War of the Roses (Again)

[Dave T]

I do think the best mid-season options purely for the benefit of England RL are:

1 - Mid-season Test versus a big team away from home (mini-tour party and include NRL players). 

2 - Mid-season home match against an Exiles/World XIII team (training camp and competitive game - a team that can beat us!)

3 - Mid-season test against France (training camp, less competitive game)

4 - Lancs v Yorks (chance to see 34 English players on the pitch)

Option 1 is a no-go due to NRL strategy of no internationals in-season. 

Option 2 seems to have fallen out of favour despite some competitive games. If we think back to the very first Exiles game, it had an interesting concept, a decent level of branding and marketing and squad build up etc. It is somewhat volatile based on the quality of overseas players, but we have seen that they can really test England.

Option 3 is under threat because of the car crash of this year. I don't believe in writing things off because we made the ludicrous decision to stage England as pre-match entertainment for a Featherstone game in Toulouse. 

Option 4 is being discussed to death here. I've ranked it lower because of the lack of being able to set fixed combinations etc. 

I think any of these things can work poorly or quite well - as has been the theme of discussion, if any of these are done really well, with full support, adequate investment, strong partners, then they can all work.

I'm not a fan of Lancs v Yorks for a few reasons, which I've articulated before, but I don't think we need to get too sniffy about it being northern counties - I don't believe we should hate on everything we are. It could easily be positioned as a celebration of heritage etc. with a modern positioning. But I can understand why people feel strongly about it if it is this OR an England game.

[Dave T]

27 minutes ago, crashmon said:

Thats exactly what Australia say

We beat England all the time, so as England have not reached a competitive level, we dont need to play them, so instead we make the club game the pinancle and not bother much with Internationals.

Every single person who posts here that we should not play France there is no point, should also never moan that Australia refuse to enegage and play England or bother to visit england

There really is a huge difference at play. And that is that despite a poor record against the Aussies, England still deliver the largest international events. 

There is a challenge around the commercial viability of France tests when they stage matches as they did recently.

[17 stone giant]

12 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

All makes good sense, but I wouldn’t say contrary to my point. More so, it would be great if there was a fortnight off and WATR was an England trial for a match the following week against France. 

To me that feels a bit too close together. I would prefer to concentrate on the Roses for two or three weeks in the summer, and then focus on England in the Autumn.

I think with your suggestion there would be a danger that the Roses match (assuming it's done well and has the intensity and support we'd all like) would overshadow England v France.

[Sports Prophet]

3 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

To me that feels a bit too close together. I would prefer to concentrate on the Roses for two or three weeks in the summer, and then focus on England in the Autumn.

I think with your suggestion there would be a danger that the Roses match (assuming it's done well and has the intensity and support we'd all like) would overshadow England v France.

That’s fair. Especially when the result is a walkover.

[17 stone giant]

Out of interest, if we did do Roses, would we allow the foreign players to turn out for whatever county they play their club games in? Even if it was, say, up to 3 allowed per side.

For example Field and French at Wigan - could they turn out for Lancashire?

[17 stone giant]

3 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

That’s fair. Especially when the result is a walkover.

Yep, too one sided and Eng v Fra isn't a must see for most people. If it was Australia, then it would be a very different matter, but you wouldn't want to cram together your prestige events like that.

[Sports Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I do think the best mid-season options purely for the benefit of England RL are:

1 - Mid-season Test versus a big team away from home (mini-tour party and include NRL players). 

2 - Mid-season home match against an Exiles/World XIII team (training camp and competitive game - a team that can beat us!)

3 - Mid-season test against France (training camp, less competitive game)

4 - Lancs v Yorks (chance to see 34 English players on the pitch)

Option 1 is a no-go due to NRL strategy of no internationals in-season. 

Option 2 seems to have fallen out of favour despite some competitive games. If we think back to the very first Exiles game, it had an interesting concept, a decent level of branding and marketing and squad build up etc. It is somewhat volatile based on the quality of overseas players, but we have seen that they can really test England.

Option 3 is under threat because of the car crash of this year. I don't believe in writing things off because we made the ludicrous decision to stage England as pre-match entertainment for a Featherstone game in Toulouse. 

Option 4 is being discussed to death here. I've ranked it lower because of the lack of being able to set fixed combinations etc. 

