What now for the French national team?

[fighting irish]

9 minutes ago, Jughead said:

They’re the European Championship holders and been runners-up in three out of the last five tournaments. 

Just to add a little to my earlier post, I think if the IRL are worth their salt then they should be looking further ahead and setting some longer term goals for the world game.

Drawing Canada, America, Jamaica and oddly, the South American nations into a (NH) Trans-Atlantic championship is a worthy goal indeed. (I think the IRL classify South America as part of the NH jurisdiction!).

It might be do-able (eventually) every 4 years, alternating with the World Cup, why not?

The format could evolve as it goes along, perhaps played every year initially, as a play off between the European champions and the winners of the America's championship. (The Winners challenging England each time, until England lose one and then they'd be drawn into the competition proper).

If it could be made into a commercial success (covering costs) then the competition could be expanded by including two nations from either side of the Atlantic into the competition, (and later 3 perhaps).

Such a competition, such a trophy would be very prestigious and I believe, act as an incentive to growth in the NH which at the moment is sadly lacking.

 Anyway Davo, it might be a long term project, which is why it makes sense to start now.

Isn't this just the kind of thing the IRL are supposed to be doing? 

 

[Oxford]

3 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

Catalans are 'us' to me. 

And Me!

[Jughead]

6 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Just to add a little to my earlier post, I think if the IRL are worth their salt then they should be looking further ahead and setting some longer term goals for the world game.

Drawing Canada, America, Jamaica and oddly, the South American nations into a (NH) Trans-Atlantic championship is a worthy goal indeed. (I think the IRL classify South America as part of the NH jurisdiction!).

It might be do-able (eventually) every 4 years, alternating with the World Cup, why not?

The format could evolve as it goes along, perhaps played every year initially, as a play off between the European champions and the winners of the America's championship. (The Winners challenging England each time, until England lose one and then they'd be drawn into the competition proper).

If it could be made into a commercial success (covering costs) then the competition could be expanded by including two nations from either side of the Atlantic into the competition, (and later 3 perhaps).

Such a competition, such a trophy would be very prestigious and I believe, act as an incentive to growth in the NH which at the moment is sadly lacking.

 Anyway Davo, it might be a long term project, which is why it makes sense to start now.

Isn't this just the kind of thing the IRL are supposed to be doing? 

 

America are a joke nation, maybe they’d have something in common and Canada haven’t played since 2018 according to the internet. I’m not sure what playing countries worse than Scotland and Wales would actually achieve. Jamaica may be better than some opposition but it’s pretty much on par with many teams France have played for 15+ years. 

[Barley Mow]

18 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Just to add a little to my earlier post, I think if the IRL are worth their salt then they should be looking further ahead and setting some longer term goals for the world game.

Drawing Canada, America, Jamaica and oddly, the South American nations into a (NH) Trans-Atlantic championship is a worthy goal indeed. (I think the IRL classify South America as part of the NH jurisdiction!).

It might be do-able (eventually) every 4 years, alternating with the World Cup, why not?

The format could evolve as it goes along, perhaps played every year initially, as a play off between the European champions and the winners of the America's championship. (The Winners challenging England each time, until England lose one and then they'd be drawn into the competition proper).

If it could be made into a commercial success (covering costs) then the competition could be expanded by including two nations from either side of the Atlantic into the competition, (and later 3 perhaps).

Such a competition, such a trophy would be very prestigious and I believe, act as an incentive to growth in the NH which at the moment is sadly lacking.

 Anyway Davo, it might be a long term project, which is why it makes sense to start now.

Isn't this just the kind of thing the IRL are supposed to be doing? 

 

Why do you think that such a trophy would be very prestigious?

The current European Championship isn't prestigious and all you propose is effectively a play-off between the winner of that and an Americas champion.

Other than France, Wales and the current heritage players, the players would largely be amateurs and the matches played on parks in front of a few people. I don't see where the prestige would come from and how it would improve France.

