What do you mean? He's as Yorkshire as killing your brother's kestrel.

If not Chase then, arr Judd could step in? 'e's th'cock o'th estate

Classic!!

Not at all, I remember it well. I went most of the games last time and remember feeling much more interested in it than Eng v Exiles. The only reason it ended up being a flop was it wasn't given the same buildup and respect that Eng v Exiles is. Paul Cullen was Lancs coach and described at a forum how much of a farce it was as he wasn't even allowed to pick his own team - he had to pick who David Waite told him too.

Imagine if it was built up and given the training camps time that Eng Exiles is, I think it could really work. And why the embarassment about being from Lancs and Yorks? They are two of the biggest counties in the country containing some of the biggest cities and best countryside. What's to be shy about?

I don't think it's embarrassing per se, but certainly from the "Lancashire" viewpoint it's certainly valid that the county boundaries have been redrawn to mean no Super League club is actually in Lancashire. Yes the historic boundaries say us, Widnes, Wigan, Saints and Salford all are, and so are the cities of Liverpool and Manchester, and there are traditionalists from all those places who still consider themselves Lancastrian. However there is a new generation who don't feel that connection having never written "Lancashire" on their address in their lives. To them they live in Cheshire, Merseyside or Greater Manchester and Lancashire means deepest darkest Chorley or Burnley.

I don't mind either way, frankly I don't really care, and if the RL games did take place I would want Lancashire to win. However I would be relatively indifferent, just as I am when England play anyone other than Australia and to a lesser extent New Zealand. The only non-club RL I ever really have an interest in watching is Great Britain V Australia.

Not forgetting the England players who have no ties to Lancs, Yorks or GM/Mersey/Cheshire

Well if we're doing it via post code then Wigan is in Greater Manchester not Lancashire. St's are in Merseyside.

The thing for me is that the England v Exiles game is a thinly disguised attempt to get the England team some opposition as a preparation exercise in our ongoing futile pursuit of challenging teams from the southern hemisphere. trying to attach any other importance and passion to it won't work.

A Yorks v Lancs game does nothing to help the national team so it's a non starter.

I think there needs to be a couple of changes to enhance England and the International game.

Firstly, I think England exiles is the way forward, but to progress it needs to increase intensity. To do this, I would reward victory massively. The RFL keep telling us how they have turned a profit year on year for a while now, so the winning 17 get £10,000 per player.

If this was the case, you would not get any of the best players pulling out unless they were genuinely incapable of playing. In addition to this, I think its a safe bet people would do all they physically could to stop the oposition winning. We all know that in SOO the big hit ups and big tackles get the crowd going...well imagine the hits we'd be in for when there is £10k on the line. The higher intensity and bigger atmosphere would lead to larger crowds going forward.

So that's one point.

Another thing on the broader international scale is that you should only be allowed to play for one country, ever. This isn't a "Chase isn't English" type argument. More of a case of, and I will use wire examples, Bridge and Harrison first played for Ireland then switched. Stop the switching. You can play for whoever you are eligible for, but once you have made your choice that is it!

This would strengthen Wales, Ireland and Scotland as players of good SL standard who might not ever secure a permanent England shirt would be playing for these lesser countries (no offence) and whilst England would inevitably still get the best bunch, the other teams would increase.

Ireland with Bridge, Harrison and mcIllorum is a better Ireland than it is now etc.

Just my thoughts.

Absolutely spot on about the one country and no changing rule. Once you've made your choice, it should be made and that's the end of it. Imagine the uproar if a former Scotland football captain was now playing for England - he'd have debates going on in Parliament about the appropriateness of it and the Tartan Army would be burning his house down - yet this scenario is currently played out in Rugby League.

I accept there are eligibility criteria which all sports use, and these may be determined by law although I'm not certain on that, but you should definitely not be allowed to switch once you've made your initial choice. The RFL will of course say that will stop players like Brough ever playing for Scotland in the first place because he'll be hoping he gets an England chance and therefore Scotland won't benefit from his availability at all. Surely the whole point of their being national sides for countries like Scotland, Ireland and Wales (in the post professional RU era anyway) is to grow the game there. Seeing Englishmen use them as a stepping stone is hardly going to inspire anyone though is it?

Personally I think the only criteria for international eligibility sure be birth or parents' birth. No grandparents rule, no residency rule, nothing - just your own birth and your parents. If that makes you eligible for three countries (eg you were born in England but your mum was born in Scotland and your dad was born in Wales) then so be it - you then pick one and stick with it. In the majority of instances though it would mean players are only eligible for one country anyway.

I say parents should be included, because hypothetically if someone was raised in England to English parents but happened to be born while his parents were on holiday in Spain for example it would be harsh to say he can't play for England! Therefore parents should be included.

