It's as near as you're going to get from State of Origin.

Nobody cares if they are from the east or west of England, nobody really cares if they are from yorks or lancs as we have seen. Similarly no one would care if they are from England when the alternative is everywhere else in the world.
They are all artificial and contrived and no rivalry will ever be built in any of them.

as i said if anyone is looking to build another Origin, they will fail. So dont bother.

What the east v west concept would do, is separate the clubs in to two camps, simply relying on the already existing rivalries in SL. The best players from Wigan, Warrington, Saints, Quins, and Salford against the Best of Leeds, Bradford, Hull, Hull KR, Hudds, Cas and Wakefield

they will be pretty much the same players, just more engliash players. and as such give us less of a reason to bother with it.Then it will fail and do nothing. It would be pointless and a waste of money.

People wont watch an England v artificially contrived overseas X111. Its a pointless and worthless concept that does none of the things we actually want it to do.

make them.

Because they'd lose

considering every team who finished above you had fewer overseas players and more England internationals and the fact i have seen a game of rugby before, i think you are wrong

I disagree with that. I'd support England whoever they play, and I'm gutted every time they lose. I'd think there are a fair amount of people that think the same, and I'd think that is what the RFL would want. It's better for the international game, and more exposure of the international team would be better for its brand.
Selling a Lancashire team that isn't Lancashire, and an "East vs West" game that wouldn't have anyone other than exhibition fans interested wouldn't get any intensity what-so-ever. It would be about as big as the Carnegie 9s at best.


And I agree. But England playing international games isn't looking to build another Origin. It's looking to get England more games to improve them as a team so they have a chance against the best in the world! They need to spend more time in the camp, with the coaching staff and with their team-mates so they can become a better team and more organised team. The best way they can improve is by playing games against better opposition.


In what way is it relying on the rivalries? If they are playing in the same team as their rivals, then in what way would the rivalry matter? It won't bring them together if they don't care about the team (see Yorkshire/Lancashire games in the past that were just Wire/Wigan/Saints fans abusing each other, and the same for Leeds/Bradford).

At least with England vs Australian All-Stars/Exiles you have a team that everyone supports (England) against a team of quality, and you can even sell the "friend vs friend" angle.


How will there be pretty much the same players but more English players? Are you saying Aussies should play for East vs West? Or are you saying that the second string of England is better than the Australian contingent in SL? Because if the latter, I feel you will find many many people that disagree with you! (You'd find a lot of people thinking that they'd beat our first string!).


Why won't they?
And as has been said, it is not pointless. It has a meaning. An important meaning, and one England have been lacking - decent, intense competition to improve and prepare the international team.


Do they not have legal rights (you know, being the players employers and that)? If we could just pull players out whenever we liked as easy as that, surely we'd have done that years ago for more than one game?

People arent being exposed to an international game, They are being exposed to a game between one national side, and a random and contrived team whose existance is solely to play against England and has a near constant turnover of staff

and why would you think people would support a nonsense team like a ROW 13? Nobody goes to a match to watch one side only. Why should i care if England win a friendly against a bunch on players who cant possibly have any pride in their jersey?

And they are doing the exactly the same thing by having east v west, we just get to include more English players. It becomes a real proving ground and trial game for international selection with a few guest stars thrown in.

Which is likely to be a more intense challenge Danny Buderus playing for the ROW against Roby, or Roby and Higham against Diskin and Lunt for international selection?

would you support a team with some Hull players in against a side made up of other SL clubs sides more, or a team with some hull players in against another with some hull players in?

as you would with east v west which you could do in exactly the same way as east v west.

yes as i proposed earlier on, we have 12 english sides in SL, 2 english players from each side voted for by the fans, 8 overseas players (again voted for by the fans) and 6 wildcards as coaches picks. Leaving two squads of 19.