Nonetheless, its a nice dream.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Barley Mow

[fighting irish]

5 minutes ago, Jughead said:

America are a joke nation, maybe they’d have something in common and Canada haven’t played since 2018 according to the internet. I’m not sure what playing countries worse than Scotland and Wales would actually achieve. Jamaica may be better than some opposition but it’s pretty much on par with many teams France have played for 15+ years. 

I think the main difference between what's been happening for the last 15 years and my idea is that I'm proposing a Trans-Atlantic Trophy not some hastily arranged friendly fixture, in some god-forsaken backwater, whose highest hope and fondest wish, is to sell enough tickets to cover the cost of putting it on in the first place.

I think your characterisation that America are a joke nation might be a little harsh. As far as I can see, they have more clubs than Wales (and Ireland and Scotland put together).

I agree they seem to be in disarray but perhaps a championship such as this, might provide the incentive to greater cooperation.

Anyway, no matter, whatever state their in, don't we want them all to improve together, over time?

The inclusion (in the calendar) of a novel competition like this might just liven up our sparse, tired and monotone International fixture list

[fighting irish]

23 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Why do you think that such a trophy would be very prestigious?

The current European Championship isn't prestigious and all you propose is effectively a play-off between the winner of that and an Americas champion.

Other than France, Wales and the current heritage players, the players would largely be amateurs and the matches played on parks in front of a few people. I don't see where the prestige would come from and how it would improve France.

Nonetheless, its a nice dream.

Well BM it would be prestigious, because the winners would be Trans-Atlantic NH champions.

You are right that the current Euro's isn't (very) prestigious but do you assume that it will always be this way?

I hope you are wrong.

I think the biggest mistake we can make when considering future plans is assuming that they will not work and that no matter what we do, nothing will change. If we decide, however that we'd like things to be different, to be better, then that wish begs the question, how do we get from here to there? 

I see the proposal as a vehicle, a mechanism to promote the game in the NH and no matter where we are at the moment, the idea is that it will act as an incentive to growth all over the NH. That todays amateur clubs will become more numerous and more professional etc etc. and that the quality of the competition (and the attendant prestige) will improve over time.

On it's own, it won't improve France, but the French (excited by the prospect of playing in such a competition) might just pull their socks up to increase their chances of winning. If not and the yanks end up winning it, or the Brazilians say, that's not a bad thing is it? We'll have a ''new'' competitive nation on the International scene.

It seems to me that what we are doing now, watching a reluctant France getting humiliated by a second string England is never going to cut it.

Let's say it's going to take 10 years before it's any good, when should we start doing it?

Now? Or should we wait another 10 years before we begin?

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by fighting irish

[corkonian77]

20 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I think the main difference between what's been happening for the last 15 years and my idea is that I'm proposing a Trans-Atlantic Trophy not some hastily arranged friendly fixture, in some god-forsaken backwater, whose highest hope and fondest wish, is to sell enough tickets to cover the cost of putting it on in the first place.

I think your characterisation that America are a joke nation might be a little harsh. As far as I can see, they have more clubs than Wales (and Ireland and Scotland put together).

I agree they seem to be in disarray but perhaps a championship such as this, might provide the incentive to greater cooperation.

Anyway, no matter, whatever state their in, don't we want them all to improve together, over time?

The inclusion (in the calendar) of a novel competition like this might just liven up our sparse, tired and monotone International fixture list

France as an international team seem to be going around in circles.

I dare to say in 20 years time they will be in the same situation. 

[fighting irish]

3 minutes ago, corkonian77 said:

France as an international team seem to be going around in circles.

I dare to say in 20 years time they will be in the same situation. 

That's what I'm afraid of corky (I didn't mean to offend you with that).

We need to do something to help them (or give them the incentive) to improve.

If not we need someone to replace/overtake them. We need more NH opposition for the home nations. 

[Barley Mow]

30 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Well BM it would be prestigious, because the winners would be Trans-Atlantic NH champions.

