Sat 29th Jun: France Vs England. Stade Ernest-Wallon 17:00 BST (SL+)

[Balmainboy]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

With respect though, that's just a soundbite. What does take responsibility look like? It probably can't afford to do much, if anything more than it does in Wales and France, definitely not anywhere else. 

You're right on lack of funds but the RFL need to make sure the Super League - like the NRL - is bringing in money and increasing eyeballs (appreciate a hard balance). Some obvious ones would be not disadvantaging French teams in the competition, not blocking a team based out of Manchester, or providing support for a Welsh team in the Super League.
While a discussion for another thread - pretending England can support three professional tiers is also complete madness (once upon a time I thought getting rid of promotion/relegation was a solution however after living in London for four years I now completely recognise it's integral to sporting culture here but I would go down to two divisions). 

FWIW I think the NRL should step in and support french rugby league - not english. It would be cheaper and provide more benefits for the international game and therefore in turn England (would take a decade, yes). 1m (AUD - approx 500k GBP) per team in the top french comp for instance is very cheap for the NRL and would completely transform those clubs/french eco system. The same amount of money in super league would help but wouldn't transform the comp by any means. 

[Worzel]

12 hours ago, Dave T said:

I just find this stuff pie in the sky. Europe RL is nothing like the Pacific Nations. And let's be honest, there hasn't been real development anywhere, possibly PNGRL is in a stronger position. 

Tonga almost beat NZ in 1995 at Wilderspool when the RFL staged the first larger scale WC, it's just the same now, they can get a good team of players with Tonga heritage together and get some great results. 

There is nobody comparable in Europe. We need to stop pretending that the RFL has Europe and the NRL has the Pacific - they are nothing like each other in the slightest. 

 

 

100% correct. The NRL has the pacific nations because of those countries' Australian-resident diaspora, learning the game from their youth in the same Australian pathways as "Australian" players, augmented by some pacific residents who grew up playing rugby union at home. It's nothing to do with anything the Australian game has done, it is a very happy accident.

One which, with the NRLs resources, they can now use to reverse engineer genuine pacific rugby league, and they seem to be doing which is certainly laudable. But the idea that the NRL is now reaping the rewards of being more open-minded and ambitious in its wider region, whilst the RFL has not, is just revisionist nonsense (and likely Australian-versus-the-Pommies xenophobic self-congratulatory nonsense to boot).

There's nothing remotely comparable here. The RFL neither has the advantage of being the already-number-one sport in its home market, so attractive to recent arrivals in that way that football here is, nor has Britain been the recipient of huge inward migration from nations with a "rugby" culture. 

[Liverpool Rover]

I didn’t watch it as I was at work so I went onto YouTube to watch the highlights and they are still not on there. 

[Archie Gordon]

17 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

I didn’t watch it as I was at work so I went onto YouTube to watch the highlights and they are still not on there. 

Mere trivia. The priority is to announce the sale on kit is now on.

[The Masked Poster]

I didn't even know this game was taking place until reading it a few days ago on here. I then forgot about it until now. I still don't know the final score. I feel guilty about this....but actually, don't care at the same time. It's a sad state of affairs but as many have pointed out, you reap what you sow. 

And for people thinking this is an all time low..... there's probably worse to come. 

[Damien]

24 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

I didn’t watch it as I was at work so I went onto YouTube to watch the highlights and they are still not on there. 

I dread to think what the highlights are like. On BBC News last night it showed a try from the England women's game, not the men's interestingly enough, and the quality was that grainy and poor that I'm actually surprised the BBC showed it. Real amateur stuff.

[Liverpool Rover]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

I dread to think what the highlights are like. On BBC News last night it showed a try from the England women's game, not the men's interestingly enough, and the quality was that grainy and poor that I'm actually surprised the BBC showed it. Real amateur stuff.

The womens highlights are on Youtube and the quality was alright

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 hours ago, Worzel said:

100% correct. The NRL has the pacific nations because of those countries' Australian-resident diaspora, learning the game from their youth in the same Australian pathways as "Australian" players, augmented by some pacific residents who grew up playing rugby union at home. It's nothing to do with anything the Australian game has done, it is a very happy accident.

Could the same not have happened over here in terms of the Irish, Welsh and Scottish residents/heritage we had/have? We could have developed the Home Nations in a similar way. 

I agree it's all revisionist nonsense though and the only real reason the nations have developed over there is because a few top-level heritage players changed allegiance and basically started a movement. As soon as the Aussies lose dominance, they'll just throw more money at these players to bring them back in and it'll all fall down like a house of cards.

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Could the same not have happened over here in terms of the Irish, Welsh and Scottish residents/heritage we had/have? We could have developed the Home Nations in a similar way. 

