European Championships 2023 - Confirmed by ERL

[JonM]

19 minutes ago, Eddie said:

It’s not dangerous for amateur footballers to play professionals though.  

England played Greece in the world cup. Greece included players from the Greek domestic league. Jamaica played New Zealand. I guess the concern here might be that countries could not count on their NRL players to even things up.

It seems to me that - even if the team is the England Knights - we just call it England. The England team that has just played Australia in cricket has barely any of the players who won the T20 world cup a week or so back, and none of the players who're over in Dubai preparing to play Pakistan. They don't call it England Knights, England A or anything else - it's just England. Likewise when England's football team play friendlies where 11 subs are used, or where they try out experimental formations, its still England. 

As, we're talking 8 teams in the Euro A competition, I assume there is going to be some further structure announced - I doubt we're going to see one pool of 8 with each time playing 7 times.

I see absolutely no reason why - if done correctly - England games can't attract decent crowds in appropriately sized stadia with appropriate pricing and some actual attempt to get people interested.

Jughead's comment is spot on. We constantly devalue European games by calling them 'friendlies'. They should be test matches, with some named trophy at stake. 

There needs to be a corresponding women's competition - that would potentially be much more competitive. England would still win - 20-30 amateur clubs is still a bigger pool of players than 2-4-6 amateur clubs that the other countries are picking from, but not outrageously so.

[gingerjon]

Just now, JonM said:

As, we're talking 8 teams in the Euro A competition, I assume there is going to be some further structure announced - I doubt we're going to see one pool of 8 with each time playing 7 times.

Just for info, a previous press release talked about two groups of four.

[Northern Eel]

I am sure I read last week somewhere that the door is not closed on an Autumn Test Series for England against one of the Pacific Nations. Happy to be corrected. If that does transpire, I assume therefore that this will be the Knights team in the Euro comp.

[JonM]

Just now, gingerjon said:

Just for info, a previous press release talked about two groups of four.

Yes, I guess what's not clear is whether this is Pool A (England +3), Pool B (France+3) + final or whether it's division 1 (England, France +2) and division 2 (Serbia, Spain etc). 

AIUI, France are very keen to play some home games they can win.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, JonM said:

Yes, I guess what's not clear is whether this is Pool A (England +3), Pool B (France+3) + final or whether it's division 1 (England, France +2) and division 2 (Serbia, Spain etc). 

AIUI, France are very keen to play some home games they can win.

Have to say I am quite excited. Will be good to see some RL post season, even if at a lower level of quality.

[GeordieSaint]

Really pleased this has been announced. More internationals in the NH between NH sides is critical for the sport’s improvement here. But two points:

1. Even if it’s the England 2nd string, play as England and not the Knights. It doesn’t affect the competition’s legitimacy if it’s not the full side. 

2. Two groups of 4 doesn’t work. The likes of Serbia and Spain are miles of being as strong as Jamaica and Greece who got thumped in the WC. The UEFA Nations League construct of more leagues is better than just an A and B league. It would also allow England, France et al to have a better standard of opposition every week during the window rather than putting a 100+ on Serbia and Spain. 

[Jughead]

18 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Really pleased this has been announced. More internationals in the NH between NH sides is critical for the sport’s improvement here. But two points:

1. Even if it’s the England 2nd string, play as England and not the Knights. It doesn’t affect the competition’s legitimacy if it’s not the full side. 

2. Two groups of 4 doesn’t work. The likes of Serbia and Spain are miles of being as strong as Jamaica and Greece who got thumped in the WC. The UEFA Nations League construct of more leagues is better than just an A and B league. It would also allow England, France et al to have a better standard of opposition every week during the window rather than putting a 100+ on Serbia and Spain. 

The legitimacy of the competition is harmed by having two sides, one a B team, involved when it directly affects World Cup qualification, and two participants aren’t competing for qualification. Obviously, there’s a way to differentiate between the two but I don’t hold out much hope of seeing common sense applied. 

[langpark]

Mixed feelings. I think they should have kept it at 6 teams. Serbia and Spain will get absolutely massacred. England will be in a league of their own. The other 5 nations should be fairly even. 

I believe this does tie in with WC qualifying. I have a feeling top 2 (after Eng, Fra) get a spot. Then the rest will play off for the last few spots in 2024. 