You are right that the current Euro's isn't (very) prestigious but do you assume that it will always be this way?

I assume it will be that way unless someone has a workable way for it to become prestigious - You don't seem to have that for your proposal. Calling the winners Trans-Atlantic NH champions is akin to France being the current European Champions and that hasn't done much for the prestige of the French team or the competition.

I still don't see how you plan to make it prestigious.

30 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I hope you are wrong.

So do I.

But I can't see how your proposal moves anything forward in any practical way: We have a less than prestigious European Championship and an essentially amateur level Americas competition - A play off between the winners may be nice, but isn't an obvious panacea.

30 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I think the biggest mistake we can make when considering future plans is assuming that they will not work and that no matter what we do, nothing will change. If we decide, however that we'd like things to be different, to be better, then that wish begs the question, how do we get from here to there? 

That's a good question for you, as the person proposing the trans-atlantic trophy.

30 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I see the proposal as a vehicle, a mechanism to promote the game in the NH and no matter where we are at the moment, the idea is that it will act as an incentive to growth all over the NH. That todays amateur clubs will become more numerous and more professional etc etc. and that the quality of the competition (and the attendant prestige) will improve over time.

How will it promote RL? How will it draw a crowd or get TV coverage? Very few people watch the European Championships and even less watch the Americas equivalent, why would your proposal make any difference?

30 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

On it's own, it won't improve France, but the French (excited by the prospect of playing in such a competition) might just pull their socks up to increase their chances of winning. If not and the yanks end up winning it, or the Brazilians say, that's not a bad thing is it? We'll have a ''new'' competitive nation on the International scene.

I don't think the French would need to pull there socks up to win this. There closest competitor would be Wales, who they usually beat anyway.

Without the prestige, they aren't going to get excited about it.

How are USA or Brazil going to get to a level where they beat France in the play-off? Especially if (as the subject of the thread suggests) we are aiming to improve the French.

30 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

It seems to me that what we are doing now, watching a reluctant France getting humiliated by a second string England is never going to cut it. 

So instead, we have a second string France humiliating Brazil?

Edited May 1, 2023 by Barley Mow

[fighting irish]

3 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I assume it will be that way unless someone has a workable way for it to become prestigious - You don't seem to have that for your proposal. Calling the winners Trans-Atlantic NH champions is akin to France being the current European Champions and that hasn't done much for the prestige of the French team or the competition.

I still don't see how you plan to make it prestigious.

So do I.

But I can't see how your proposal moves anything forward in any practical way: We have a less than prestigious European Championship and a essentially amateur level Americas competition - A play off between the winners may be nice, but isn't an obvious panacea.

That's a good question for you, as the person proposing the trans-atlantic trophy.

How will it promote RL? How will it draw a crowd or get TV coverage? Very few people watch the European Championships and even less watch the Americas equivalent, why would your proposal make any difference?

I don't think the French would need to pull there socks up to win this. There closest competitor would be Wales, who they usually beat anyway.

Without the prestige, they aren't going to get excited about it.

How are USA or Brazil going to get to a level where they beat France in the play-off? Especially if (as the subject of the thread suggests) we are aiming to improve the French.

So instead, we have a second string France humiliating Brazil?

Thanks for the considered response.

My answer to most of your questions is the same.

Why do we play sports? Why do nations compete? if not to win, to win trophy's? To be called Champions.

What we have at the moment is meagre, and wholly insufficient.

What I'm proposing is to give these fledgling nations something to play for, something that they can use to mark their standing in the world and measure their improvement year on year. It's a competition which they have a much greater chance of being competitive in than the last world cup and much more interesting than their current home (club) league trophy.

You could argue that competing in the World Cup hasn't changed anything in Greece but is that true?

Do you think they might just be striving to be included next time, to be better? I imagine that they are.

Are they doing all they can to draw in commercial backing, government support and every other resource they can call on to improve? If not, then why include them in the first place? Why not just let Australia and New Zealand play each other once in a while for bragging rights.