Except it doesnt, it simply gives 17 english players a game against what would be a fairly average side that no-one cares about.

im sure it wouldnt be too difficult. Im also sure, considering players get paid for playing in these games and it formed part of international selection, they wont be too happy to be missing out. Also im sure the clubs wouldnt mind a slice of the takings.

Years ago when Origin was just starting a few Sydney Clubs were going to refuse to release players for the game. The ARL then made it compulsory to play as the player wouldn't have been able to play for the Kangaroos and were heading the Soccer/Football (pending where your from) route if the club's don't release players they don't play for the club now all the RLF would have to do is implement this rule simple as that.

The Super League Season is probably 3 matches to long as it is, so the comp get's culled back to 24 games a season and then have these games around the same time as Origin is in Australia.

A completely different thing the potential of being able to sell the games to be shown in other countries i.e given that a big contingent of the players in the 'Other Nationalities' squad would be Australian and New Zealand it could be shown in Australia and New Zealand(I hope that Fox got if it happens 9 treats League with contempt)

Is it not a game featuring players from one nation (England) and players from another nation (Australia)?


I think you'll find a lot of people go to a match to watch one team and not care what the other team is.

And why can't they have any pride in the jersey? Haven't some players come out and said they'd find selection an honour? You're speaking like all players wouldn't care, and that won't be the case at all. If it was the case, there wouldn't be teams like the Barbarians, and All-Star teams. Do you care that England beat Wales or France?


How can you talk down an Exiles team for being a "contrived" and then come out with an East vs West game with "guest stars"? Doesn't get any more contrived than that.
And no, it's not exactly the same at all. The only way you get experience of playing for England (under the coaching team, structures, experimenting the tactics with the players) is playing for England, not against half an English team.
Super League is already a proving ground for international selection. We now need to see which players can fit into the team the way the coach wants them to.


I'd hazard a guess at the first.


Depends who they're playing for. I wouldn't support New Zealand over England because a Hull player played for NZ.


But not as much quality as the best in England and the best of the overseas players, not to mention the bonus of the England players playing together.


Did you not just say the players from clubs from the East would play for the East and the West for the West? How would it be "friend vs friend"?


So, why would the overseas players have pride in this shirt then? How is this not contrived? You've basically gone against everything you've argued!


I disagree for reasons I've already said. And if I did agree, it would be a better game than England vs France/Wales, so still an improvement.


I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as that.
And I'm sure clubs, as happy as they would be with the takings, wouldn't be happy with the loss of their star players in important games (and thus potential loss of takings due to poor form).

Players from the other team wouldn't be able to be persuaded by international selection as that isn't the RFL's decision to make. If the ARL came out and said they would consider players that play in this game for the full test team, then maybe they would.

I'm sure some clubs' chairmen would be happy to see their players just playing club footy as well.

No, its England (or a version of the England side) playing a 'rest of the world who just happen to be playing in SL at this moment in time' team. I dont know anyone with a rest of the world passport. Though i expect it would be rainbow coloured.

So why does a Leeds v Wigan match get around 10k more than a leeds v some lower league side?

you think the Baa Baas or all star games are treated seriously? the Baa Baas pick a random amateur to play for them, in the NFL the pro-bowl is in hawaii and has different rules to normal, in the NBA is preceeded by dunk contests, and games of horse, These games are treated as what they are, showpieces, and events, a bit of fun.
of course i do, similarly i care when they play Australia, NZ, PNG or Fiji, or anyone in an international test. Im not interested in seeing them play a friendly series against a made up team cobbled together from the foreigners in this league/

Your right, it doesnt. It is contrived, it would be an event, a bit of fun, a trial and a get-together for the players, im not pretending it would be our Origin or a warm in intensity for international games.
then put them against Wales, Scotland, Ireland or France then. The England coaches could obviously be involved in an east v west game, the players are obviously getting together, and get to put themselves in the window for selection, 30 of them, rather than 17.

I can only ask why on earth you would think that?

thats not even close to being an answer to the question i asked.

so the best 30 english players plus the best 8 overseas players wouldnt put on a contest similar in intensity to the best 17 English players and the best 17 overseas players? do you really believe that?