I agree it's all revisionist nonsense though and the only real reason the nations have developed over there is because a few top-level heritage players changed allegiance and basically started a movement. As soon as the Aussies lose dominance, they'll just throw more money at these players to bring them back in and it'll all fall down like a house of cards.

They would have played for Great Britain. On the assumption that they moved in significant numbers to large cities where rugby league is dominant.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

They would have played for Great Britain. On the assumption that they moved in significant numbers to large cities where rugby league is dominant.

But (other than one pointless and unwanted nor needed tour), we've been split for over 15 years.

It's a shame the split never happened after the 2000 World Cup. Some quality players in the Welsh and Irish squads.

[JT RL]

7 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

Think what adding Catalan has done to strengthen the game over here ? Another buoyant and solvent club .. not been many of those coming through the English system recently. Having a plan for Catalan and sticking to it has delivered something worthwhile.

There is a possibility of doing the same with the French national team - cooperate and develop together.

We will struggle to be offered games against the Aussies until we get this fixture in order 

 

[Sports Prophet]

17 hours ago, Click said:

So in other words, Plough Lane is hard for YOU to get to. 

I can cycle there in 50 minutes, not too hard.

@Bedfordshire Bronco said it was a ball ache to get to. I would suggest a 50 minute cycle each way would be a ball ache for much of 50% of the population.

[gingerjon]

32 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

But (other than one pointless and unwanted nor needed tour), we've been split for over 15 years.

It's a shame the split never happened after the 2000 World Cup. Some quality players in the Welsh and Irish squads.

To replicate the NRL, you would still need a flow of people into big places where rugby league is dominant.

[JT RL]

18 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

@Bedfordshire Bronco said it was a ball ache to get to. I would suggest a 50 minute cycle each way would be a ball ache for much of 50% of the population.

I’m a season ticket holder, and it is for me !!

[Sports Prophet]

16 hours ago, Dave T said:

I just find this stuff pie in the sky. Europe RL is nothing like the Pacific Nations. And let's be honest, there hasn't been real development anywhere, possibly PNGRL is in a stronger position. 

Tonga almost beat NZ in 1995 at Wilderspool when the RFL staged the first larger scale WC, it's just the same now, they can get a good team of players with Tonga heritage together and get some great results. 

There is nobody comparable in Europe. We need to stop pretending that the RFL has Europe and the NRL has the Pacific - they are nothing like each other in the slightest. 

 

 

You make some fair points there. Correct, no investment from the NRL into Tonga or Samoa has really improved their performances. Migration to Aus east coast and the profile of the NRL itself on the east coast has been the main reason.

Put into context though, heritage filled Irish and Scottish teams have historically performed ok and should the platform for those two nations to play in have been both regular enough and of enough prestige, then there is no reason why those two nations couldn’t have for the time being enticed more heritage players to play competitive fixtures against England more often in the same way Samoa and Tonga do in the Pacific.

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Could the same not have happened over here in terms of the Irish, Welsh and Scottish residents/heritage we had/have? We could have developed the Home Nations in a similar way. 

I agree it's all revisionist nonsense though and the only real reason the nations have developed over there is because a few top-level heritage players changed allegiance and basically started a movement. As soon as the Aussies lose dominance, they'll just throw more money at these players to bring them back in and it'll all fall down like a house of cards.

We have that’s why people like Cunningham and Briers playing for Wales in WC and McDermott and Connolly playing for Ireland. We even developed a couple of pro clubs in Wales off the back of it. What we don’t have is the money to push on with it or the large scale continued immigration from these countries into the areas where RL is strong. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

17 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

We have that’s why people like Cunningham and Briers playing for Wales in WC and McDermott and Connolly playing for Ireland. We even developed a couple of pro clubs in Wales off the back of it. What we don’t have is the money to push on with it or the large scale continued immigration from these countries into the areas where RL is strong. 

No, we had a World Cup that they elected to play in... and that's all we did. 

Actually, we had a mildly successful mid-season test against Wales in 2001 at Wrexham, followed by a test against NZ at Millennium Stadium as a warm-up for GB... then nothing.

Organising international matches against local competitive nations shouldn't cost money, they should make money.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

21 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Put into context though, heritage filled Irish and Scottish teams have historically performed ok and should the platform for those two nations to play in have been both regular enough and of enough prestige, then there is no reason why those two nations couldn’t have for the time being enticed more heritage players to play competitive fixtures against England more often in the same way Samoa and Tonga do in the Pacific.