Why do you assume that the invitation to take part, would not spur the Brazilians to improve?

You seem convinced that nothing will ever work, nothing is worth trying because we are doomed to failure and these ''new'' nations are just wasting everyone's time. 

I just can't accept that ''world view''. 

[Gomersall]

2 hours ago, fighting irish said:

The French need some meaningful competition, that they have an even chance of winning. 

Would that improve them though? 

[fighting irish]

4 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

Would that improve them though? 

My gut feeling is that playing in an annual competition against the best in the NH (except England) which would demand the best of them in order to win it but in which they have a reasonable chance of winning (not getting stuffed) is pounds better than what we have now.

I can't guarantee it, but as I said earlier, if the USA or Brazil, or Greece won it instead, would that be a bad thing? 

[Barley Mow]

37 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Thanks for the considered response.

My answer to most of your questions is the same.

Why do we play sports? Why do nations compete? if not to win, to win trophy's? To be called Champions.

What we have at the moment is meagre, and wholly insufficient.

What I'm proposing is to give these fledgling nations something to play for, something that they can use to mark their standing in the world and measure their improvement year on year. It's a competition which they have a much greater chance of being competitive in than the last world cup and much more interesting than their current home (club) league trophy.

You could argue that competing in the World Cup hasn't changed anything in Greece but is that true?

Do you think they might just be striving to be included next time, to be better? I imagine that they are.

Are they doing all they can to draw in commercial backing, government support and every other resource they can call on to improve? If not, then why include them in the first place? Why not just let Australia and New Zealand play each other once in a while for bragging rights.

Why do you assume that the invitation to take part, would not spur the Brazilians to improve?

The fledgling nations do have something to play for, they are not the nations we need to worry about at this stage. They do have competitions to play in:

- Since 2015 we have had the Americas Rugby League Championship. Brazil will become the 5th nation to compete in it this year. Excepting a long gap for COVID, this is an annual competition.

- In Europe there is the Rugby League European Championship. Again this is an annual competition and something for the fledgling nations to aspire to and measure their progress against.

These are great competitions for the countries who are at the level of USA, Canada, Serbia, Italy, etc. I would be happy to see a NH play-off for the winners between such countries and encourage their development.

What those competitions are not is prestigious.

They are played by amateurs (with a few pro/semi-pro's based mainly on heritage) on fields rather than in stadiums. Crowds tend to be in the hundreds (or lower) and there may be a youtube stream or something similar.

I am not trying to disparage those nations or their players and officials. They do great work and I wholeheartedly support their development in the game. I hope that they are able to see steady, natural growth of the game in their countries and that eventually they will be able to compete with the more established countries.

What I disagree on is that a competition for such countries in their current state could be prestigious. What you don't seem to have the answer for is how you get from the current situation to the prestigious competition that you say your proposal would be.

 

The other thing that the Euro's and Americas comp is not, is a good way to develop England, France and Wales. These are at least a step above the other countries.

Our problem is that because a small number of countries play the game, the gap in standard between countries is huge (especially in the NH):

England will almost always beat France, France will almost always beat Wales, Wales will almost always beat Ireland, etc.

Until you get to the amateur nations, no NH team has a competitor on their own level.

37 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

You seem convinced that nothing will ever work, nothing is worth trying because we are doomed to failure and these ''new'' nations are just wasting everyone's time. 

I just can't accept that ''world view''. 

You are miss-understanding me:

I'm not saying that nothing will work. I wasn't even saying that your proposal won't work - It might do for the new nations (if tran-atlantic travel, etc can be funded).

I don't think it would work for England, France and Wales considering where they are in comparison to each other and in comparison to the rest.

But I was simply wondering how you could claim such a competition would be prestigious, or how you would get it to be prestigious.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Barley Mow

[corkonian77]

56 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

That's what I'm afraid of corky (I didn't mean to offend you with that).

We need to do something to help them (or give them the incentive) to improve.