England team mates playing against each other, for the shirt. Overseas players here for about 3 years on average is hardly the life long rivalry expressed by Origin when it sold itself as mate against mate, state against state.

I've fully accepted it is contrived. Im happy with that. Im not arguing it should be used to build us up to the intensity. It wont. Neither will an England v ROW 13. Nothing but closely fought internationals will do that.

As i said i didnt propose it as a means of getting players used to a higher intensity, to be our origin, a chance to try out tactics etc, because it isnt those things. None of the ideas proposed could be close to giving those things. So lets use it how we can, make it an event for the fans, let it get attention, get people involved, get people talking about the game, about whether they voted for Burrow or Brough, Tomkins or Pryce, Whether Kallum Watkins was the right choice as a coaches pick. Let the players get together, relax, get to know each other, play together against players trying to take their place, work with the England coaches and have some bloody fun.


an improvement in what way? that they are playing a team which is a bit better? Thats not going to prepare us for NZ and Australia any better at all. You are saying playing a team which would likely be comfortably the bottom team in the NRL, would prepare us for playing a team picked from all the best players in the NRL.

And when the England players say hang on, I earn about £3k a match here, there is a three match series here, plus the possibility of another 4/5 at the end of the season, plus win bonuses. Not to mention the inherent value in representing my country, are you going to pay me that extra £30k a year to make up for it? no? oh well id like a move to this club please, btw you have also ed of the RFL. and the overseas guest stars say hang on, i was getting £5k a match here, thats £15k you are stopping me earning, are you going to pay that? well that isnt what i came all the way over here for, I might look for another club in this country, but my agent will certainly contractually make sure you have to release any other players for this game if you want to bring them over.

The link in the OP stated that it was an SL-based Australian team. I would hazard a guess at them having an Australian passport in this case




Because of season tickets maybe? Hence why the league game and the cup game against the same opposition has a vastly different sized crowd in 90% of cases!


Do players not take pride and honour in pulling on these shirts? That is what you've been arguing.


That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But so far you've not really offered a better alternative.


Then why offer it as an alternative?! And why argue how to go about doing it if you don't think it would achieve anything!?



They've tried the former and it hasn't provided enough intensity, hence the problem here and the need for a better alternative! Do keep up.

The England coaches couldn't be involved in an East vs West game in the same way they could an England game. Both teams would have different coaches, surely? You could have England staff assessing them I suppose. But it's really not the same as being in the same set-up at all.


Because I think Buderus is a better player than 3 of the 4 players you mentioned.


Because the question you asked was incredibly vague. A team with Hull players in vs a team with Hull players in could mean Samoa vs Tonga. It could mean England vs New Zealand. A team with Hull players against a team made up of other SL clubs players could also mean England vs New Zealand. England might have no Hull players and New Zealand 1 or 2. It could be the other way around. So, like I said, it depends who they are playing for!

I tend to support the team that represents me the most. After Hull FC, that's England. And I'll support England against any team (including Cumbria and the Maori).


Yes. After you've picked 8 Aussies over here, I reckon you'd easily find another 9 that are better than 13 English players after picking the starting 17.


England team mates playing against each other? Doesn't that happen every week in SL?
But how often do club team mates play against each other? That's what they use in Origin.


What closely fought internationals are available this side of the world? You're not seeing the problem and why they are suggesting this, and you've suggested an alternative and then completely disregarded it in the process?! I don't get why you're arguing for it?!

Why can't fans get involved in an England vs Other Nationalities/Aussie SL side in the way you've suggested?
I've already explained enough times how working with England coaches isn't the same unless it's for England.


I think you'll find that playing better opposition would better prepare you for playing better opposition! It sounds pretty daft what you're saying!
And comfortably finish bottom of the NRL? Don't make me laugh. Loads of our imports would walk straight back into an NRL side.


