Jump to content

Recommended Posts

why don't they rebrand themselves like the pop star Prince did?  "The team formerly known as England"

Edited by graveyard johnny
  • Like 1

see you later undertaker - in a while necrophile 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This article makes Callum Walker look good. 

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ranking-the-9-most-gloriously-iconic-great-britain-kits-in-history

The author claims GB have always had beautiful kits, and then does his best to find some shockers. 

And numbers 9 and 8 were the same kit, just with different sponsors and the removal of the SL logo! 

Absolute garbage feature. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eal said:

We all know No. 2 is the best kit. 

You’d be lucky if there are three half decent ones among them. The 1982 shirt is one of the best IMO but isn’t on the list linked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

This article makes Callum Walker look good. 

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ranking-the-9-most-gloriously-iconic-great-britain-kits-in-history

The author claims GB have always had beautiful kits, and then does his best to find some shockers. 

And numbers 9 and 8 were the same kit, just with different sponsors and the removal of the SL logo! 

Absolute garbage feature. 

Almost all of these were within a 15 year period. I personally liked the 1988/89 Trophy ones with the numbers on the sleeves, which isnt on that, but there's probably heaps of nostalgia involved in that too. Takes me back to my youth watching these games and the photos of that team plastered around St Pats clubhouse.

This did make me have a look at other GB kits though and there have been some right shockers over the years. I think it also goes to show what a rose tinted view some have on all this. Without a doubt if we stuck an England badge on some of those on that list people would then be calling the same shirt tacky and cheap. Even the iconic GB badge only came into being on the 1986 tour and was ditched on the Lincoln Financial sponsored jersey and its simply not true that GB have been this steady, unchanging brand. People of a certain age are often actually only thinking of two very short periods when they are being all nostalgic over GB, 1988-1994 and 2001-2006.

What GB did largely have is consistency when it came to fixtures and planning and plenty of Australia games. That is what we are missing.

Edited by Damien
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Almost all of these were within a 15 year period. I personally liked the 1988/89 Trophy ones with the numbers on the sleeves, which isnt on that, but there's probably heaps of nostalgia involved in that too. Takes me back to my youth watching these games and the photos of that team plastered around St Pats clubhouse.

This did make me have a look at other GB kits though and there have been some right shockers over the years. I think it also goes to show what a rose tinted view some have on all this. Without a doubt if we stuck an England badge on some of those on that list people would then be calling the same shirt tacky and cheap. Even the iconic GB badge only came into being on the 1986 tour and was ditched on the Lincoln Financial sponsored jersey and its simply not true that GB have been this steady, unchanging brand. People of a certain age are often actually only thinking of two very short periods when they are being all nostalgic over GB, 1988-1994 and 2001-2006.

What GB did largely have is consistency when it came to fixtures and planning and plenty of Australia games. That is what we are missing.

I was very surprised the 1988 Trophy one didn't make top of the list. But I do accept bias, as memories of Mike Gregory going 70m at tge SFS and Henderson Gill doing a bit of a boogie will always be great memories. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Damien said:

Almost all of these were within a 15 year period. I personally liked the 1988/89 Trophy ones with the numbers on the sleeves, which isnt on that, but there's probably heaps of nostalgia involved in that too. Takes me back to my youth watching these games and the photos of that team plastered around St Pats clubhouse.

This did make me have a look at other GB kits though and there have been some right shockers over the years. I think it also goes to show what a rose tinted view some have on all this. Without a doubt if we stuck an England badge on some of those on that list people would then be calling the same shirt tacky and cheap. Even the iconic GB badge only came into being on the 1986 tour and was ditched on the Lincoln Financial sponsored jersey and its simply not true that GB have been this steady, unchanging brand. People of a certain age are often actually only thinking of two very short periods when they are being all nostalgic over GB, 1988-1994 and 2001-2006.

What GB did largely have is consistency when it came to fixtures and planning and plenty of Australia games. That is what we are missing.

Was it? It's there on that jersey in the article.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do we know when they will make a decision about this?

Presumably it will be after the England vs Samoa matches, as it wouldn't be a great look to be encouraging people to come and support a team that you're going to ditch for next year (and beyond).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

So do we know when they will make a decision about this?

Presumably it will be after the England vs Samoa matches, as it wouldn't be a great look to be encouraging people to come and support a team that you're going to ditch for next year (and beyond).

2 weeks before the Ashes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Dave T said:

This article makes Callum Walker look good. 

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ranking-the-9-most-gloriously-iconic-great-britain-kits-in-history

The author claims GB have always had beautiful kits, and then does his best to find some shockers. 

And numbers 9 and 8 were the same kit, just with different sponsors and the removal of the SL logo! 

Absolute garbage feature. 

2007 definitely the smartest kit.

