For years people were saying lets have a game against the rest of the world, now it happens you dont want to know and want to play a B team or back to awful Lancs v Yorks.

Last year was a success and this year should have been if it wasnt for the amount of drop outs in the squads. It should be kept as a one game match and rotated around the hearlands.

But if funding from Sport England was stopped, the fat controler and his cohorts, would have to take a £50 or £60 thousand pound pay cut a year.

Up to last night i thought it was a good idea but now not so sure, if we have it make it one, but if we stick to 2 lets have a full strength side from England and don't whinge about playing wens and sat the Aussies do it every year

England vs the exiles or England vs the knights is not an international test match. The NRL teams have every right to not release the players.

If this exile match is gonna be continued then let's include all non English players!!

The problem here is the same problem that will hold England back from beating the Aussies or anyone lese for that matter.

We play a game. We lose. We don't want to play any more.
Great! We might as well play a bunch of 13 year olds!

"Making this work" seems to translate to big crowd watching big win.
For me it needs to be players wanting to win and playing as hard as they can, whether we have injuries or not. People will come to watch that.

It's about time England used the chip to motivate rather than an excuse for not doing something.
It was the same for Yorks v lancs and GB v France as said higher up.

I actually think losing should be seen as a motivation. I would want to be playing next time and prove that we are a decent team.
NSW didn't cry off when they lose in a long losing streak, neither did Queensland wehn they had the same.

Well said

One game (until there's room/interest for more) England vs. Exiles with the curtain raiser of the Knights vs. Wales/France/Celtic Nations XIII. Would that work? No idea, but I can guarantee people will whinge about it on here regardless of whoever and whatever was put in front of them.

I would suggest that whoever becomes the captain of this rudderless ship goes back to drawing board – again.

The French experiment is so much in it’s infancy it’ll be many years before they’re a credible opposition.

The Exile concept was quite a novelty last season, but, the lack of intensity on show this year shows it’s just a jolly, a bit of extra cash for those involved.

People keep banning on about the International set-up, however, do many of us really care if England beat the French or a cobbled together Antipodeon side?

In fact, do many of us actually care about International rugby at all, we are so parochial a match between Purston & Streethouse (One for the real Flatcappers there

) has far more ferocity.

Yet, go to the parallel universe that is the NRL, Indigenous, Anzac, City v State, S.O.O, passion & pride aplenty, it’s not just a Rugby thing, it’s cultural.

The medicine isn’t working, time for a change methinks & oh, get rid of a fulltime National coach, it’s not necessary.

What?

Why would anyone want to pay to see what is nothing other than a training session game

You don't see the rfu dropping internationals because they have thrashed someone do we?

They continue playing them teams on a yearly basis,and that is why there game continues to grow,thats why they get sponsors who want to actually pay money to sponsor there events,not paint a handful of wagons.

They play REGULAR INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENTS!!!!! they have tours on yearly basis,why they even have the BRITISH LIONS who go and tour,what do we have?????

A 4 nations when the whim takes them,a world cup which day by day looks like it will be a bigger flop than the last one we had over here.

For internationals to work they have to be played on a saturday afternoon with all yes all the super league fixtures moved to midweek.

Have our own 6 nations tournament every year and have at least one team touring from the south hemisphere once a year,every 2nd year we would have a tour down under,why even take france wales ireland and scotland down there on the tour and let them play the smaller nations.

Before all this super league malarkey the rfl had two old dears who use to organise tours down under were we played clubs mid week and nz and oz at the weekend and players were partime them,they had to get 2 months off work to tour,now they are all professional we can't organise a 2 week tour let alone a 2 month one?

For our sport to grow super league as to take a step back and allow internationals to drive our game on,if that means axing 4 teams from super league so be it to allow space for internationals,internationals is the product the sponsors and general public judge a sport by.

Having a handful of teams in yorkshire and lancs is not exactly going to bring in the global market is it???


Feel sorry for you young uns as you will never have the great memories of touring watching your country as us old sticks did,the last tour which was scrapped down under years ago was going to take 20k in fans down under,now we can't get fans to drive 20 mins to go to a match now.

The last proper tour donkeys years ago we were playing club teams and the grounds down under were almost full of the barmy touring armies we use to take.

Now ask youselfs what went wrong and were are these people now???

why dont we do what origin do and give half the league bys when the england exiles play so that we dont have masses of players pulling out of the match? this would allow the two match concept time to work.