It's a fair point. But still, coaches will stick to their guns. Especially if said player is contracted for a long time. You see it all the time in sport. Like I say, I hope it's not an issue, but I assume it will be. Otherwise, I'm sure we could just send a team down-under for 3 weeks to play the Aussies mid-season instead (which would be better for the game overall) and the SL clubs would be able to do nothing about it.

england v 'Other nationalities' will happen.....get ready for it people

Please can we have a name for them representing our games rich history.... I say this as someone who saw the last fixture other nationalities played in the 1970s. Make the team a "club" that invites people to play for it, with its own traditions and which is seen as an honour to represent - award a cap or a medal or something for each appearance. Include some europeans & islanders as well as Aussies. And can we stick with it for a few years at least and say up front that this fixture is now an annual event. And have the team wearing the same colours year after year.

Then both you and he should read the post he provided

Yet there are big differences between in attendence in league games aswell.
not really no, and really not comparable to origin
because there isnt one, we arent going to get origin, so dont waste money trying.
neither will this. Besides its not the lack of origin that troubles us. It certainly doesnt trouble the Kiwis. Its band aid for the niave and easily please which will die and not last 5 years.
of course they could, they get time throughout the season to work with them. The fact there are two camps rather than one would make a negligible difference.

and Buderus has nothing to play for, and is having a kick around. Why is Buderus going to push himself to win a game? so he can go back to the RoW fans with his head held high? so he can wander the streets of RoW as a hero?


its only incredibly vague if you lose all sense of context.

go on then, pick a RoW 17 easily better than the 2nd string England squad which includes the top 4 Overseas players.

dont they play against the players who make up this RoW 13 every week?
none, which is why we need to build up france and Wale because only an idiot would suggest that Origin is the reason we dont compete. There are many more deeper structural issues with the game, and a 3 match series against a RoW13 addresses none of them. The intensity that the aussies have, is the same intensity the Kiwis have, and it doesnt come from Origin, it doesnt come from the Anzac test, it comes from the week in, week out football they are exposed to.


So the fans pick the England team now. So the 17 players who now get this get together arent even guaranteed to be the 17 the coach would pick, and as such remove even more of the point of it.
and ive explained to you its a petty and worthless distinction

when you do it week in, week out, in a competitive environment yes it does. Not against a contrived team with nothing to play for. To pretend that will prepare you for the Aussies and Kiwis is frankly laughable
yeah, we get all the best players over here,


believe me, if the money was there, we would.

To be fair, neither of us are wrong here as it says both:

First line of the article...
[i"[uAUSTRALIA'S English-based players[/u could be selected to play in a three-match series"[/i

And then goes on to say...
[iIt's understood a series of three games is on the cards next year between [uhome-grown Brits[/u and the imports who have flooded the Super League [ufrom Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands[/u."[/i

This would even suggest that it is Great Britain they're thinking of using and not England. But this is an Aussie article, so expect them to think GB are playing Wales in the Four Nations!

But if it was just Australians, would it be technically classed as an international side? Granted it's not the first string team, it is a nation playing another nation.


Is there? A big difference you say? Leeds vs Wigan (top of the league) got 16,622 last season, and the next home game against Catalans (bottom of the league) got 15,154. Taking away fans out of it, yeah that is a huge difference.

I'm not denying some opposition teams aren't as attractive as others, but not as much as you're making out.


So you're saying that players selected for an All-Stars team, or the Barbarians, have no pride or honour in putting on that shirt? Rubbish.
And don't bring Origin in to it. I never compared it to Origin. The way most NRL fans make it out, players have more pride in playing Origin than international RL.


Again, I aren't arguing for Origin. You know this. I'm arguing that the England team need a better test to prepare them and see what players will/won't hack it mid-season. You won't get that from the French or Welsh. You are more likely to get that from this kind of fixture. There are better quality players.