If all that is completely unworkable/illegal then so be it, but no switching should be a very clear rule that can easily be put in place.

I agree with regards to no changing, but there will be so many looking for an exception to the rule. As an example, imagine my mum, dad and grandparents are French, I'm born in France and raised there for three years, I then move to England and start playing RL in high school. At the age of 24 I'm asked who I want to represent, to myself, I'm English as I've lived almost all of my life in England, been to English schools, came through an English RL club's academy and I rejected opportunities to play for France at schoolboy level. Do England then turn around and say "No, you're not English"? Or do they make an exception to this rule, which seems fairly logical, yet wouldn't be allowed under your desired rules.

If you're born in France to French parents you're French. That's pretty clear cut.

I think the international game needs better PR though. For example if any representatives of Scotland are being interviewed on Sky in the build up to the World Cup next year I would like someone with a Scottish accent to be put forward. Of course I realise the Scotland football and rugby union teams have non-Scottish accented players among their ranks - and indeed your hypothetical Frenchman above is likely to have an English accent, but football and RU already have fairly secure fanbases and players like you mention are genenrally the exception (Ian Henderson is English but sounds Aussie for example).

If a Scot is going to be watching SSN and sees a "Scottish" RL player being interviewed they are far more likely to relate to that player and be interested in his team if he speaks their lingo rather than if he sounds like he's from Wakefield or Canberra and is flying the flag of convenience.

That is exactly the problem Rugby League faces and that is what keeps International RL average at best. how on earth the RFL expect Wales, Ireland , Scotland , NZL Maori? to be able to start competing Internationally when as soon as a respective nation produces a talent England rush in and adopt them. The Rhys Evans interview after the Leeds home game for example asking him would he consider playing for England rather than his native Wales. It needs to be stopped.

True that. IF Rhys Evans continues to develop and becomes a big player in Super League, he would be a great advert for Welsh Rugby League in four or five years time (coinciding with the 2017 World Cup) but of course if he's good enough he's likely to be playing for England.

You can't blame the players as there is obviously going to be greater financial opportunity from representating England, but the solution is obviously the Great Britain (and Ireland) team. Plenty of great Welshmen have starred in this side in the past, and Brian Carney was a credit to the jersey at times as well.

United we stand, divided we fall.

Well let's put it this way. I work with an Indian lad, he was born in India to Indian parents but moved over here around the age of two. His two younger sisters were born over here. He, his older brother and his two sisters consider themselves English, they support England in the cricket, football or whatever. Imagine he played RL, do you really think it's fair to say to somebody who feels they're English that they aren't? There are obvious p*ss takes, like Chases and Mary at Saints, but I don't think you can make it so clear cut as to birth place or parent's nationality being the only factors.

Fair comment and it's not as if an Indian can go and play RL for India, but ultimately he's not really English is he? The line has to be drawn somewhere.

I don't think parent's nationality or where you are born are the only things that dictate nationality, especially when it comes to representing a nation in sport. I think things like length of time in the country, schooling/education and what the actual person feels should also be taken into consideration. Would it be fair if a lad was born in England, left with his parents when he was a few months old, was raised, schooled, trained and lived 99% of his life in another country, but then turned around and was accepted as English when he'd never played a single game of RL in our country? Isn't that what so many people seem to have a problem with at the minute, that McNamara seems to be looking for every loophole possible for players to represent England?

For me, it shouldn't just be "he's English, he plays", things like where he's been trained should be hugely important.

In my opinion Ian Henderson is English and Rangi Chase isn't.

There has to be a line somewhere.

Not quite a line, more of a common sense/fair approach to it. It goes on in pretty much every sport that 'foreigners' represent adopted countries, I don't agree with the way players move in their twenties then end up representing a different country, but I don't think it should be limited to birthplace/parents.

McNamara and the RFL have a responsibility to represent the image of our game, just because Union do it, doesn't mean we should. IMO, they owe it to the young lads who come through the English academies. I'd never want to represent my nation if they turned to somebody that had represented another country. How bad would that make you feel as a player?

here's a scenario for you, i was born in a british military hospital in germany, thus making me british but not english, therefore can play for any home nation, possibly germany, only problem is i'm gubbins at rugby league! so never got picked!

Haha!

As it happens under the eligibility criteria I set out above I would actually not be eligible for England because I wasn't born in England and neither were either of my parents. They moved to Warrington when I was one year old - and I think its fair to say that if they hadn't done that its unlikely I would have got into RL - but despite living in England for 31 of my 32 years I don't really see how I can be classed as English.

I suffer the same plight as Slim though so its not relevant to me anyway!