I see your desire for international footy but all the above cannot happen without the backing and support from our cousins Australia. The truth is that they are not interested in the tours! Even speaking about ditching the Anzac test vs the kiwi's.

State of Origin is what Australia now cares about. Not test footy!!

When it comes to pushing the international game the RFL have a tough job as they need other people of influence to get behind this.

Rugby union was built on international matches so its unfair to compare the two codes.

The days of the tours has gone, there's no way either us or the NRL are going to hold their season back for a month to enable mid-season tours.
What id like to see is something like this -
A mid season comp. Either England or England split in to Yorkshire & Lancashire, and France and Wales. So either a 3 game comp if it's England or 4 games if it's Yorks & Lancs, including a final.
A single England v Exiles game.
Then end of season internationals. It would add a couple of weeks to the season but i think it's worth it.

I'd like the international scene on a schedule something like:
Year 1 - World Cup
Year 2 - 4 Nations (Northern Hemisphere)
Year 3 - Test Series, rotates between GB v Australia, GBv NZ & Australia v NZ.
Year 4 - 4 Nations (Southern Hemisphere)

They could carry on with the season while the tour takes place like they do in RU?

They could but I'm not sure fans would accept that. Union is based around internationals whereas League is based around the domestic scene. So when Union clubs lose a couple of players to GB tours they don't mind, also they have larger squads. I know I wouldn't be too happy if Leeds lost 4 or 5 of our best players to the squad for a tour down under that would probably take up around 6 weeks.
Plus the NRL wouldnt countenance anything like that, they barely agree to end of season internationals, never mind a mid-season tour.

They provide a tougher opposition at home more than any international side bar Australia. France have often not been as motivated as the Exiles have been. Standard played by France at international is below mediocre at best, comapre that with the standard of play the Exiles have shown in three games.


Why do you consistently insist on describing people is stupid and lack of poor judgement? You have criticised gthe commitment and motivation of the Exiles without even watching the games then criticisng a person (who for some reason you assume to be male) for having a lack of reasoning.




When was the last time France or Wales beat England? When they have played in the SL era the games France and Wales have been sub standard and lacked the intensity tyo compete. Getting hammered in a meaningless year fixtured will not help France or Wales. THe Welsh National side has very little traduition or meaning to the Welsh the same is true to a lesser extent of the French team.


So what does that make the Welsh and French alternative you are suggesting?

Rugby League needs a set international schedule which runs on four year cycles. The way it keeps getting chopped & changes, new things added, tournaments taken away etc is ridiculous.

Something like this for England:

Year 1: Mid-season - 5 Nation tournament over 5 weeks (England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France). End of season - Northern hemisphere teams travel to play tests vs Southern hemisphere teams.

Year 2: Mid-season - 2 tests against European sides. End of season - Four Nations Tournament.

Year 3: Mid-season - 5 Nation tournament over 5 weeks (England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France). End of season - Southern hemisphere teams travel to play tests vs Northern hemisphere teams.

Year 4: Mid-season - 2 tests against European sides. End of season - World Cup.

By my reckoning, during the SL era, the Aussies have toured this country many more times than we've toured their country. They've played us 19 times on UK soil during that period. We OTOH have played them 6 times on Aussie soil during the same period. New Zealand have also toured this country many more times than we've toured their country. They've played us 17 times on UK soil and we've played them 4 times on Kiwi soil.

Perhaps it's he RFL who provide the least backing and show the least desire for international footy instead?


Is that why the RFL turned down the opportunity to tour New Zealand at the end of this season? Not interested in tours perhaps? Lack of desire?

What do you think is the better preparation for next years World Cup? A couple of joke fixtures against some made up SL team of ageing imports, or a tour of New Zealand against real and legitimate international opposition where both players and fans would actually care?

Not sure of any major RU setup that is based around internationals. Super Rugby is clearly based around the franchises with no internationals occuring mid-season until this year. The Pro14, AP and T14 are the same. The yearly Autumn internationals in northern hemisphere are a relatively new concept. That just leaves the 5/6 nations whereby the players go back to their clubs/regions/provinces after each match unless agreed otherwise. The exception to this is the RU World Cup and to see how much the domestic season is to RU fans take a look at how attendances dive bombed against corresponding fixtures the previous season.


But the idea makes little sense anyway, just do what currently happens and replace 3/4 nations with tours.

