It's hard to keep track of all these players Ingerlund are poaching from the weaker countries.

he switched ta the same time as Bridge.

You still have not answered my question because you cannot.

Despite attempts to make smart comments [size=200ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION[/size

double post

DITTO SON DITTO


the difference is here players choose to switch because the aussies & kiwis refuse to tighten the laws allowing players to switch...hey if you can "loan" players out to the islands and call them back when you need them then we can "loan" players out to the celts


you lot hunt players and dangle origin shirts infront of them or warn them that if they pick another country they'll won't be able to play origin...

so sod off...peoplein glasshouses should'nt throw stones...ya clown

Yeah because all the poor defensesless players dont have a say in the matter?

They are wanting to play top quality rugby against the best teams so i cant fault them.

The fact that Bridge is from Oldham and Harrison was born in Barrow i suppose doesnt make a difference ?

Its just as much the players as it is the countries.

i'll give you the answer i've always given...


[size=200cos it would be 17 englishmen[/size


until the GB squad contains at least 3,4,5 genuine welsh (like evans) or scotsmen (not like brough) (forget ireland they want nowt to do with GB)...then GB is pointless!

and thats been my stance for friggin 3-4 years

Like Brian Carney




So what you are saying is if there were 5 "GENUINE" celts you would go back to GB like J Davies, Scott Gibbs etc

How far sighted off you.



You have just criticised Australia for picking and choosing which polynesians they will play and when they are needed then are suggesting the same thing for ENGERLUND

like carney???? i'm on about now !!!! not 6 years ago...

and yes for GB to be viable it has to contain genuine welsh and scots players.....how narrow minded of ypou not to think so!!!!!!!


GB has to operate like the british lions in union to sustain itself...

only a fool would think otherwise...


17 englishmen playing australia or NZ might aswell play as ENGLAND cos it sure has hell does'nt represent Great Britian!!!


and i critized australians reaction to us picking celts......cos they do the same with islanders.....learn to read!


DO YOU UNDERSTAND!!!!!

The problem is that we are talking about diofferent things.

I am talking about the development of INTERNATIONAL RL and the game as a whole. Losing every talented Welshman to England does nothing for developing the international game. It certainly does nothing for Wales.

You are talking about some sort of national eligibility criteria which is probably more about your personal prejudices than developing RL.

maybe you think we should cancel the WC because only 3 countries are truly eligible or maybe we should tell all the other nations that they have to play nationally home based amateurs so that they are "pure " enough to fit your criteria.

maybe your avatar tells me all i need to know.

You should have a look in the mirror bigot. You lot started all this when you decided Polynesian players shouldn't be allowed to play for Australia and you ed and moaned about it constantly. Now Ingerlund is ripping the guts out of Celtic nations, including born and bred Welsh players, and the hypocracy is astounding. But you never ever ever ever acknowledge the fact that you were dead dead wrong to have a go at Australians of Polynesian (and Melanesian) descent playing for Australia. Seems like the only difference is that our players are non-white. Is that what allows your hypocracy to pervade? You lot can do it because they're whiteys? Keep waving your St George cross. We know the kind of folk who like to do that.

A Championship select England team should play the French,Welsh,Scots and Irish in the euro cup

Not a bad idea.....but what about the Knights?
How about an off season tour down under to play the development sides in NZ/Aus and a full test against PNG? That would be good for these 'fringe" players...

Yes it would

A lot better than having Englands 2 nd string battering everybody except the French , and putting a big score on them

You will not get the home nations fans,players,coaches or media interested in a competition they are never going to be successful in or even competitive

The home nations squads consist primarily of Championship players , put other Championship players up against them , France have a nucleus of Lower SL quality players with Championship 1 players as back up

there you go every one....an idiot on display!


you're a clown pal and that post barely warrants a reply cos everyone can see you for what you really are..

maybe the native Australians are sending all the convicts back home.

Thats a much better idea, it would be alot more competitive if they were to do that.

Yes, let's keep the bar low and the standard mediorce...

I have no doubt the English championship players would probably beat their counterparts , when they start losing then you change it back again , it is pressurised competitive games you need , not blow outs with exhausted Championship player tackling them selves out gainst full time SL ' seconds '

As Gutterfax has suggested the ' Seconds get sent down under to play the better quality antip ' seconds ' like the Moari's,Abbo's and PNG

Its called , not trying to run before you can walk

Fair enough.

Probably your best idea i've seen and one I agree completely with. It would allow you Championship lot something to shout for internationally too, as most of you seem disillusioned with the 'Super Duper League' International side. Hoenstly though, I dont think they'd beat France

Only one way to find out ?

The ONLY issue I'd really have was that are you not devaluing a competition, would you even call them 'championship select'. Would 14,000 turn out in france to watch them v a championship select. Definately worth a try though imo, you should send an email lewis' way

Yeah because you've got nothing. Shown up for the hypocrite you are. If anyone agrees with you it just proves the bias ignorance that is endemic over there. Let's just be clear about this, you slander Polynesian and Melanesian Australians for years for playing for Australia but now you see no problem with Irish and Welsh players playing for Ingerlund. What is the point of difference here? Keep waving that cross.

I disagree completely with Evans turning out for England.
But Bridge Harrison and Brough? Dont kid youself, they're as English as English gets, we basically loaned them to the Celt nations. But Aus have been doing it for years so I dont know why we dont start poaching aussies on residential grounds too

In reference to Durham Giant banging the GB drum...

How is GB helping international development? If anything, it does the exact opposite. How many GB games are played outside of England? How many non-English players would be selected for GB? There's only been one in the last decade that I can recall. You can write a list of pseudo-Welsh/Scottish/Irish players if you want, but it is hardly a respectable argument as they would all probably consider themselves English given the choice, even if all nations were at the same level.

By going back to GB, you are robbing the home nations outside of England a representative game in their country. Do they feel GB represents them if there is no players and no game in their country? I very much doubt it.

Your issue seems to be more with nation swapping than it does anything else. If you took nation swapping out of the equation, you'd find less and less pseudeo-Welsh/Scottish/Irish players committing for their place of heritage and holding out for England. Is this a bad thing? I personally don't think so. Yeah, they'd be weaker, but it would highlight the true strength of the development of RL in these nations instead of putting paper over the cracks and pretending RL is doing well because they have more players with heritage than the others do.

GB for me is a massive no-no, and will only stifle international development in the home nations rather than improve it (and in what way will it improve it anyway?). I just don't get how it will improve international competition by REDUCING the number of nations competing, and replacing them with essentially a team that we already have (England) as a result of a merger that will do little to represent the others.