[Spidey]

51 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Really pleased this has been announced. More internationals in the NH between NH sides is critical for the sport’s improvement here. But two points:

1. Even if it’s the England 2nd string, play as England and not the Knights. It doesn’t affect the competition’s legitimacy if it’s not the full side. 

2. Two groups of 4 doesn’t work. The likes of Serbia and Spain are miles of being as strong as Jamaica and Greece who got thumped in the WC. The UEFA Nations League construct of more leagues is better than just an A and B league. It would also allow England, France et al to have a better standard of opposition every week during the window rather than putting a 100+ on Serbia and Spain. 

I know why you’re saying about Serbia & Spain, but haven’t they won the right to be in this competition. They’ve already come through Euro B to play on Euro A. It’s not about England & France. It’s about them playing against the others and maybe displacing them

[GeordieSaint]

27 minutes ago, Jughead said:

The legitimacy of the competition is harmed by having two sides, one a B team, involved when it directly affects World Cup qualification, and two participants aren’t competing for qualification. Obviously, there’s a way to differentiate between the two but I don’t hold out much hope of seeing common sense applied. 

GJ has suggested it’s based on past European Championship performance. Love the concept but with that past performance concept plus the number of teams in the A League, they’ve not quite got it right. I’d adapt the Nations League model from football - there’s not enough quality to have 2 x pools of 4 (with a final). I’d actually have an A League of 5 or 6 nations - I think the jury is out if Italy can get their players across from Australia for this. An A League of 5-6 teams means 4-5 internationals at the end of the season for each team. Your B League could be  2 x 4/5 team pools then. Something like:

A League:

England - Scotland - Wales - France - Ireland - (poss Italy). 

B League:

Serbia - Spain - (poss Italy) - Greece - Germany - Netherlands - Norway - Czech Republic - Ukraine - Malta 

The best teams in B then play Scotland - Wales - Ireland for the qualification spots for 2025 next year. 

[GeordieSaint]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

I know why you’re saying about Serbia & Spain, but haven’t they won the right to be in this competition. They’ve already come through Euro B to play on Euro A. It’s not about England & France. It’s about them playing against the others and maybe displacing them

When was that out of interest? Seems a bit out of place… (get that about England-France). It’s all a bit confusing. 

I think qualification for the next WC should start the year after the last World Cup. Group B is a qualifying tournament for those who didn’t make the previous WC. Those who were in the WC play a European competition. The best sides in B (no need for final) then play against those in A the next year who didn’t automatically qualify for the next WC Cup. So you’d be looking at something like this for 2025:

2023

Group A: England - France - Wales - Ireland - Scotland - Italy - Greece. 

Group B: Serbia - Spain - Norway - Germany - Netherlands - Czechia - Malta 

2024: Wales - Ireland - Scotland - Italy - Greece - Group B top seed - Group B 2nd seed. 

2025 WC - England - France - Qualifiers x 3/4.

[Spidey]

12 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

When was that out of interest? Seems a bit out of place… (get that about England-France). It’s all a bit confusing. 

I think qualification for the next WC should start the year after the last World Cup. Group B is a qualifying tournament for those who didn’t make the previous WC. Those who were in the WC play a European competition. The best sides in B (no need for final) then play against those in A the next year who didn’t automatically qualify for the next WC Cup. So you’d be looking at something like this for 2025:

2023

Group A: England - France - Wales - Ireland - Scotland - Italy - Greece. 

Group B: Serbia - Spain - Norway - Germany - Netherlands - Czechia - Malta 

2024: Wales - Ireland - Scotland - Italy - Greece - Group B top seed - Group B 2nd seed. 

2025 WC - England - France - Qualifiers x 3/4.

Don’t 100% know the dates on when they went through from B. 
 

in regards to qualification in the year straight after I think normally that would happen, however with the World Cup being delayed the qualification matches and actual euro cup have been combined this time around

What is good, the ERL are sticking to their calendar and announcing games - everything will sort itself out over time if matches continue to be organised and played each year

[Number 16]

I think that Spain will be a bit stronger than some people expect. I suspect that from 1 to 17 they could name a team of heritage players from the French Elite 1. And maybe throw in an Aussie or two (if anyone qualifies!). I reckon they'd show up well against Wales and Scotland.

Serbia are something else entirely! As a minimum they need every SH heritage player to travel over. 

[langpark]

53 minutes ago, Number 16 said:

I think that Spain will be a bit stronger than some people expect. I suspect that from 1 to 17 they could name a team of heritage players from the French Elite 1. And maybe throw in an Aussie or two (if anyone qualifies!). I reckon they'd show up well against Wales and Scotland.