2001-4 was a classic cotton shirt. Love it and still have it. I lost my 2007 one 😥

  • Like 1
Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/07/2024 at 15:06, RP London said:

The real problem with all of this is the rose tinted glasses.. When it happened last time things were seen as going ok in Ireland and Scotland becuase players declared for them knowing that it didnt stop them being picked for GB when in effect nothing was changing or improving on the ground in those countries. The only country doing ok was Wales and we missed the boat there in 1995-9.. but that needed money to solve as union went pro. GB and the "declare for your ancestral nation" papered over the cracks and IMHO it would do the same again. 

There are positives to having GB as has been said about players playing and having more "internationals" between the nations and with more players feeling prepared to put their hands up and keep them up for those nations becuase GB exist as the top international team. That is except, of course, what about the world cup do we split or not? if we split we are back to players wanting to play for England becuase the chance of winning the world cup is higher therefore this part of the argument is utterly null and void. However, if we stay as GB and these home nations remain stronger that gives "internationals" but they will lack atmosphere and draw for the crowd, matches in Ireland and Scotland will still be poorly supported etc because the game just isnt growing there without massive, massive investment and that will still not come GB or not. 

Your key point is "well delivered international game" and at the moment we just have to accept it isnt and wont be for a while.. Bring GB back or dont, as many others say, it'll make little difference it may paper over cracks but it isnt fixing the issue. What it could do though is lead to more and more muddled thinking where the audience just think "i have no idea what is going on or who we are" and they just walk away from the international game, something happening already with the lack of calendar etc. 

So to cut to the chase from a rambling post... the KEY is not GB or England is the "well delivered international game" across the board.. then lets worry about what badge we put on the shirt IMHO

Great post. My only major disagreement is the “players wanting to play for England becuase the chance of winning the world cup is higher” comment.

As long as those nations are in with a shot, I think the players play for the non-English nation. Otherwise, well then they feel more English and will represent England. My theory is supported as we have seen many Pacific Islanders demonstrate a preference to play for their heritage over the opportunity of representing Aus or NZ and a higher likelihood of winning a WC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/07/2024 at 20:13, 17 stone giant said:

What would that 'tour' be? Next year it's an Ashes tour, but would it always be that? Are we going to have those every four years guaranteed? Plus that would mean GB playing for the Ashes in Australia, but England playing for the Ashes when it's in the UK (e.g. 2028). That makes no sense to me.

And if it's not an Ashes tour, what would GB be doing? A tour against various other teams like in 2019? Or perhaps joining in with the Pacific tournament? Or a Four Nations, if they ever do that again?

I just don't understand what GB is for if we're only playing away and only one year out of four, especially considering the potential difficulties that I mentioned above. To me it just smacks of trying to copy what rugby union has with their Lions, when the ingredients are completely different.

For me it's either bring GB back permanently, including for World Cups, or consign it to history. Swapping between GB and England doesn't work.

 

You’re gonna have to use a little bit of your own imagination sooner or later, to at least try and consider a best case scenario for your own mindset.

For me… well, ideal would be GB to SH every four years between WC’s. I don’t think international RL profile is strong enough to support solely/predominantly a NZ tour. Strewth, that has been evidenced very recently.

So for me, every 4 years, GB Tour to play a schedule of 5/6 matches against Aus, NZ (both mandatory) and any or all of Samoa, Tonga, Fiji and PNG. That tour could change each cycle depending on the strength and commercial value of those opponents.

As for only playing away… I have no issue with that for the immediate future and should it prove successful, again it is an enticement for skilled GB/I youths of either code to consider as they approach a decision to choose their profession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/07/2024 at 21:36, crashmon said:

So I would pay to see a full strength england beat wales by 90.  I would not pay to see England F beat wales by 40, when the England A team was playing away as a "GB" team when its not a GB team, as its full of England players.

The reason the Union Lions works is that it actually has representives from each country, and they are proper representives, not makeweights.    Until GB is really GB and not just England in another name then I'm not interested.

I’m sorry, your argument falls down when you start saying things which have not been proposed. “England F”???? Who said that?

Of you want to counter, then counter against what has been proposed, not something imaginary.

I also did declare that we would need to be comfortable for low crowds for England A in a Euro five nations on the idea we would see a successful and well supported GB tour of the SH. I am ok if you are not an attendee for a well attended, high profile GB tour or the subsequently proposed Euro 5 Nations run at the same time as that tour. I don’t expect my idea to be for everyone, but I have an inkling it will be good for the majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

You’re gonna have to use a little bit of your own imagination sooner or later, to at least try and consider a best case scenario for your own mindset.

For me… well, ideal would be GB to SH every four years between WC’s. I don’t think international RL profile is strong enough to support solely/predominantly a NZ tour. Strewth, that has been evidenced very recently.

So for me, every 4 years, GB Tour to play a schedule of 5/6 matches against Aus, NZ (both mandatory) and any or all of Samoa, Tonga, Fiji and PNG. That tour could change each cycle depending on the strength and commercial value of those opponents.

As for only playing away… I have no issue with that for the immediate future and should it prove successful, again it is an enticement for skilled GB/I youths of either code to consider as they approach a decision to choose their profession.

