England vs Samoa Series

[iffleyox]

Agree, I’m certainly not advocating Greece! But for the Gulf States England v Lebanon struggles to clear any of the ‘what’s in it for the host’ hurdles unless someone’s going to pay through the nose… IMO anyway

[Jonty58]

Lebanon is just a bunch of Aussies with Lebanese heritage.

Develop France.

[Barley Mow]

23 minutes ago, Jonty58 said:

Lebanon is just a bunch of Aussies with Lebanese heritage.

Develop France.

Definitely give France what assistance they want and we can offer to help them develop. Definitely play them every year.

That doesn't give us opposition for next autumn though.

[Spidey]

28 minutes ago, Jonty58 said:

Lebanon is just a bunch of Aussies with Lebanese heritage.

Develop France.

That will be a sticking point.  Will the NRL contingent of players make themselves available in a NH competition outside of a World Cup? Have they all done it before?

[Sports Prophet]

1 hour ago, iffleyox said:

Agree, I’m certainly not advocating Greece! But for the Gulf States England v Lebanon struggles to clear any of the ‘what’s in it for the host’ hurdles unless someone’s going to pay through the nose… IMO anyway

The Lebanese have pretty decent relationships with the Gulf. If there is serious discussion about hosting a WC in one or more of those gulf nations, then hosting another Middle East country in a series against two prized western nations like England and France might just be the event where the IRL and RFL says “ok, show us what you got”.

[Sports Prophet]

1 hour ago, Jonty58 said:

Lebanon is just a bunch of Aussies with Lebanese heritage.

Develop France.

The Leb’s I know are very bloody proud of their heritage. I wouldn’t be questioning their allegiance, if that’s what you were doing.

Develop France. The main priority.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

That will be a sticking point.  Will the NRL contingent of players make themselves available in a NH competition outside of a World Cup? Have they all done it before?

This really is where countries like Ireland and Scotland need to stop taking the easy option. Pick the players that play in matches between World Cups at World Cups. If players don't truly commit then don't pick them.

[Spidey]

32 minutes ago, Damien said:

This really is where countries like Ireland and Scotland need to stop taking the easy option. Pick the players that play in matches between World Cups at World Cups. If players don't truly commit then don't pick them.

They’re just trying to keep up with other teams.  It’s all well and good being honourable. But all teams need to buy into that. Italy, Lebanon etc

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

They’re just trying to keep up with other teams.  It’s all well and good being honourable. But all teams need to buy into that. Italy, Lebanon etc

It's not about keeping up, the entire approach is the lazy option so that the governing bodies can pretend they are doing something. As I have said on another thread there is something seriously wrong when these countries are picking heritage players at u16s level instead of developing and picking their own. It's wrong from top to bottom.

[GeordieSaint]

Lebanon in Qatar or Saudi. I’d go for that. 

[Spidey]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

It's not about keeping up, the entire approach is the lazy option so that the governing bodies can pretend they are doing something. As I have said on another thread there is something seriously wrong when these countries are picking heritage players at u16s level instead of developing and picking their own. It's wrong from top to bottom.

If the likes of Lebanon keep pinching automatic World Cup spots every nation will do what they can to keep up, now if it was a proper tournament with 16 places up for grabs I guess the countries would have more long term plans but that’s where we’re at now. It’s effectively an NRL rep competition 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

If the likes of Lebanon keep pinching automatic World Cup spots every nation will do what they can to keep up, now if it was a proper tournament with 16 places up for grabs I guess the countries would have more long term plans but that’s where we’re at now. It’s effectively an NRL rep competition 

Ireland have been at it for far longer than Lebanon and the reality is we've had nations doing this for 20 odd years and they've not improved their domestic scene one bit. This also happened with 16 teams and 14 teams and it'll happen with 10 if the IRL let it.

The IRL should be removing full membership from nations that dont at least have a bona fide domestic league and/or schools development competitions in place. These countries should not even be allowed to qualify for a World Cup.

[Spidey]

Just now, Damien said:

Ireland have been at it for far longer than Lebanon and the reality is we've had nations doing this for 20 odd years and they've not improved their domestic scene one bit. This also happened with 16 teams and 14 teams and it'll happen with 10 if the IRL let it.

The IRL should be removing full membership from nations that dont at least have a bona fide domestic league and/or schools development competitions in place. These countries should not even be allowed to qualify for a World Cup.

Ireland have a domestic league, probably a similar size to Lebanon. Why can Lebanon have heritage players but not Ireland?

[Damien]

Just now, Spidey said:

Ireland have a domestic league, probably a similar size to Lebanon. Why can Lebanon have heritage players but not Ireland?

I've not got a clue where that question comes from in what I posted, I've not said anything of the sort. I can cope with heritage players provided they are part of a wider plan for growth, in most case, certainly in the northern hemisphere, they aren't.

I'd have much stronger criteria for full membership and if any country does not meet it then they wouldn't be in. I don't care if that is Lebanon or Ireland. We shouldn't be encouraging sham countries. I have a tolerance for exceptions for 1 World Cup to kick start things provided there is clear growth to the 2nd. I have none though when it comes to countries that have appeared in 5 World Cups over 20+ years in the case of Ireland and are actively picking heritage players at u16s level.

The Ireland domestic league is also a joke. It consists of a few RU clubs, which frequently change, that play a handful of games in the RU off season. It isn't real development and they certainly don't meet the criteria to be a full member of the IRL.

[The Future is League]

8 hours ago, Barley Mow said:

Definitely give France what assistance they want and we can offer to help them develop. Definitely play them every year.

That doesn't give us opposition for next autumn though.

Play France in France to try and try and pique some interest in the French national team in France.

