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.

The only teams that draw are England, Australia and New Zealand. By draw I don't mean fill a club stadium, I mean get 40, 50, 60k or more. That is what we need to build, get a profile outside the core audience. We need to play these fixtures regularly and keep people coming back. If the season ends with an international competition in this country then we play a three match series against Aus or NZ mid season, if we end overseas then we invite one of them here mid season. We have to play tier one internationals in this country every year. Our long losing streak isn't helped by only playing big international series than once a year either.

It would be nice if Wales and France were up to scratch but they are not. 2008 world cup, wales failed to qualify for the world cup and France finished last. 2013 Wales no wins and france just one. Both failed to qualify for the four nations next year. The lack of junior player base and development paths isn't going to be helped by getting murdered in half empty tiny stadiums once a year.

If things are put in place at the grass roots where they can build then good for them, but that's going to take a generation or more for them to get to a good place. England need to kick on NOW. There is no point playing made up teams either, a roses game/origin is of interest to me and might help with England selection but it's no substitute for real internationals.

For goodness' sake, they answer isn't 'do we play X or do we play Y' - it's how many can we play?

The Aussies & NZ aren't going to come over mid-season, only at the end of the year. So let's put that in the diary - every year a series of autumn internationals against either the kiwis or the aussies or the pacific island nations. That still give us a whole season to work with.

Yes to a Yorkshire v Lancashire match, playing on our history and putting players in the shop window for England.

Yes to playing 'Exiles'/'Barbrarians' as a one-off match which is acknowledged as being a strength test for England.

Yes to a mid-season home nations competition, where England players aren't playing for their clubs. It'll make SL more competitive (Wigan without Tomkins, Williams, Smith, Farrell & O'Loughlin for instance) and give a competition that people actually pay attention to. Yes, England might get a blowout against Ireland or Scotland but with no NRL players (Burgesses S, G, T & J; Widdop, Graham, Hodgson and Whitehead) Wales and France should be reasonably competitive.

RL Fans need to take the 'quick fix' glasses off - there is no instant solution. We need to create a competition, publicise it, play games in the sort of grounds that sugest we expect people to care and have the patience for it to develop.

Here's an idea i've had for ages, to get all Rugby league communities involved. I like the concept of the War of the Roses clashes however its never worked whether its due to the Boundaries being altered i don't know but to get everybody involved here goes.

I propose Cumbria, Humberside, Yorkshire, Lancashire. Round Robin Top 2 play off in a final. Play all fixtures as a double header. ALL Rugby League folk are proud of where they're from, hence this format and it gives exposure to Cumbria for once. I can remember getting hammered in Cumbria at youth level i'm sure they could scratch a decent team. With most clubs full time i'm sure we could fit this concept into our fixture calender and it would draw more crowds than scotland, ireland wales etc. This concept gives around 80 odd players exposure and pride for there origin. To make this concept work you can only play for England by playing in this structure. Obviously NRL players are exempt from this rule.

Do humbersiders like playing for Yorkshhire ?. Do Cumbrians like playing for Lancashire, Yorkshire i doubt it. This concept gives all Rugby League communities a platform to build from.

Examples

Round 1. Cumbria v Yorkshire, - Humberside v Lancashire Either KC or Craven park

Round 2. Cumbria v Humberside, Lancashire v Yorkshire - Carlisle Fc.

Round 3. Humberside v Yorkshire Lancashire v Cumbria - Wigan, Or St Helens

Final Headingley

This is just a rough example, if anyone can think of tweaking it any other way thats great.

Hull is in Yorkshire.

We need them to do so, let's do all we can to change that. We struggled to get teams over for the WCC last year but this year once we showed it would work more teams signed up. Surely the NZRL wouldn't turn down the money available from such a series, and with the history behind the ashes there must be a gap made in the calendar for their return.

The fact that you've chosen smallish grounds, ignored the south and put Humberside (a county that has been defunct for nearly 20 years) in addition to Yorkshire (a region that includes most of Humberside) means you haven't really thought this through much.

Has RL ever had a "Possibles v Probables" game/series?

This is a great idea n terms of getting players ready for stern competition but, I don't know if it could be marketed strongly enough to sell 30/40,000 tickets.

The closest thing that we have as a concept is, either the Exiles or War of the Roses.

The second tier nations (Ireland, Scotland, Wales and France) are just too far away from being competitive and it appears that this I likely to be the case for many years to come.

But did the state of origin get many bums on seats when it first started we have to start some were we can not wait for the rest to catch up can we

I don't think so, and I hope it never does.