If not we need someone to replace/overtake them. We need more NH opposition for the home nations. 

No offence taken. 

 

[fighting irish]

8 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

The fledgling nations do have something to play for, they are not the nations we need to worry about at this stage. They do have competitions to play in:

- Since 2015 we have had the Americas Rugby League Championship. Brazil will become the 5th nation to compete in it this year. Excepting a long gap for COVID, this is an annual competition.

- In Europe there is the Rugby League European Championship. Again this is an annual competition and something for the fledgling nations to aspire to and measure their progress against.

These are great competitions for the countries who are at the level of USA, Canada, Serbia, Italy, etc. I would be happy to see a NH play-off between the winners between such countries and encourage their development.

What those competitions are not is prestigious.

They are played by amateurs (with a few pro/semi-pro's based mainly on heritage). Crowds tend to be in the hundreds (or lower) and there may be a youtube stream or something similar.

I am not trying to disparage those nations or their players and officials. They do great work and I wholeheartedly support their development in the game. I hope that they are able to see steady, natural growth of the game in their countries and that eventually they will be able to compete with the more established countries.

What I disagree on is that a competition for such countries in their current state could be prestigious. What you don't seem to have the answer for is how you get from the current situation to the prestigious competition that you say your proposal would be.

 

The other thing that the Euro's and Americas comp is not, is a good way to develop England, France and Wales. These are at least a step above the other countries.

Our problem is that because a small number of countries play the game, the gap in standard between countries is huge (especially in the NH):

England will almost always beat France, France will almost always beat Wales, Wales will almost always beat Ireland, etc.

Until you get to the amateur nations, no NH team has a competitor on their own level.

You are miss-understanding me:

I'm not saying that nothing will work. I wasn't even saying that your proposal won't work - It might do for the new nations (if tran-atlantic travel, etc can be funded).

I don't think it would work for England, France and Wales considering where they are in comparison to each other and in comparison to the rest.

But I was simply wondering how you could claim such a competition would be prestigious, or how you would get it to be prestigious.

I have highlighted the major points/questions you make and have attempted to answer them in turn.

Firsly I think it's reasonable to claim that amongst the competing nations players and organising bodies, winning a competition such as this would be prestigious. They could rightly claim that they are the best in their class in the NH.

In your second point I assume you mean how would we get the rest of the world (do we need the whole world?) to agree it's a prestigious competition. My answer is a simple one - growth. We have to start, with what we have and promote it, as we go along.

Your third point is that the gap in standards between present day competing nations is large and I agree.

It is also true that the existing nations will almost certainly develop at different rates and the existing pecking order may change over time, depending on the local conditions which might influence the uptake.

So todays minnows could catch up and overtake todays leading nations. It would depend on how successful they are in their respective home nations.

I simply do not accept that England will always beat France and France will always beat Wales and Wales will always beat Brazil etc. if the game continues to spread throughout the world. Wales only has about 8 amateur clubs by the way. The yanks (in disarray) have a lot more. 

In one of my earlier posts I suggested that the winners would challenge England in a one off match and when England loses a game they could be brought into the competition proper. Until then, England could seek other opponents to spur their own improvements.

This competition would only provide one game for England but one they would have to be wary of as standards improve.

Lastly, prestige is accrued over time, with higher standards, growing spectator numbers, and commercial sponsors.

I'm just arguing that we get on with it. 

[Barley Mow]

I think we both know where each other stands and will start to go round in circles soon (if we aren't already). But as a summary:

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

I have highlighted the major points/questions you make and have attempted to answer them in turn.

Firsly I think it's reasonable to claim that amongst the competing nations players and organising bodies, winning a competition such as this would be prestigious. They could rightly claim that they are the best in their class in the NH.

Best in their class, yes. But not a prestigious class – not a class of RL played in front of large crowds (in person and on TV) by professional players - surely this is what prestigious international matches are?