I think any of these things can work poorly or quite well - as has been the theme of discussion, if any of these are done really well, with full support, adequate investment, strong partners, then they can all work.

I'm not a fan of Lancs v Yorks for a few reasons, which I've articulated before, but I don't think we need to get too sniffy about it being northern counties - I don't believe we should hate on everything we are. It could easily be positioned as a celebration of heritage etc. with a modern positioning. But I can understand why people feel strongly about it if it is this OR an England game.

I was listening to Chasing Kangaroos podcast earlier and I actually thought there was merit to an idea to play an England v Australia Exiles team in London as a season opener on Australia Day or a suitable day within the week of Aus Day, similar to the All Stars season opener.

I disagree @Damien that a WOTR will be a lesser match than a top SL fixture. I think the intensity would increase dramatically than a run of the mill SL fixture and not forgetting, neither all eligible English players play at the top SL clubs anyway and no proposal for a WOTR is for it to be in place of SL anyway. A WOTR will be much more intense than an international v France though, that is sure.

Neither do I think WOTR needs to capture the imagination of the whole nation, but I expect top quality footy is top quality footy and will have its supporters all over the country. The WOTR was not limited to just Lancs and Yorks, but across all of GB and France.

As I have said earlier, there is a lot of work to do to grow the game in the heartlands and I believe a well executed WOTR will capture the imagination of the heartlands. A big event snowballs. If the heartlands get behind it and it is a big event, then with the right exposure, could definitely capture interest in the south and elsewhere.

[StandOffHalf]

33 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

All makes good sense, but I wouldn’t say contrary to my point. More so, it would be great if there was a fortnight off and WATR was an England trial for a match the following week against France. 

I think I would probably switch that around and have the France match first on a Friday night in Perpignan or a Saturday afternoon in Avignon, with the WOTR game the following weekend.

I like the idea of a mid-season rep break and think the NRL have damaged international RL greatly with their reduction of internationals to a post-season afterthought.

[Damien]

17 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

I disagree @Damien that a WOTR will be a lesser match than a top SL fixture. I think the intensity would increase dramatically than a run of the mill SL fixture and not forgetting, neither all eligible English players play at the top SL clubs anyway and no proposal for a WOTR is for it to be in place of SL anyway. A WOTR will be much more intense than an international v France though, that is sure.

Neither do I think WOTR needs to capture the imagination of the whole nation, but I expect top quality footy is top quality footy and will have its supporters all over the country. The WOTR was not limited to just Lancs and Yorks, but across all of GB and France.

On your first paragraph I disagree, it will be way off a top SL fixture, just like it hasn't been before and just like the Exiles matches weren't. Just looking at teams people chose on Twitter and they aren't a patch on a top game between the top teams. That is before injuries, player withdrawals and players not wanting to get injured and plainly not giving 100%.

On the second, this is the trouble, it wont be top quality. Just like England v France isn't top quality and the people who you are trying to sell this to aren't daft. We know how discerning RL fans in the North are. It is not a step up from SL and a level above like SOO is.

I'm really not sure why you expect this to be different than we've seen before. We don't have to do this and an average match between 34 English players is no better prep for the national team than no match at all. I know we are polar opposites on this but I just think you are pushing something that is not there and something that no one in RL would be mentioning resurrecting if it wasn't for SOO.

Edited September 4 by Damien

[crashmon]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

There really is a huge difference at play. And that is that despite a poor record against the Aussies, England still deliver the largest international events. 

There is a challenge around the commercial viability of France tests when they stage matches as they did recently.

To me there is no difference at all

Either you decide the club game rules (eg NRL, NFL), and forget internationals in any meaningful format
Or the International game is the pinnacle

In which case we should be looking how we expand that.

If we say England v France is not working we need to find another International event to replace. But going back to a club type event is not the answer, and a Origin type event is a club type event

Edited September 4 by crashmon

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Suggested teams from a Twitter fan...

https://x.com/AmateurishRL/status/1829543115704967325?t=C5CntqdQ1SHJgX8Nuckf6Q&s=19

[bobbruce]

6 hours ago, sam4731 said:

There is very little scope to promote expansionism during the mid season international. Don't get me wrong, we should have built on Denver but people were too busy moaning to be optimistic about it.

What you can do with a mid season international is built towards an expansion minded autumn international by having a rep game/series to provide a platform for selection.

A by product of this is that with the right marketing you COULD end up with a high intensity game that people get excites for.