Ridiculous. But whatever you say to make yourself feel like you're a bit better than others.
And I don't see how this won't provide more intensity given that the players are of a much higher standard. You've constantly cited motivation and lack of pride as reasons. How do you know what motivates players? Top professional sportsmen want to win at everything, they are intrinsically motivated. But if you don't believe that is enough, I'm sure prize money is a big enough motivator (as you have said about players wanting to be released from club duties for more money).


Again, you're harking on at this no motivation thing. Maybe he doesn't need to please other people from another country? Maybe he is representing himself? Maybe he wants to prove that he is the best hooker in the league? Maybe he wants to win prize money? Maybe he just wants to p*ss off the English?! I don't know, but neither do you. But to say he would have nothing to play for, as a professional sportsman, is rubbish IMO. If he had no desire or motivation to play, he wouldn't get picked anyway, and they'd find someone else that did. Just like the same happens at international level.


Well put it into context then, because I have no idea what you want me to say! I answered the question. It's not a one or the other answer that you wanted because the question is totally vague.


I'll do so after this post and my dinner...


Yes. But that's not what I was getting at as you well know (and why you have ignored the second part of that quote). How often do club team mates play against each other?


Here you go again with Origin...
Yes, there are more deeper structural issues.
Yes, we need to build up the French and the Welsh.
But sitting on our a*ses using this as an excuse isn't going to get us anywhere. If we can provide games of a better standard for our international team to prepare them, then we should be doing our best to do this. If you think that the ANZAC test does nothing (as in absolutely nothing) for the NZ preparations, you are either ignorant or kidding yourself. The result may not be important, but the experience is invaluable for many players (especially the young ones or the unproven ones).

You can play week in week out football until the cows come home at a high intensity. It will make you a better player technically, and you will be good when it comes to your teams tactics, but sometimes that doesn't transfer to another coaching set-up with it's own tactics and it's own culture. This is why you see players play well for club and not for country at every sport. Some just aren't able to cope and there may be better options, and you only find this out by doing what?... by playing games and experimenting to see what works!


It was your suggestion, not mine. I'm just saying it could easily be applied to either game. You could have fans pick the overseas team. You could have them pick both. You could have them pick neither. It depends what you think is most important about the game. But, by the sounds of it, it sounds like the RFL want a test and not a jolly, so the whole idea of fans picking players (your idea) is completely daft, which is why I didn't suggest it in the first place.


Again, the whole "they have nothing to play for" angle. Ignoring the whole "nothing to play for" angle you've used the whole argument (think outside the box for a second, if you would), assume that this is a motivated and proud bunch of people that want to play for a big cash prize for instance, would this be a good test for the England team?
And the more games England play, the better they will be prepared. It's called getting experience, and you learn from it (as do coaches and managers). The team will be better as a whole the more we have seen them play against better opposition. The idea that you think we should just go in cold and we'd be just as better off is laughable.





How you got that I said they're "the best players" from "they'd walk back into an NRL side" is beyond me. But if you need to make things up...


Well let's hope there is some money there then. But, as I mentioned earlier, you're saying players have nothing to play for, but here are saying that they'd walk out on their clubs if they were denied a chance to play for more money in a rep side? So they are motivated by something? You're saying that they're motivated by money. So it wouldn't just be a jolly for them. And if it was a three-test series, you wouldn't find them having a jolly in the first game because they wouldn't get picked for the second game (which would lose them money, which you have said they would be annoyed if denied the chance to get by their clubs).

Nope, you and he seemed to have misread the article, which references the australian players as part of the RoW side.. Thats why it goes on to mention Australian and NZ players.
thats a faily selective choice isnt it. What about the difference between Wakefield and Warrington? St Helens and Crusaders? the 4 matches preceeding the one you chose.

you mean when you selectively take two attendances and pretend they are representative its not that difference, the lowest attendance at leeds was 12684, the highest just two games later was 17244 about a 40% increase, thats a bloody big jump

not really no. You go ask a pro player whether an international jersey or a baa baa's jersey or an all star jersey were comparable. Tell me when they stop laughing at you.