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

In your second point I assume you mean how would we get the rest of the world (do we need the whole world?) to agree it's a prestigious competition. My answer is a simple one - growth. We have to start, with what we have and promote it, as we go along.

I meant how do you get it to be prestigious as outlined above – I am apprehensive to say the England v France on Saturday could pass as being prestigious (even by international RL standards). France v Wales last summer wasn’t a prestigious event. How would you get your proposal to meet that standard?

You say growth, and promote it, but what do you mean practically? We can barely manage prestigious when we have the two top nations in the NH never mind ones which are at least in part amateur.
 

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

Your third point is that the gap in standards between present day competing nations is large and I agree.

It is also true that the existing nations will almost certainly develop at different rates and the existing pecking order may change over time, depending on the local conditions which might influence the uptake.

So todays minnows could catch up and overtake todays leading nations. It would depend on how successful they are in their respective home nations.

I simply do not accept that England will always beat France and France will always beat Wales and Wales will always beat Brazil etc. if the game continues to spread throughout the world. Wales only has about 8 amateur clubs by the way. The yanks (in disarray) have a lot more. 

The current situation will not necessarily last forever. But the advantages that England, France & Wales have, is professional/semi-professional teams, some tradition of playing the sport over decades and an amount of financial investment.

Those other nations are very unlikely to over-take even Wales without a significant amount of investment and a significant amount of time to build popularity, which could be followed by a tradition in the game and higher standards of competition.

England and France also have areas of the country where RL is in the top three or so most popular sports. There is no short (or even medium term) way to replicate that where other countries already have their own well established popular sports.

You didn’t seem to be talking in terms of numerous decades to get to your prestigious trans-atlantic competition.

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

In one of my earlier posts I suggested that the winners would challenge England in a one off match and when England loses a game they could be brought into the competition proper. Until then, England could seek other opponents to spur their own improvements.

This competition would only provide one game for England but one they would have to be wary of as standards improve.

Yes, England definitely need SH opposition as well as regular matches against (at least) France in the NH. Hopefully the SH nations will be as keen to provide them with that opposition year on year.

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

Lastly, prestige is accrued over time, with higher standards, growing spectator numbers, and commercial sponsors.

I'm just arguing that we get on with it. 

I agree that we should get on with it, and I’m not against your proposal for lower ranked nations. I just don’t see it being prestigious for a long, long time (if ever) and I don’t see it helping France unless/until those countries can make up ground on them – possibly 30 years time – and in the meantime we also hope France are improving.

The existing Euros and Americas comps could be perfect for those new nations as they currently are (with or without a trans-atlantic play-off).

It is the top few NH nations that we need a solution for.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Barley Mow

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

IMO, as @Barley Mow points out, the issue is that only England has a full-time pro league. France has a couple of full-time teams (if you include Toulouse) and then a semi-pro comp underpinning them, so a much smaller player pool to pick from, and the other NH nations have no full-time teams providing players for them. This isn't going to change any time soon.

The only option to try and create some sort of meaningful NH competition is therefore to rely on heritage players currently plying their trade in the only full-time competition. This means the likes of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and possibly Jamaica are the only teams that could realistically draw on any full-time players to 'compete' with France and England (I use the term 'compete' loosely). Many posters have previously turned their collective noses up at this idea before, but without full-time teams supplying players, it's heritage players or nowt. After all, Tonga and Samoa are completely reliant on heritage players. 

If we're going to go down the heritage players route, then IMO the RFL need to support all home nations equally in their respective international programmes (it is part of their mission statement to develop the sport in these nations after all). This would mean paying the players the same, providing similar standards of training facilities, hotels, coaching teams etc. Otherwise, if England are continually being supported to a greater extent, and also have all the prime playing opportunities, then heritage players will always be looking to jump ship to England if the experience and rewards are greater.

In terms of helping France to become more competitive, ringfencing Catalans and Toulouse in SL would be the obvious start point, and I like the suggested salary cap exemptions to help encourage teams to sign more French players.