Probables v possibles Wane picks a 20 man squad. Then fans vote for any other coach either in SL or put forward. Alternatively fans vote for the 20 man squad to face them 2 or 3 options per position. All phone line profits go to RL cares or any other RL charity. 

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, crashmon said:

To me there is no difference at all

Either you decide the club game rules (eg NRL, NFL), and forget internationals in any meaningful format
Or the International game is the pinnacle

In which case we should be looking how we expand that.

If we say England v France is not working we need to find another International event to replace. But going back to a club type event is not the answer, and a Origin type event is a club type event

Yes, sorry, I wasn't arguing against your overall point about international competition - I was pointing out that the argument that the Aussies beat England regularly isn't comparable to England v France.

[bromleybulldog]

Sounds like a competition between Yorkshire,Lancashire, France and Wales might be a better solution? France and Wales to have home games against both counties and then a deciding week France v Wales and Yorks v Lancs. Upside- it gives France and Wales competitive fixtures (hopefully)  Downside- it takes three weeks to complete. But overall should result in closely fought games and could be marketed as a NH championship?

Edited September 4 by bromleybulldog

[crashmon]

25 minutes ago, bromleybulldog said:

Sounds like a competition between Yorkshire,Lancashire, France and Wales might be a better solution? France and Wales to have home games against both counties and then a deciding week France v Wales and Yorks v Lancs. Upside- it gives France and Wales competitive fixtures (hopefully)  Downside- it takes three weeks to complete. But overall should result in closely fought games and could be marketed as a NH championship?

This is a great idea

Lets have England have to play both Queensland and NSW. Only if they win both should they be considered to be good enough to play Australia or NZ

Every post we have where we pitch international teams vs non international teams justs makes a mokery of International RL

[bobbruce]

On 03/09/2024 at 20:14, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Interestingly Yorkshire and Lancashire (inc. G.Manchester and Merseyside) have a combined population of over 13 million.....which is almost identical to the combined population of Qld and NSW. I don't have much for the rest of your points...

In NSW and Queensland RL is pretty much the main game in town.  In Yorkshire and Lancashire that only happens in small pockets. 

[17 stone giant]

1 hour ago, crashmon said:

Every post we have where we pitch international teams vs non international teams justs makes a mokery of International RL

The Kangaroos and Lions used to play club teams when they were touring. The British and Irish Lions RU team still does.

I'd happily watch England vs NSW and Queensland, if it meant actually getting to watch England play.

[Archie Gordon]

2 hours ago, crashmon said:

This is a great idea

Lets have England have to play both Queensland and NSW. Only if they win both should they be considered to be good enough to play Australia or NZ

Every post we have where we pitch international teams vs non international teams justs makes a mokery of International RL

Just replace Wales and France with South Wales and Occitanie. Add London and Cumbria.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Whilst WOTR is going on, have England Knights v someone, selected with players from the other counties. There you go, everyone catered for.

[Damien]

3 hours ago, bromleybulldog said:

Sounds like a competition between Yorkshire,Lancashire, France and Wales might be a better solution? France and Wales to have home games against both counties and then a deciding week France v Wales and Yorks v Lancs. Upside- it gives France and Wales competitive fixtures (hopefully)  Downside- it takes three weeks to complete. But overall should result in closely fought games and could be marketed as a NH championship?

If that's the solution, what is the solution to?

[KiwiRL]

Northwest England vs Yorkshire and the Humber.

Battle for government office regional supremacy. 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

11 hours ago, bobbruce said:

In NSW and Queensland RL is pretty much the main game in town.  In Yorkshire and Lancashire that only happens in small pockets. 

Sure - so there is room for growth in these areas, you'd like to think. This is why I always struggle a bit with calls for expansion - hoping to get an RL foothold in <insert midsize town outside heartlands> when we can't even achieve that in cities that are in the immediate region where the game is played. 

[crashmon]

So I am a big advocate for Growing the International game.  If fact I do not think RL can survive in its current form long term without it.  This is why talking about Lancs v Yorks, or exiles games, or M62 Truckers vs M62 Speedfreaks should not even be on the table until we can get International RL off its ######.

Here are some hard facts.  Lets take the basket case which is Elite Club Rugby Union in England

1) Club union teams going to the wall, in a far worse state than League teams.

