International plans looking good!

[elBandido]

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/05/12/02/RUGBYL_Internationals.html

2006 Tri-Nations GB,Australia,NZ
2007 England v NZ 3 tests
2008 March World Cup
2009 Four-Nations England,France,NZ & Australia
2010 GB tour Australia
2012/13 World Cup in England

GB Lions to get together only for tours after 2006

 

[Bezant]

Woohoo....here's hoping that this actually happens...unfortunately I wont believe it until I see it but since it has been announced by Richard Lewis I have more confidence about it than I otherwise would have.

 

[The Tank]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_league/international_and_australian/4493588.stm

 

[ucantseeme]

As I said in another thread, the Poms are better served by playing as GB as opposed to England as it increases their depth and thus ther chances of winning. I know playing as England only exludes 2 or 3 elite level players but they are less competitive with those players missing. Look what happened to Australia when Johns & Lockyer weren't in the team...

But on the positive side it is great to see that their is long term plans for international RL, though the March WC does seem the wrong time of year.

 

[griff]

Agree, as I have often said they are much better off as GB. They don't have to play as GB only for tours just because that is what union do.

But 2010 Centenary Lions Tour should be massive.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It would be alright to have England instead of GB if there was a reasonable level of internationals for Celtic nation players. But at present there's only the ENC and possibly a WC every four years. We're hoping to see more home bred Welsh (and maybe Irish and Scottish) players in the coming years but we're robbing them of a chance to play at the highest international level except for World Cups and on Lions tours. Also parent and grandparent rule players that have turned out for Wales etc would probably go back to playing for England because they want to play in the TN or against touring sides further weakening the Celtic nations.

Also why must we copy the union system. I hate the idea of a Roo tour that would be like a wallaby spring tour which is just series of one off tests. The Celtic nations are not up to playing Australia in which case it would just be an Ashes series against England and the Celtic players and fans would be left out. Same with the TN. Having to wait four years to see the Lions play is too long and GB fans would have to travel to Australia to watch them play.

 

[bender]

Agree, as I have often said they are much better off as GB. They don't have to play as GB only for tours just because that is what union do.

But 2010 Centenary Lions Tour should be massive.

They will get much better long term benefit from playing as the 4 separate British Entities. I think England will be better, because they will be forced to blood a few more youngsters and the 3 other nations will benefit massively by having their players play with the experienced pro players currently in the GB side. Also, a succesful 4 nations would only help the English game.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

But how will a four nations be good if England hammers the other three nations every game. We already saw that in the ENC and the England side was a secons string team while the others were only missing one or two players to GB. That's why England were dropped from the ENC, to make it more competitive.It would be nice to have a strong four nations but with no superleague clubs in Wales, Ireland or Scotland and next to no converts from union it will take a decade to get the celtic nations up to scratch at best.

 

[bender]

But how will a four nations be good if England hammers the other three nations every game. We already saw that in the ENC and the England side was a secons string team while the others were only missing one or two players to GB. That's why England were dropped from the ENC, to make it more competitive.It would be nice to have a strong four nations but with no superleague clubs in Wales, Ireland or Scotland and next to no converts from union it will take a decade to get the celtic nations up to scratch at best.

The England Side was a very good side, not all that far worse than their test team. Many people will say that many of those English players should have played in the test team. Wales improve enormously with Iestyn Harris and Kieran Cunningham added to the team. Two class players in two important positions. Carney would help Ireland and Horne would certainly add plenty to the Scottish sides. If we were to play a 5 nations each year, like Union does, in the next 5 years, I would expect England to botch at least one of those years. Yes they would have some big wins, but the standards of the players in all of those squads would have to improve wouldnt they. Conversely, in 5 years time, when GB do get together, they would have to really fancy their chances of knocking off the Aussies and it would be a massive occassion.

 

[Sun_Down]

Very happy that GB is being split

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The England Side was a very good side, not all that far worse than their test team. Many people will say that many of those English players should have played in the test team. Wales improve enormously with Iestyn Harris and Kieran Cunningham added to the team. Two class players in two important positions. Carney would help Ireland and Horne would certainly add plenty to the Scottish sides. If we were to play a 5 nations each year, like Union does, in the next 5 years, I would expect England to botch at least one of those years. Yes they would have some big wins, but the standards of the players in all of those squads would have to improve wouldnt they. Conversely, in 5 years time, when GB do get together, they would have to really fancy their chances of knocking off the Aussies and it would be a massive occassion.

Yes playing against England would help the others improve if they stick with it. But a few floggings would put an end to the whole thing most likely and, like I said, would discourage players from playing for those countries. For example, I reckon a bloke like Richard Horne might turn his back on Scotland, who he only represented at the WC, if he could play for a stronger English team and play in the TN against Australia. Thus the others would be even weaker. If the Celtic nations need a heap of randparent rule players to even compete against England, and by compete I mean lose by less than 50, it's not a great situation for the game over there. And if such players then decide not to play, as they have done in the ENC, they will be even less competitive.