My personal view was that there should be an annual European Championship (leagues of 4, with P&R between different tiers), including a full England side (including the Knights instantly devalues it - as will inevitably be seen by what will be zero media profile for this Autumn's comp). And we just have to stick with it for a bit. If England thrash everyone every year, then so be it. I also used to think that the prospect of putting themselves in the shop window for a GB&I Lions series could help encourage players to put themselves up for selection for the other home nations, but I fear that ship has sailed as Australia don't look very interested in playing us at all anymore.

I also agree with posters who have said that games such as England v France shouldn't be played in the heartlands, where there is already loads of top level RL for punters to watch. I know several people who aren't RL fans who went to watch England thrash Samoa or Greece in last year's WC, or beat Scotland in the 4 Nations, and they all thoroughly enjoyed the experience, despite watching very one-sided games. This is the new audience we need to be attracting with our international game. Only in RL do we - Gerald Ratner style - slag off our game and tell people it's rubbish. We need to be happy putting on events where newbies can be impressed by the brilliant skill and athleticism of our players, and enjoy watching their national team being successful. England Women have just spent their 6 Nations thrashing everybody, but nobody is slagging off that competition and calling it a waste of time. We have to change our mindset over this.

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, fighting irish said:

If not we need someone to replace/overtake them. We need more NH opposition for the home nations. 

Who do you suggest? France fielding their best are better than any other NH nation and I would say about 30 years minimum ahead of them, but they are still miles behind England, as I said in an earlier post, England should concentrate on playing SH nations going there every other year and getting one of them to tour here in the interim years.

 

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Who do you suggest? France fielding their best are better than any other NH nation and I would say about 30 years minimum ahead of them, but they are still miles behind England, as I said in an earlier post, England should concentrate on playing SH nations going there every other year and getting one of them to tour here in the interim years.

 

I think it is still fine for England A or England Development to play France annually. That requires France to take it seriously or the SL clubs to take it seriously - which is a different issue.

England A vs a full strength French team with France in the Euros and a game as a warm up for a touring SH side has value to me and seems more than reasonable.

 

[fighting irish]

4 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Who do you suggest? France fielding their best are better than any other NH nation and I would say about 30 years minimum ahead of them, but they are still miles behind England, as I said in an earlier post, England should concentrate on playing SH nations going there every other year and getting one of them to tour here in the interim years.

 

I don't know if you've read the whole thread (or all my posts on this proposal) but if you had you might have better understood what I'm suggesting. It's not a quick fix.

As far as I know the role of the IRL organisation is to promote the game across the world. I think they should do something like I'm suggesting to nudge things along in the Northern Hemisphere.

I was just proposing that the northern hemisphere nations should start acting in unison to promote the International game, rather than acting in disparate and far-flung (small) pockets spread all over the entire Northern Hemisphere, only coming together every 4 years (if their lucky) for a World Cup.

I'm suggesting that a Trans-Atlantic Championship Trophy featuring the best of European (excluding England) and the best of the America's would provide a prestigious trophy which would promote the game right across the NH, acting as an incentive to everyone to improve. The winners would challenge England in a one off match. 

How long will it take before the standard rises to a decent level? I don't know.

It might take decades but who knows, some of the less hide-bound nations might achieve progress at a much faster rate than we have managed here at home, if there are sufficient incentives and an open invitation to take part.

We'll have to wait and see.

What I think though is this; if it's going to take decades, then the sooner we begin the better.

What I'm not proposing is some ghastly, hastily prepared, ill thought out, short term ''fix'' which we know full well, is not the answer to any of our deep seated problems. We have an almost complete history of opting for short term fixes, all of which have failed to produce the game we want and need.

We also have a pretty full catalogue of better ideas which we've not implemented because they involved some real commitment to the cause over an extended period of time.

As far as I can see, no-one else on these forums, has suggested how progress might be made (accelerated) in the medium to long term, to actually provide the existing Northern Hemisphere nations with some decent opposition.