I think if GB does come back then they should tour once every WC cycle and host a tour once every WC cycle. That could leave the remaining year to have a European or NH tournament with each home nation playing as individual countries 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JM2010 said:

I think if GB does come back then they should tour once every WC cycle and host a tour once every WC cycle. That could leave the remaining year to have a European or NH tournament with each home nation playing as individual countries 

I  not going to argue with that idea, it is a good one and is unique to GB playing at home (although GB Lions in Union are considering the same thing).

That being the case, then my preference would be to see a tour including individual test’s against each Home Nation and culminating with a one off GB test at Wembley or somewhere similar. Unfortunately, I don’t the economics of it will stand up at this point as anything being Aus or NZ v Wales/Ireland/Scotland will be a loss leader. 

Then again, if a final GB match is successful enough, then maybe it can cover the financial losses of the other matches as long as there is some sort of non-tangible gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sports Prophet said:

I  not going to argue with that idea, it is a good one and is unique to GB playing at home (although GB Lions in Union are considering the same thing).

That being the case, then my preference would be to see a tour including individual test’s against each Home Nation and culminating with a one off GB test at Wembley or somewhere similar. Unfortunately, I don’t the economics of it will stand up at this point as anything being Aus or NZ v Wales/Ireland/Scotland will be a loss leader. 

Then again, if a final GB match is successful enough, then maybe it can cover the financial losses of the other matches as long as there is some sort of non-tangible gain.

The British  & Irish  Lions in Union are scheduled  to play in Dublin.  

Most people  have never seen them play in Ireland live. 

I don't know anyone  that has. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, corkonian77 said:

The British  & Irish  Lions in Union are scheduled  to play in Dublin.  

Most people  have never seen them play in Ireland live. 

I don't know anyone  that has. 

 

My suspicions realised it seems. When is that scheduled? I assume it forms part of a wider home series for GB/I? Are they hosting one nation or more?

Have GB/I ever played a non-touring match? I though that was it’s USP.

In Union it is a huge brand and especially since the tour to Aus in 2001, the Lions have upped their financial demands of SANZAR nations to secure a Lions Tour, to the point government support comes into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sports Prophet said:

You’re gonna have to use a little bit of your own imagination sooner or later, to at least try and consider a best case scenario for your own mindset.

As I've said, I would only welcome GB back if it was going to replace England etc. and play in every event. There aren't enough events and there aren't any players from Wales or Scotland (I wouldn't include Ireland anyway) in order to justify changing once every four years. Even more so if it's not even clear or consistent what you're changing for.

Neither do I actually care much for changing. I don't mind the Lions concept in RU because it has tradition and each of the four nations involved are genuine rugby union playing nations, but even then I consider it way behind me wanting England RU to win the World Cup etc.

In rugby league, it's just a nonsense. Putting 13 England players in a different shirt and pretending you've got a different product. You might as well get 13 Englishmen to play as England in year 1, Great Britain in year 2, European Allstars in year 3, and Northern Hemisphere Superstars in year 4. Four amazing teams that the sport can market!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

My suspicions realised it seems. When is that scheduled? I assume it forms part of a wider home series for GB/I? Are they hosting one nation or more?

Have GB/I ever played a non-touring match? I though that was it’s USP.

In Union it is a huge brand and especially since the tour to Aus in 2001, the Lions have upped their financial demands of SANZAR nations to secure a Lions Tour, to the point government support comes into play.

Union have started playing a single Lions test "at home" before touring SA/NZ/AU. This seems to be both a chance for the Lions to engage with a "home" crowd, and to make it easier to play against non-tour nations. I suspect for financial reasons if nothing else this trend will continue or maybe even expand as touring becomes less lucrative.

They played Japan in 2021 at Murrayfield, Edinburgh. They are playing Argentina in Dublin this time around. They've played Argentina in Wales in 2005 iirc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Union have started playing a single Lions test "at home" before touring SA/NZ/AU. This seems to be both a chance for the Lions to engage with a "home" crowd, and to make it easier to play against non-tour nations. I suspect for financial reasons if nothing else this trend will continue or maybe even expand as touring becomes less lucrative.

They played Japan in 2021 at Murrayfield, Edinburgh. They are playing Argentina in Dublin this time around. They've played Argentina in Wales in 2005 iirc.

There you go. I am not surprised. As all sport becomes a capitalist, sometimes a pig, the financial opportunity for the Lions to play at “home” against “tier 2” nations and secure a great pay day was always a reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

My suspicions realised it seems. When is that scheduled? I assume it forms part of a wider home series for GB/I? Are they hosting one nation or more?

Have GB/I ever played a non-touring match? I though that was it’s USP.

In Union it is a huge brand and especially since the tour to Aus in 2001, the Lions have upped their financial demands of SANZAR nations to secure a Lions Tour, to the point government support comes into play.

Argentina  as other poster said. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.