2) Premiership in Union is an even more closed shop that RL.  Not only do you have to meet specificed criteria to be even eligible for promotion (a la IMG and League), but you then have to have a 2 legged playoff at the bottom team in Prem to get promoted. So its more stacked for the existing Premiership teams than League is for Superleague teams

3) The elite club competition in Club RU, the European Champions Cup, is broadcast to the masses on that far reaching platform Premier sports. I know we moan but the SL is on Sky (with some games on BBC).  I know which platform I would prefer to be on.  

So all of the above should tell you that League should be far more attractive than Union to sponsers ?  Yes?

WRONG

This week in BBC, England Union agreed a funding deal for 8 seasons at 33M a year for each Premiership club.  We Negioated 20M at year with sky. So the basket case which us Union, which at at club level is behind SL in almost every metric, gets 13M a year more? Because they have an International Brand, International games, which make lots of Money and gets lots of viewership.   RL will never get 33M a year from Sky.  In fact if we keep at 20M in the next deal I'd actually see that as a success.

So lets focus on getting the INternational game going.  We are seeing small steps like Pacfic nations, and now France v Lebanon series.  The probalm is that England as an outlier.  They are far too good in the location they are based (Northern Europe).  And 12K miles from the location they need to be to play meanginful opposition (Pacific). So its a rock and a hard place.

Personally I think England should push to play in Pacific region in the next 4-5 years every year. As playing home games in the M62 is not going to get the level of viewership they need to help get more funding.  You need to shorten the SL season so it ends a couple of weeks before the NRL season. Have the England team travel down.  And somehow get invited to the pacific comps.  Then you can have EU cups with the France, Leb, Wales, Serbia etc

I've nothing agaisnt club representative matches.  But right now i see this as discussing what colout paint to paint the bedroom, while the house is about to fall down due to subsidance.  All focus has to be building the Internation game.  As that in the end (as Union is showing us) is how you going to get more funding going forward

Edited September 5 by crashmon

[DACS]

I understand all the reasons why the Roses concept died. To me the biggest single issue was lack of intensity. Look at Origin today and the reason its such a big event is how intense it is. Some of the rugby is great, but a lot of Origin games are just incredibly physically tough games. 

By comparison County Rep games seemed more like glorified friendlies. No sense that even one side was desperate for the win. In fact if one side did show urgency the other was more likely to roll over than put up a fight.  We have equally non-intense games England vs France as well, because the gap in ability is just too big, even if they take it seriously, pick all their best players etc.

Whether it be Origin or England, we need to find some way of making them into proper events where all the players buy in to it and desperately want to be part of it and to win it.  Maybe there just isn't such a thing in British RL?

[Dave T]

24 minutes ago, DACS said:

I understand all the reasons why the Roses concept died. To me the biggest single issue was lack of intensity. Look at Origin today and the reason its such a big event is how intense it is. Some of the rugby is great, but a lot of Origin games are just incredibly physically tough games. 

By comparison County Rep games seemed more like glorified friendlies. No sense that even one side was desperate for the win. In fact if one side did show urgency the other was more likely to roll over than put up a fight.  We have equally non-intense games England vs France as well, because the gap in ability is just too big, even if they take it seriously, pick all their best players etc.

Whether it be Origin or England, we need to find some way of making them into proper events where all the players buy in to it and desperately want to be part of it and to win it.  Maybe there just isn't such a thing in British RL?

Interestingly, the last time we played these games they did tend to be decent close games, but they were relatively high scoring games, maybe lacking in intensity as you say. They did also try and copy the same 'brawl at the first scrum' thing that was a feature of Origin at the time.

I think there were a few things that undermined it last time.

Stadium choice. We played at Headingley and Wigan, which are good grounds, but with only 10k in they just lack any kind of atmosphere, they look like smaller events than Wigan v Huddersfield for example. The last year we used Odsal, which was stupid.

County of Origin branding. By following the Aussie branding you are creating a direct comparison to State of Origin. It's always gonna happen to an extent, but by forcing comparisons, you are just gonna look like a poor relation to one of the biggest events in Aussie sport. Roses is a brand in itself.

Event staging. These things just weren't events. They were just a game of Rugby that got smaller crowds than regular games and stripped out many of the best players (overseas stars at each club). Nowadays to launch a new event I think you need to go the extra mile. Just opening the turnstiles and picking 34 players ain't enough.