Serbia are something else entirely! As a minimum they need every SH heritage player to travel over. 

You are right about Spain. The sad thing is though, there has been minimal activity there for the last 4 years. It feels like a waste of a spot. 

[JM2010]

It's good news that this is confirmed. They just need to stick with it now and build it up as much as they can as well as pushing the domestic development of RL in the countries involved

[Pie tries]

9 hours ago, LeytherRob said:

I'm hoping this is full England team, even if it's only UK based players. If we are serious about building the international game we have to start showing full respect to the European nations. 

Spot on…and about time too

[Number 16]

14 hours ago, langpark said:

You are right about Spain. The sad thing is though, there has been minimal activity there for the last 4 years. It feels like a waste of a spot. 

The Spanish wheelchair squad was basically French.

[JM2010]

Hopefully they'll play a women's and wheelchair euros at the same time. All 3 together will get a lot of media attention and profile. They also compliment each other well. 

[MatthewWoody]

14 hours ago, langpark said:

You are right about Spain. The sad thing is though, there has been minimal activity there for the last 4 years. It feels like a waste of a spot. 

Covid has been tough with small rl countries. 

[Guest]

16 hours ago, langpark said:

You are right about Spain. The sad thing is though, there has been minimal activity there for the last 4 years. It feels like a waste of a spot. 

Hopefully regular competition like this is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to get people to commit. Although I accept covid has probably ruined a lot of smaller domestic leagues.

Hopefully it was also have a beneficial impact on the French League.

[LeytherRob]

15 hours ago, Pie tries said:

Spot on…and about time too

The way i see it, we can't complain about Oz and the other pacific nations not showing us respect in regards to fixtures if we don't show respect to the NH teams. Putting a full England team also encourages the likes of Wales, Ireland, France etc to put their best teams out. Too often we see players dropping out of the European fixtures because the fixtures aren't viewed as proper test matches. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

20 hours ago, JonM said:

England played Greece in the world cup. Greece included players from the Greek domestic league. Jamaica played New Zealand. I guess the concern here might be that countries could not count on their NRL players to even things up.

It seems to me that - even if the team is the England Knights - we just call it England. The England team that has just played Australia in cricket has barely any of the players who won the T20 world cup a week or so back, and none of the players who're over in Dubai preparing to play Pakistan. They don't call it England Knights, England A or anything else - it's just England. Likewise when England's football team play friendlies where 11 subs are used, or where they try out experimental formations, its still England. 

As, we're talking 8 teams in the Euro A competition, I assume there is going to be some further structure announced - I doubt we're going to see one pool of 8 with each time playing 7 times.

I see absolutely no reason why - if done correctly - England games can't attract decent crowds in appropriately sized stadia with appropriate pricing and some actual attempt to get people interested.

Jughead's comment is spot on. We constantly devalue European games by calling them 'friendlies'. They should be test matches, with some named trophy at stake. 

There needs to be a corresponding women's competition - that would potentially be much more competitive. England would still win - 20-30 amateur clubs is still a bigger pool of players than 2-4-6 amateur clubs that the other countries are picking from, but not outrageously so.

Agreed. The coaches can use their common sense and pick a squad that still uses these games as a development pathway for some players. That can be done, resting some of the best players, whilst still calling it "England"

Keep the matches in a medium-term cycle, rinse, repeat. We build something, and help tier 2 northern hemisphere countries develop through more intense competition. They can beat each other, and have a crack at England - however unlikely the win. Italy have only won 12 Six Nations matches in 22 years. One game in ten. But they're better for being in it every year. 

 

 

[gingerjon]

Really needs sorting out.

[welshmagpie]

21 hours ago, Number 16 said:

I think that Spain will be a bit stronger than some people expect. I suspect that from 1 to 17 they could name a team of heritage players from the French Elite 1. And maybe throw in an Aussie or two (if anyone qualifies!). I reckon they'd show up well against Wales and Scotland.

Serbia are something else entirely! As a minimum they need every SH heritage player to travel over. 

Take a look at HeCanPlayFor - a few Aussies qualify including Mahe Fonua of all people.

[Number 16]

33 minutes ago, welshmagpie said:

Take a look at HeCanPlayFor - a few Aussies qualify including Mahe Fonua of all people.

I looked, but couldn't find a list for Spain.