So I'm being Avant-Garde Harry.

There's a lot of wailing about the current condition of the International game and plenty of criticism of the poor French and gnashing of teeth regarding the poor attendances at these dreadful mis-matches and the only suggestion to improve is to keep doing the same thing over and over, oh but play it in France, so we can rub their noses in it on their own patch, just to cheer them up.

The comment you quoted above (taken out of context) was meant to say that if in the long term, France did not improve as a result and Brazil or the United States overtook them, then that would not be a bad thing.

 

[Tex Evans Thigh]

France haven't been good for 70 years, they don't produce real elite players, good players, but not elite. You could have 4 French teams in SL and I doubt the national team would improve much. They'd get a few more decent SL players and that's it and the national team would still suck.

At some point people have to realize that we aren't going to see a good French international team. There isn't the interest nor the type of player there to make this a reality. This is going to annoy the bleeding hearts but it's true. I would stake thousands with anyone that France will never beat England in the next 10/15 years in a legit match.

Have Catalans and/or Toulouse in SL, fine, but let's get our heads out of the sand and stop pretending it's because the aim is to strengthen the French national team. If that is the aim then the experiment has already failed. Repeatedly.

[rlno1]

11 hours ago, corkonian77 said:

France as an international team seem to be going around in circles.

I dare to say in 20 years time they will be in the same situation. 

I think they have improved considering their resources and player depth. It's just that countries like England, Australia and NZ have improved also in leaps and bounds as they have greater resources and more players.

[rlno1]

26 minutes ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

France haven't been good for 70 years, they don't produce real elite players, good players, but not elite. You could have 4 French teams in SL and I doubt the national team would improve much. They'd get a few more decent SL players and that's it and the national team would still suck.

At some point people have to realize that we aren't going to see a good French international team. There isn't the interest nor the type of player there to make this a reality. This is going to annoy the bleeding hearts but it's true. I would stake thousands with anyone that France will never beat England in the next 10/15 years in a legit match.

Have Catalans and/or Toulouse in SL, fine, but let's get our heads out of the sand and stop pretending it's because the aim is to strengthen the French national team. If that is the aim then the experiment has already failed. Repeatedly.

I agree with alot of what you say. I think there should be an aim to have 4 pro clubs in France thus creating more depth. The goal should be to broaden and strengthen the player pool so as to compete with the big boys they may not beat them. Once this happens crowds exposure etc will increase. It will take time though.

[Saint Toppy]

On 29/04/2023 at 18:57, THE RED ROOSTER said:

There will never be any improvement in the French national side until at least a dozen players are in the Catalans side each week instead of Brits & antipodeans NRL.  French Elite 1 Super League just doers not cut it.

Edited for accuracy !!

[Tex Evans Thigh]

9 hours ago, rlno1 said:

I agree with alot of what you say. I think there should be an aim to have 4 pro clubs in France thus creating more depth. The goal should be to broaden and strengthen the player pool so as to compete with the big boys they may not beat them. Once this happens crowds exposure etc will increase. It will take time though.

You'd think having Catalans in SL would increase exposure in France but it hasn't really made a dent. If we're talking 4 French clubs in SL, that's not feasible and would start to seriously damage the English game and pathways. Getting a fully pro league in France would be a good aim but as far as I can tell there isn't the funding or support for it. The inability to get any kind of TV deal tells it all really. 

I used to be a big supporter of French teams in SL, but the longer it goes on, the less I'm able to see benefit in it outside of it giving us a bit of geographic diversity, a nice away trip and the illusion that we're growing the game. The reality is there is no benefit to the French national team, they take up a space for a UK club, no TV deal and no additional commercial benefit to the rest of the game. In all likelihood its damaging commercially given it's not an area Sky sell into nor do a lot of our sponsors sell into. 

I'm not against Catalan (or Toulouse) being in the comp from a sporting perspective as it adds a bit variety and colour, but it feels like a we're paying a lot for that variety and colour.