I'm opposed to letting Londoners and Cumbrians play just because those are growth areas for the game and eventually we want to see players brought up their representing those areas rather than being appropriated by the (already fairly strong) Yorkshire and Lancashire.

But (as above) I'm in favour of these *as well as* more internationals, not instead of them (that would, as rightly pointed out, be stupid).

Again, it must be pointed out that France, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, PNG, Tonga, Fiji, Samoa etc aren't going to get any stronger if we never play them and eligible players instead choose to play for Aus/NZ/England.

The England team (minus all NRL players) actually isn't that great I don't think:

1. Hardaker
2. McGillvray
3. Watkins
4. Cudjoe
5. Hall
6. Williams
7. Smith
8. Walmsley
9. Roby
10. Hill
11. Ferres
12. Farrell
13. O'Loughlin

14. Clark
15. Huby
16. Taylor
17. Ablett

They'd probably still win the 5N the first few times but it'd be close, especially if exemption were given on overseas/fed trained to players eligible for home nations e.g. James McManus, Kevin Gordon, Peter Wallace and Luke Douglas (Scotland) or Ryan Morgan, Ben Pomeroy, Ben Jones, Sam Williams & Tyson Frizzell (Wales).

The Barbarians game would be a real challenge and then there'd be the AIs at full strength against the tourists.

Could always have England vs SL Australia and France vs SL New Zealand?

SL Australia
1. Gidley
2. Vidot
3. Fonua
4. Moon
5. Monaghan
6. Carney
7. Walsh
8. Achurch
9. Hinchcliffe
10. Cuthbertson
11. Taylor
12. Minichiello
13. Stewart

SL New Zealand
1. Inu
2. Gelling
3. Sa
4. Webster
5. Sa'u
6. Tuimavave
7. Chase
8. Tasi
9. Roberts
10. Rapira
11. Pritchard
12. Taia
13. Manu

Quite like the idea of SL Australia and SL NZ, but would it potentially alienate us further from the actual Australian national team in terms of developing a strong International calendar? Not sure how the suits and the media over there would react to such teams.

Who cares? It wouldn't be for the benefit of Australia/NZ. You'd certainly get far higher attachment to SL Aus and SL NZ than some form of Anzac team of exiles.

I don't think the county concept works because not enough people are interested - including the players.

Good sides them. That NZ half back pairing would probably create more problems for England than the one we just saw in the full internationals!

Yes bring back the exiles game and still play France, but only in France.

Like the SL Australia and SL NZ idea, far more interesting than the exiles.

I cant believe that some people are actually advocating games called 4 / 5 Nations, Autumn Internationals, Barbarians etc.

This game needs to be distancing itself from RU and building it's own identity, not copying everything RU does like a 3yr old nephew and accepting it's place in the pecking order without so much as a 'thank you ever so much Mister Kensington-Smythe'....

This. Very much so.

That just doesn't make sense.
We are rightly looking to use from RU what they've done well. In this case the regular playing, scheduling and prioritisation of internationals. This has helped elevate Union in this country and others.

Personally I think it's even more important that RL internationals are successful since we are a northern based sport in a country with a heavily London based and London biased media.

SL Australia/NZ might appeal to League fans but I can't see it attracting anyone beyond that and will probably just add to "ordinary" people's confusion re RL. Personally I also think it devalues the England side to play them. England should be playing other nations not a select side.

right so we are solving the problem of not playing enough internationals by playing games that arent international but playing poor approximations of the two nations we actually do bother to play.

We're not going to get mid season tests against competitive opposition, we need to do something else and beating France by 80 points does more harm than good to interest in the international game.

Mid season sl oz/Nz games would carry lots of interest and be competitive imo.

Put another way, I'd pay to watch it whilst last time we played France I didn't even turn my TV on.

Yes, because that is the only way we can get competitive games to prepare us for those fixtures.The other home nations and France are frankly light years away from providing us that.In an ideal world, of course it would be lovely to be able to play these sides but hammering after hammering is going to benefit nobody and it's not going to improve the said nations either. What would you suggest?

interest from who? the same couple of hundred k fans in the heartlands? how many more £10 tickets with a free beanie hat can we sell?

International rugby league: there are only two teams worth playing, come watch England struggle to beat their B teams in what is basically an opposed training session. That world cup legacy is really putting down roots.

if we need games, then we play international games.

Frankly our season is already packed, we already need to be trying to make space for an expanded WCS, we already need to be playing more internationals even if we win them

nobody cared about the exiles games, people werent interested, we got more for an international friendly in Avignon than an exiles game at headingley which was the best attended exiles game by a fair bit.

What England need is COMPETITIVE INTERNATIONALS, that's why they won all those test-matches and series between 2011 and 2014.

Are there enough Kiwis in SL to form their own squad?

There are no half backs. Or are they going to stick Frank Pritchard in at scrum half?

How about an annual double header at Wembley; England v New Zealand followed by SOO Queensland v New South Wales?

How about just the England vs NZ match?

Why not England Vs Knights?

We need to be trying to improve the quality of games in SL first and foremost, and that will prepare our players for the step up to international level, as well as improving the competition as a whole.
We don't need more international games against non international teams, we need more matches involving real teams.

Really don't see this being a popular event. Why would people be interested in watching England vs England.

Asking any ad agency to advertise this would be a hard sell.

This same thing over and over again 'we nee to play competitive games'.

WALES, FRANCE, SCOTLAND AND IRELAND WILL NEVER BECOME COMPETITIVE IF WE NEVER PLAY THEM, AND IF THE ONLY WAY OF PLAYING INTERNATIONALS FOR THREE OF THEM IS TO PLAY FOR ENGLAND.

We aren't going to create an exciting, knife-edge international series out of nothing. We need to play the home nations on a regular basis so they can develop as teams and so eligible players will choose them and not England.

As for taking Union names - yes. Those are well-established brands and if we can capitalise on them we should do so.

We have to play Wales and France.

Playing a made up set of teams will do nothing. It will not generate interest for the fans, players or the game in general.
To be fair any mid-season game will only be SL's players.

I think we have to bite the bullet and say that playing for Wales/France mid-season will not prevent players being picked for England in future competitions or when England play NZ/AS

I think we also have to be liberal with the Welsh and French sides for heritage rules. Make England selection very strict and a loser restrictions on Wales and France.
So no one can play for England unless they are born here.
Wales and France if you can find a connection then you can play. So Cuthbertson could not play for England, but I'm sure someone in the family tree spent a holiday in Wales once.

Obviously you tighten up the rules for France and Wales once they become more competitive. But for me if we want England to improve then we need more competition from our neighbors.

We will also have to accept for a few years there maybe some blow out scores, just as there were when GB played Australia in the past.

Agree with all that.

I think it's important to have a set schedule of playing France and Wales so they have something to build and plan for. It can also start to generate some momentum behind it after a while. If people know that each year we're playing France and Wales at a certain date and place then we'll get more spectators and more sponsors/hospitality at these games.

If we continue to have one off games at random dates and venues, only decided and announced last minute then we'll continue to get poor crowds, media coverage, sponsorship and interest.