a few top level games in front of 5k fans is a short cut and will not lead to growth.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Whilst somewhat true teams getting flogged in isolation don't just get materially better by playing more games. All developing nations need more full time professional players playing at a high level, and a full squad of them and not just a few players, to be competitive. Toulouse SL give France that bigger pool which should help somewhat.

Yup. Games against the top nations really should be the cherry on top - it should be part of the outcomes of a strategy of development and growth. It shouldn't be THE growth strategy. 

Playing games like this(and ultimately getting battered) isn't really going to develop anyone. 

I see the arguments for France games as they are a) closer to England in the first instance, and b ) there is other decent level activity ongoing underneath that

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Let's follow your example.

For the 25 years following that defeat they played:

South Kora - 26 times

Hong Kong - 23 times

Canada - 19

USA - 18

Fiji - 15

Samoa - 15

Tonga - 15

Wales - 8

They had 10 games agaist A teams, or Junior teams or World XV's. 

They played England once, NZ & SA 3 times, and Australia twice.

This all includes the major World Cup tournaments.

Games against the World's top 5 accounted for 6% of all their matches. 

So really whilst you may hold that up as a good point, it doesn't suggest that Wales just playing against England every year is an effective plan at all. In fact it suggests that 95% of Wales games should be against teams more around their level.

In fact it suggests that you need a hell of a lot of investment and other activity and just playing a few top level games in front of 5k fans is a short cut and will not lead to growth.

And in that same period Wales played a grand total of 58 games. An average of little more just two games a year.

Those figures suggest that RL is a basket case of an international sport.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, theswanmcr said:

And in that same period Wales played a grand total of 58 games. An average of little more just two games a year.

Those figures suggest that RL is a basket case of an international sport.

That is clearly one of the bigger issues. 

As a bare minimum Wales should have games against France, Ireland, Scotland every year and imho they should be home and away. That is quite a nice competitive fixture list that could be built into a nice level of comp. On top of this they should be bidding to play against touring teams and England at least a couple of times during a 4 year cycle, plus then the World Cup which gives access to major teams depending on the draw. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That is clearly one of the bigger issues. 

As a bare minimum Wales should have games against France, Ireland, Scotland every year and imho they should be home and away. That is quite a nice competitive fixture list that could be built into a nice level of comp. On top of this they should be bidding to play against touring teams and England at least a couple of times during a 4 year cycle, plus then the World Cup which gives access to major teams depending on the draw. 

Totally agree - and to do that we need to reduce the number of domestic games and leave a month long mid-season window or a couple of two week international windows spread throughout the season.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Keith989
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Gerrumonside ref
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...