I see no value in playing France here

[Jonty58]

10 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

The Leb’s I know are very bloody proud of their heritage. I wouldn’t be questioning their allegiance, if that’s what you were doing.

Develop France. The main priority.

I am not questioning their loyalty at all but they are a heritage team like so many others.

I dont think having a bunch of teams made up of Aussies playing for the country where their grandparents come from help the game at all.

its a Circus IMO.

[Sports Prophet]

45 minutes ago, Jonty58 said:

I am not questioning their loyalty at all but they are a heritage team like so many others.

I dont think having a bunch of teams made up of Aussies playing for the country where their grandparents come from help the game at all.

its a Circus IMO.

Fair enough. I’m similar to @Damien on this matter. If it is used as an opportunity to grow the game in said country, then great, but, similar to you, consistently churning out heritage teams isn’t the answer.

It can’t be easy in a place like Lebanon to grow the game with the uneasy political landscape. I’ve seen what the Cedars can do domestically and it is impressive, but with recent upheaval over the management of the game there, I suspect the domestic game hasn’t progressed, possibly diminished, since my experiences. 

I am willing to give Lebanon a little more flexibility in my assessment of exploiting heritage player rules.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Sports Prophet

[The Future is League]

10 hours ago, Jonty58 said:

I am not questioning their loyalty at all but they are a heritage team like so many others.

I dont think having a bunch of teams made up of Aussies playing for the country where their grandparents come from help the game at all.

its a Circus IMO.

There is no long term future in heritage teams.

Countries need to develop local talent and not rely on the likes of Australia, New Zealand and England to develop players for them

[The Masked Poster]

16 hours ago, Damien said:

I've not got a clue where that question comes from in what I posted, I've not said anything of the sort. I can cope with heritage players provided they are part of a wider plan for growth, in most case, certainly in the northern hemisphere, they aren't.

I'd have much stronger criteria for full membership and if any country does not meet it then they wouldn't be in. I don't care if that is Lebanon or Ireland. We shouldn't be encouraging sham countries. I have a tolerance for exceptions for 1 World Cup to kick start things provided there is clear growth to the 2nd. I have none though when it comes to countries that have appeared in 5 World Cups over 20+ years in the case of Ireland and are actively picking heritage players at u16s level.

The Ireland domestic league is also a joke. It consists of a few RU clubs, which frequently change, that play a handful of games in the RU off season. It isn't real development and they certainly don't meet the criteria to be a full member of the IRL.

Very well put. I can remember watching the England/Ireland WC QF in 2000 at Headingley and explaining to the people I’d brought along with me, that yes, there were quite a few heritage players but this was just a stepping stone - there will be more Brian Carneys in a few years and they will be. ‘genuine’ Irish side. That is ludicrously optimistic, it is now obvious but I was a bit younger and more naive and genuinely believed what I was saying.
 

Practically 23 years to the day, not only did that not happen but it’s gone considerably backwards. Not just Ireland either, it’s a common story. 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, The Masked Poster said:

Very well put. I can remember watching the England/Ireland WC QF in 2000 at Headingley and explaining to the people I’d brought along with me, that yes, there were quite a few heritage players but this was just a stepping stone - there will be more Brian Carneys in a few years and they will be. ‘genuine’ Irish side. That is ludicrously optimistic, it is now obvious but I was a bit younger and more naive and genuinely believed what I was saying.
 

Practically 23 years to the day, not only did that not happen but it’s gone considerably backwards. Not just Ireland either, it’s a common story. 

There's been a total inability to build, from all parties and stakeholders.

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, The Masked Poster said:

Very well put. I can remember watching the England/Ireland WC QF in 2000 at Headingley and explaining to the people I’d brought along with me, that yes, there were quite a few heritage players but this was just a stepping stone - there will be more Brian Carneys in a few years and they will be. ‘genuine’ Irish side. That is ludicrously optimistic, it is now obvious but I was a bit younger and more naive and genuinely believed what I was saying.
 

Practically 23 years to the day, not only did that not happen but it’s gone considerably backwards. Not just Ireland either, it’s a common story. 

Thinking a bit more about this. How much better a position would we be in for NH RL if England had committed to playing Ireland, Wales, France (and Scotland) annually for the nearly 25 or so years since?

[The Masked Poster]

19 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Thinking a bit more about this. How much better a position would we be in for NH RL if England had committed to playing Ireland, Wales, France (and Scotland) annually for the nearly 25 or so years since?

I'm sure if they had played them it might have been a bit of a thing by now. Not guaranteed obviously but what coulda been......

To be honest, the idea of, say,  Wales playing Ireland in front of 2/3000 people now seems like a fanciful dream - but I'd take it right now.

I'd probably even welcome Scotland playing anyone in front of 900 people, in a random RU ground, such has our star fallen.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Thinking a bit more about this. How much better a position would we be in for NH RL if England had committed to playing Ireland, Wales, France (and Scotland) annually for the nearly 25 or so years since?

This is what I don't understand. The pros and cons of a GB team have been debated on here ad nauseum, but after making the decision to split up GB why on earth would you not lock in regular games between the home nations? It's just crazy to me.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

This is what I don't understand. The pros and cons of a GB team have been debated on here ad nauseum, but after making the decision to split up GB why on earth would you not lock in regular games between the home nations? It's just crazy to me.

It makes no sense, but it was not clearly part of any real long term considered strategy at all.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Thinking a bit more about this. How much better a position would we be in for NH RL if England had committed to playing Ireland, Wales, France (and Scotland) annually for the nearly 25 or so years since?

In the last 23 years, England and GB have played against France 20 times. 

France have played the Aussies 3 times in that period and the Kiwis 7 times. 

So in the last 23 years (including a couple of with Covid), the French have played the top nations 30 times. 

That probably indicates that it isn't just about playing tests.