And it wont do that, there simply not playing a high enough standard of player with enough riding on it for it to do so. The quality and intensity of the game wouldnt even be as high as a top SL game.

but its no higher than they would get at a top club game, You may say they are better players, but they arent that much better (regardless of how you think we have boat loads of top class overseas players here, by far the best players in this league are british), they dont train regularly together, have the communication and set plays etc.

except that people want to play international rugby. They want the pride and honour of representing their nation, their families, their friends their heritage. Of the hundreds of people who have pulled on the shirt beforehand. If you want to pretend that players will get the same by being RoW players suit yourself, its your delusion you're welcome to it.

no it isnt, its fairly simple. Just think of it in the context of what we are discussing rather than confusing yourself with Hull FC being the NZ national team

it should be easy surely.

usually everyday in training.
bloody hell, the Anzac test barely features NZ players, they treat it as a joke because the NRL clubs do. the Kiwis have won 3 of the past 4 international tournaments yet havent won an Anzac test for 13 years that should tell you something.

Lets look at what will actually help and do that, rather than pretending that a game against a team of RoW will help then you are wrong.

Nobody in the world does this. Origin is two teams, which you argued means the coaches cant do these things, and other than that there is one Anzac game a year in which only one team really competes. The Ockers and Kiwis arent better than use because of their half-d commitment to the anzac test.
not if you suggestion is going to do what you are saying it would If they want a test, then they need to play Australia and NZ, anything just isnt a test match. Its pretend.

who the hell is putting up a big cash prize now? And no, it wouldnt be a good test. it wont be even slightly comparable to NZ and Australia and would give us no help whatsoever. It might be a better warm up game to help players get match sharpness at the end of a season before a tournament but thats about it.


yeah, a mid-season knockabout against an RoW team will definitely mean we are better prepared at the end of the season to face teams who are massively better, playing at a massively higher intensity, and actually with something to play for. We should just play france for the next ten years and we will be in the same position, with the same match preparation as Australia.
it was a sarcastic comment used to highlight the poor quality of talent we have imported.

talk about exagerration. I didnt say they would walk out on their club, i said they could, and it would certainly put others off moving to the clubs who decided to stop their players playing.

If it is that much of a problem having a home representative side, why not do like the League did in the late 80s (and as the Aussies do every season when they go to PNG) and call the team something like the Chairman's XIII or President's XIII.

As for the opposition, it would be great to see the return of the historic RL side 'Other Nationalities' ... Which would in my book include Wales and France.

Assuming that the England team is along the lines of:

1. Sam Tomkins, 2. Ryan Hall, 3. Michael Shenton, 4. Chris Bridge, 5. Tom Briscoe, 6. Danny McGuire, 7. Luke Robinson, 8. James Graham, 9. James Roby, 10. Jamie Peacock, 11. Gareth Ellis, 12. Sam Burgess, 13. Sean O'Loughlin.
14. Ben Westwood, 15. Adrian Morley, 16. Joel Tomkins, 17. Kevin Brown.

Then a second string England team of:
1. Garreth Widdop, 2. Darrell Goulding, 3. Leroy Cudjoe, 4. Ryan Atkins, 5. Peter Fox, 6. Leon Pryce, 7. Rob Burrow, 8. Stuart Fielden, 9. Shaun Lunt, 10. Garreth Carvell, 11. Ben Harrison, 12. Jamie Langley, 13. Westerman.
14. Eorl Crabtree, 15. Darrell Griffin, 16. Louie McCarthy-Scarsbrook, 17. Mickey Higham.

I would say that this overseas side was better:
1. Brett Hodgson, 2. Joel Monaghan, 3. Matt King, 4. Brett Delaney, 5. Pat Richards, 6. Brett Finch, 7. Michael Dobson, 8. Josh Perry, 9. Danny Buderus, 10. Mark O'Meley, 11. Ryan Hoffman, 12. Craig Fitzgibbon, 13. Chris Flannery.
14. Joel Clinton, 15. Willie Mason, 16. Clint Newton, 17. Michael Monaghan.