I have questioned the no to NZ tour on many threads. Can't see any explanation on why the RFL turned the offer down.

My point was Australia are not interested in having GB/england coming down for a big tour like the old days. Them days are long gone and won't be coming back!

It has been said loads of times before but state of origin is what matters in Australia.

Also why are people calling for mid-season tournaments like rugby union has?

Its unrealistic and will never happen. No super league or NRL team is gonna allow any player to be away for such a long time.

Because like you and many others, they prefer to blame Australia for any lack of international fixtures and profile instead.


That's because it's impossible to schedule a big tour out of season. In the past, we would tour down under during our off season and during their season and vice versa. The blame lies with us when we decided to take Rupert's money, adopt Super League and switch to a summer season.


State of Origin also mattered in 1988 and 1992 but it didn't prevent Australia welcoming GB to tour down under - note, the key ingredient there is those tours were scheduled during the Australian season and during our off-season and vice versa. That's how things used to work extremely well on the international front.


Because it used to work extremely well that way for years?


Correct. Not while Super League and summer rugby is around and screwing the game it won't.

So judging by most replies all that matters is super league and thats it???

And people wonder why our profile gets smaller and smaller each year.

If we cannot learn from other sports yes union,and learn how there game as grown on the back of international rugby then its all a lost cause my friends and into the abyss you all stare.

Global companies want to sponsor global sports and if we plod on with a handful teams stacked up with forign players played in the backwaters of darkest yorkshire then we are not going to get any one to sponsor apart from eat at joes cafe.

People are saying austrailia are not interested then fine invite them if they decline we carry on with the comps any way.

A tour of nz and papua with samoa thrown in perhaps even the cook islands.

Invite these people over on a tour the next year,were they will play club sides as well,who wouldn't want to see wigan/leeds/saints etc take on these teams on a tour over here???? why even reward the championship team a one off against samoa say??

But you would sooner see cas v salford instead or the magic weekends??

You complain of lack of media coverage well I'm sorry but being insolare in your super league bubble and agreeing that internationals are dead because you don't want see you team lose 4-5 players is the thing thats killing our game.

Come on rfl show some balls and start planning regular tours against regular nations and hold them at the same grounds each time so people get use to the idea, that in May such a body tours, august such a comp,oh and sell tickets and weekend accomadtion as a package....turn it into a event the same as them foolish union lot with the stupid daft tournaments which rakes in millions year on year,yep daft that union mob

Its a myth that RU is strong only because of the international competition. Really its the other way round. The Guiness Premireship and Magners leagues are both well attended and the Heineken cup is a huge competition. In the southern hemisphere, the S14, and Currie cup attracts big crowds and sponsors as well. The international game is successful because of the domestic game not inspite of it.

If every club in the league lost 3 or 4 players because of a mid-season tour I don't see there being a problem, it probably would make SL a bit more interesting.

Let me get this right.

People actually want to go back to winter rugby league?

Does anyone think the fans, clubs, players would support this?

But the point I was making is that the players play at a higher intensity each week so the fact that it is a higher standard doesn't really make a whole lot of difference, especially when it's not a genuine international and so the full team is not available. Unless it results in a higher standard than the players are involved in every week, then it's pointless to contrive a team. An analogy would be if a Super League side decided to play a pre-season friendly against a 'Yorkshire Championship select' team. Yes, the standard would probably be higher than playing against a Championship club, but it wouldn't really serve any more purpose in preparing the Super League side to play against other Super League teams because it would still be below the standard that they would be aspiring to play at.

As far as I'm aware, Steve McNamara is male.

I wasn't suggesting a match against Wales or France was a particularly good option either, just preferable to the Exiles match. Up until the last couple of years, the France and Wales sides have been almost exclusively part-time, so is it any surprise that they were beaten so convincingly? The Wales side that lost 74-0 in 2008 had Conference players, FFS. The issue with playing France is that virtually all the players who are available mid-season belong to a single club, so it effectively becomes England vs Catalans-lite. But that doesn't mean that the idea should be abandoned forever. Once a second French team is introduced, then it could and should be a much more rewarding match for England to play. The same applies to Wales once they are able to put out a team of full-time players, which at the current rate of development isn't too far away at all. Either way, these matches are always going to be preferable to the Exiles because they are genuine internationals, rather than contrived wastes of time. And to say that the Wales and France national teams have no tradition is an insult and shows your complete ignorance to the international game.