The problem with England playing all the high profile fixtures and having all the (increasingly limited) resources pumped in to them has meant that heritage players haven't had any incentive to stay playing with their nation of heritage. The likes of Ben Currie, Toby King and Joe Philbin all played for Ireland before switching to England. Likewise Morgan Knowles with Wales. Maybe if those other nations had enjoyed the same playing opportunities and resources as England then they wouldn't have felt the need to switch. This is why I'd have kept GB&I for test series and played annual home nations tournaments so that the Irish, Welsh and Scots players would have had exactly the same playing opportunities as England. Alot of posters on here have previously commented that it isn't the RFL's job to develop Wales, Ireland and Scotland. Yet it is in the RFL's constitution, and more importantly would have been in their interests to take a more active role in developing these nations, as it may have helped avoid the dire state the game currently finds itself in.

[Sports Prophet]

4 hours ago, Worzel said:

100% correct. The NRL has the pacific nations because of those countries' Australian-resident diaspora, learning the game from their youth in the same Australian pathways as "Australian" players, augmented by some pacific residents who grew up playing rugby union at home. It's nothing to do with anything the Australian game has done, it is a very happy accident.

One which, with the NRLs resources, they can now use to reverse engineer genuine pacific rugby league, and they seem to be doing which is certainly laudable. But the idea that the NRL is now reaping the rewards of being more open-minded and ambitious in its wider region, whilst the RFL has not, is just revisionist nonsense (and likely Australian-versus-the-Pommies xenophobic self-congratulatory nonsense to boot).

There's nothing remotely comparable here. The RFL neither has the advantage of being the already-number-one sport in its home market, so attractive to recent arrivals in that way that football here is, nor has Britain been the recipient of huge inward migration from nations with a "rugby" culture. 

A very good post @Worzel, except for the xenophobic part which was nonsense in itself. I don’t think there is any deluded self-congratulations going on for years and years of activity, but the NRL must be congratulated for seeing the opportunity for what it is and running with it.

You are right on the number of migrants to Aus and UK, but as I commented to Dave above, Scotland and Ireland were actually doing ok with heritage players (I suspect neither had the best of their heritage players on the pitch at the last WC) and would have proven suitable opposition for England over the last 10-15 years had that been sustained and in turn kept the profile of the international game in the NH much higher than the capitulation it has turned into.

[Sports Prophet]

2 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

The problem with England playing all the high profile fixtures and having all the (increasingly limited) resources pumped in to them has meant that heritage players haven't had any incentive to stay playing with their nation of heritage. The likes of Ben Currie, Toby King and Joe Philbin all played for Ireland before switching to England. Likewise Morgan Knowles with Wales. Maybe if those other nations had enjoyed the same playing opportunities and resources as England then they wouldn't have felt the need to switch. This is why I'd have kept GB&I for test series and played annual home nations tournaments so that the Irish, Welsh and Scots players would have had exactly the same playing opportunities as England. Alot of posters on here have previously commented that it isn't the RFL's job to develop Wales, Ireland and Scotland. Yet it is in the RFL's constitution, and more importantly would have been in their interests to take a more active role in developing these nations, as it may have helped avoid the dire state the game currently finds itself in.

Spot on. The opportunity to play those “high profile” matches was there the moment GB/I ceased.

I would have kept GB/I for tours to SH only, not for inbound touring nations.

[bobbruce]

4 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

No, we had a World Cup that they elected to play in... and that's all we did. 

Actually, we had a mildly successful mid-season test against Wales in 2001 at Wrexham, followed by a test against NZ at Millennium Stadium as a warm-up for GB... then nothing.

Organising international matches against local competitive nations shouldn't cost money, they should make money.

That’s the point we haven’t done a great deal with it but neither have the NRL. There’s has worked mainly off the back of a few big name players choosing their heritage over playing for Australia. Plus the fact the connection with their heritage is stronger because it’s generally more recent. 

[Damien]

International Rugby League being where it is has sweet fa to do with whether we have Great Britain or not.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

International Rugby League being where it is has sweet fa to do with whether we have Great Britain or not.

It's got a huge amount to do with the RFL falling asleep at the wheel and not acknowledging the need and their responsibility to provide sufficient time/effort/resource/money in to developing player pathways and sufficiently attractive playing opportunities for the other home nations.

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

It's got a huge amount to do with the RFL falling asleep at the wheel and not acknowledging the need and their responsibility to provide sufficient time/effort/resource/money in to developing player pathways and sufficiently attractive playing opportunities for the other home nations.

So nothing to do with Great Britain existing or not.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

So nothing to do with Great Britain existing or not.

GB&I had/has the potential to be one of those potential playing opportunities, so could have formed a piece of the jigsaw. But please don't take one element of a much larger post out of context and misrepresent it.