And that's just an Australian-only overseas side. You could even make a Kiwi team that would probably give them a run for their money...
1. Brent Webb, 2. Patrick Ah Van, 3. Iosia Soliola, 4. Setaimata Sa, 5. Jake Webster, 6. Rangi Chase, 7. Thomas Leuluai, 8. Jeff Lima, 9. Tevita Leo-Latu, 10. Tony Puletua, 11. Ali Lauatiiti, 12. David Fa'alogo, 13. Louie Anderson.
14. Iafeta Palea'aesina, 15. Epalahame Lauaki, 16. Weller Hauraki, 17. David Faiumu.

If you had a combined team, just think of the depth. That Aussie team would p*ss all over a second string England team and would definitely give England a game. I should hope our second team could beat the Kiwi SL team, it is weak in places but also stronger in others. I've probably missed some really obvious players in all the teams, and if I have I apologise! But you're looking near enough them sort of teams.

You want to 'compete with the Aussies'? Expand the game and get a bigger player pool, improve junior coaching standards and get a higher standard of competition. Don't introduce some contrived joke game and hope that this will somehow magically bring the players up to the standard of those in the current Australia and New Zealand teams.

You are indeed correct, I have misread. I apologise.
But if it was just an Australian-only team, would it still be technically classed as an international?
And either way, it is a representative game. One is representing England, and the other is representing the best of the imports in England.


I took a game between the team at the top and a team at the bottom.
If you want to look into the rest, then if you take out the away fans, the difference is hardly that much, is it?
A game against Bradford (how many thousands will they have brought?) and a game against Harlequins (a mini-bus full at best?) hardly proves your point that the home fans come to watch their team play only the big sides. Like I've said, I'm not denying that it isn't a factor. But it's not as big as you're making out. Not to mention the hundreds of different factors that could affect a crowds size (marketing, location of game, day of game, weather, competition-i.e. league, cup, friendly). Would a team full of Aussie players (all name players in SL clubs over here) be more attractive to the punter than a half part-time Welsh or French team? I reckon so.


:rolleyes:
You're making up things again. Where have I said that? Where have I insinuated that?
You're saying a player that puts on a Baa-Baa shirt or an All-Stars shirt isn't proud of that? Or honoured? Why don't you go and ask a few that question. Don't compare it to Origin or international to mislead the question. Ask him that exact question.

If they weren't proud or honoured, they wouldn't play.


I disagree. There's no point in going over that again as we're going round in circles.


I agree, the best players in this league are English. I haven't said otherwise. I have said that underneath that, our depth is poor and splitting England in half would only provide too lower quality teams. An Aussie SL team would beat England's second string easily. That's how little depth we have, and that's the reason we sign these players.


If you want to continue to pretend that I am comparing playing for RoW as playing for an international team (at least you've stopped comparing it to Origin) then that's up to you. The only thing I've compared it to is an All-Stars team or a Barbarians team.
A tradition has to start somewhere. There wasn't always hundreds of people that have pulled on the shirt beforehand. Maybe they'll take pride and honour in being the first? If they only wanted to play international, why would they come to England?


:rolleyes:
If you can't even put it into context, how am I meant to answer your question? I've read the question, I've read the quote, I've answered it to the best I could with how vague it is. Are you that stubborn that you won't even reword the question or put it into better context?


It was, it just takes a little time. If it was that quick and easy, why haven't you done one to prove me wrong?


Competitively. I'm sure you knew that, but were just being pedantic.


That when the Aussies play at home they win, and when the Kiwis play at home they win?




They are doing, and they think this will actually help prepare the England team, and are probably going to do that. It's not going to solve all our problems. No-one is pretending that. In your own little world it would make the discussion easier if I was and others were, but I aren't.