The other problem I have with splitting the teams is that there will be less chance of a competitive English side for the WC and TN and four home nations will take up too many places ina WC that could go to others like Lebanon, Fiji etc. I don't want to see four British teams in the WC, none of them capable of winning it. I would rather have one that is competitive (GB) and give the other spots to other nations. Or maybe have two teams GB and Ireland. GB would push Australia and NZ while Ireland will get its own identity, after all GB and Ireland are two different countries (sort of).

 

[griff]

I haven't heard a decent justification for splitting up GB.

England would be by far the strongest team of the HNs. It would therefore be England who compete in the Tri-Nations, and England who host inbound tours from Australia and New Zealand. Wales and to a much lesser extent Scotland and Ireland would get the odd game but would not be involved in the big test matches.

So the big series and big tournaments would only have England playing in them, making Welsh, Scottish and Irish people take much less of an interest.

This also means that in the future players like Cunningham, Harris and Horne would elect to play for England to get a chance to play in the big events rather than play for Wales or Scotland.

Coming up to the 2012 Olympics there will be a renewed interest in Great Britain as a sporting identity, and RL with its Great Britain brand is perfectly placed to capitalise on this.

Wales have been much weaker in the last 10 years than they have been at any time in the last 70 years.

If the GB had roughly equal numbers of players from all the nations, then it might be time to split them up. As it is now, England would basically just be a re-badged Great Britain Lions side. Which is the stronger brand? GB Lions easily.

 

[screeny]

Griff, I thought you would have been happy that the GB brand has been maintained!!

As I've said before, by splitting into the HNs RL gains immeasurably. The Irish, Welsh and Scottish RLs will all be forced into becoming mature, independent bodies responsible for their own player and fan development.

Eventually that will mean a stronger sport with more regional areas having professional set ups.

Then there's the regional funding, with England a requisite of Sport England, and the HNs govts all having piles of money that we wouldn't be eligible for under GB.

By splitting up we also put the absolute fear of god into the RUs who will see more, and more, and more people turning to RL.

It's the only way forward for a strong RL.

 

[RLdan]

personally i think that it is good that it is happening, home nations such as ireland and scotland will develop with GB splitting.

a tournament every year with england,wales,scotland and ireland and maybe france too. then GB have a tour of the southern hemisphere every 4.

 

[griff]

screeny I am relatively happy that it is being maintained, but disappointed it is only for tours. The only reason I can see for doing this is it seems this is what union do.

I don't really see how the other home nations will gain. If England play a 3 test series or tri-nations against Australia, how does this benefit Wales? Wales may get a tour game, but they have got tour games anyway for the last 95 years.

If we didn't have separate test teams 10-15 years ago when 4-5 GB players were actually born and bred Welsh, how can they justify it now when none of them are?

With England getting the big matches, English/Welsh players will opt to represent England. At least when they represent GB they can represent Wales as well. If they represent England this would stop them representing Wales, which will only weaken the Welsh team and hinder development.

If Australia host a tri-nations, will "GB" compete, but if England host a tri-nations, will it be "England" who compete? This loses the continuity and reciprocity that is so important in serious international sport.

The point about the GB team in the Olympics is I think a good one, the GB RL team could leverage off that as it is the only major sport that has a GB team that plays at home.

 

[colonel_123]

If there is going to be a four nations tournament including France in 2009 might it be worth while to stage the tournament in France to break the monotomy of an international calendar which cycles each year between games in Australia and games in England?

 

[flamin]

If there is going to be a four nations tournament including France in 2009 might it be worth while to stage the tournament in France to break the monotomy of an international calendar which cycles each year between games in Australia and games in England?

I think first off (or maybe after a few years) France may co-host the Tri-nations with Eng in a similar way what happens in Aus and NZ.

 

[screeny]

Griff,

If you look at the GB or HNs debate purely from a 'big match' point of view then you've got a point.

But I'm coming at it from a day-to-day point of view. More emphasis on the HNs means more day-to-day development/authority/confidence etc etc from the relevant HNs RL federations.

In the long run their indpendence and development work will translate into more players and more cash paying fans.

I would say that RL should not choose to split GB into the HNs, but moreso that it has a duty to do so.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Can't the RFL hand over all of the running of the game in the Celtic Nations to those nations (RLI etc) but still keep the combined rep side. Surely then the HN would have their independence and would still play amateur internationals etc (after all the Celtic nations are pretty much entirely amateur) but Gb would still have a strong presence in the TN etc.

 

[YANTO]

Can't the RFL hand over all of the running of the game in the Celtic Nations to those nations (RLI etc) but still keep the combined rep side. Surely then the HN would have their independence and would still play amateur internationals etc (after all the Celtic nations are pretty much entirely amateur) but Gb would still have a strong presence in the TN etc.

That is the most senssible post I have seen in three years.
RL promotion and development is not about the professional nations.
Its all bout getting the game played.