I'm not comparing it to Origin, top internationals, saying it will solve all our problems, saying it will mean we will definitely beat the Aussies and Kiwis, etc. I am saying it will help prepare the England team and give them a better test than playing the French and the Welsh will. And it will. And you'll find very few people that would disagree that the team (probably either team) I posted before this would be a better test for England than against France or Wales.


See the second paragraph above re: "I'm not saying iy will solve all our problems".
The Aussies are the best team in the world (just without the trophies at the moment). They haven't needed to concentrate much on their international team because they have such a strong pool of players that will come in and do the job. We don't. The Kiwis don't, but at least they get that strong fixture in the middle of the year and a more intense league to play in, and are looking to get even more fixtures in the year to help continue their development (against the Pacific Isles I believe). We don't have these options. And the Aussies, until recently, haven't needed to care because they've been winning everything. Now that they're starting to lose, they might need to start concentrating on the international game again.
See above... "


It's not an option. If it was, then I would suggest they do that. It's pointless comparing to it if we can't do it.


:rolleyes:
Again, comparing it to internationals against the Aussies and Kiwis.
I disagree. I think it would be a good test. It would definitely be a better test than the French and Welsh.
And the cash prize is just an example of a motivation. It could come from sponsors, event takings, whatever. It might not be that big, it might be quite big. It's just an example. Don't get stuck on it.


Example:
In the three game series, we find that x, y, and z (who are pretty decent SL players) have failed miserably for England in two games. So we try a, b and c (who are also pretty decent, but not as established) and they do better and fit in better to the team. Are the team better prepared then if we've "found some players out" in a more intense test for the international team before the main international window? Would they have been found out if they were just steam-rolling the French and the Welsh? This is one of the reasons WHY we need tougher tests. We need to find these things out, and steam-rolling minnow nations isn't going to achieve that.


Well doesn't that make a good argument then? To me, it just seemed like you couldn't think of anything good to say and had to rely on talking rubbish. The top imports here are far better than our second string, far better than the other countries round here can provide, and are pretty important in keeping the intensity of our league going. I agree that there are many that are poor. But I disagree with anyone that uses the constant cut-and-paste quote of "we need to get rid of the imports to make England better". It wouldn't. The SL would be really low quality and we'd be even further behind.


You also said they wouldn't be bothered about this game, so why would it put anyone off if they wouldn't be bothered?

I agree.
But in the meantime, do we just sit and wait and hope that things come together on the international pitch? Or do we try and find ways to improve their preparation as well? I'd go with the latter...


I don't think anyone believes it will magically bring us up to standard. I think it's a poor argument used by people that are failing to see that the England team are under-prepared and under-resourced and have to find different ways than the Aussies and Kiwis to prepare the international team.

We can sit and say we need to do this that and the other in the system all day long, but it takes YEARS to do, and in the mean time we need to be doing other things AS WELL (not instead of) to improve the international side.

It just does my head in when people constantly argue that this is the only thing we're doing to improve the national team. It clearly isn't.

You may aswell forget any form of siding like Yorks or Lancs and just have England A vs England B and pick the squad from that. Make the players fight for their shirt in full blown internationals by playing against players who want their shirt.

geez I can see England struggling against a SL overseas team. Not sure it will do much for confidence to see them get well beaten! Best hope is that the overseas team doesn't have time to gell or much to play for.

Only one way to find if it would work ?

England are never going to consistently compete with Australia while there is such a gulf in the quality of players. Notwithstanding the fact that this game would be of no higher standard than an average SL match, you can expose players to whatever intensity of competition you want but that won't make them any more likely to compete with a group of far superior players, who are also exposed to intense competition. The players aren't 'under prepared', they are not good enough and with the best preparation in the world would still not be good enough. The only thing a match against an 'Other Nationalities' team would achieve would be to further damage the credibility of international RL and reduce the number of decent level internationals that France and Wales are exposed to.