I’d suggest the reason we we winning a few games against Aussies in those periods was because we were actually playing them regularly and nothing to do with a poorly attended mud week game



Wasn’t the last time we played Australia 2018? It’s pretty hard to best them when you play them so infrequently

I sense I'm not going to convince you on this, Chris. A couple of final points: since the last time the roses match was played in 2003 (we lost the Ashes series that year 3 - 0 by a combined total of 10 points) our combined GB/England record against Australia is won 2 - lost 17. Now, I accept that there are lies, damned lies, and there are statistics, but what I will say is that when the game was played regularly from the mid 80's to the early 90's our international performances improved out of site, and for the only time in my life there was actually a hope/expectation that we could win. Now again, that might be a coincidence but I suspect if you asked the likes of Hanley, Schofield and Reilly if they would be in favour of returning the fixture to its place in the calendar they would say yes.

Yes I’m afraid you’re not going to convince me that the roses games - especially in the early 00s had any bearing on the games against the Aussies. You mentioned 2003, that was a totally lopsided roses match with quite a few players not bothering to play.

As I say I’m not totally against the idea I just don’t think it will be of the intensity or generate the interest to make it worth bringing back.

I guess seeing is believing. The England head coach wants it. IMG want it. Let's see what they can bring to the table in terms of repackaging and selling it.

Hopefully do a decent length series. As long as players and clubs buy in and it's not mid week it could work. Would prefer a 4 team championship between Yorkshire Lancashire France and Wales though.

What was the crowd attendance please?

Just over 16k.

Thank you.

This argument over Yorks vs Lancs and games versus France has been going on for at least 40 years.

Games versus France have always been a tough sell. I can recall two wins by France in the last 40 years IIRC. That shouldn’t mean we shouldn’t play them (to ignore them would make us like the Aussies ignoring us!) but we shouldn’t expect that the fixture is ever going to be an Origin level preparation. It’s one of those games that will at a push attract 6 or 7k fans and see England win by 40+. Unless France can really push us then the public won’t pay to see it.

The Roses match has never taken off for a couple of reasons. First – Lancashire doesn’t resonate with RL people on the other side of the Pennines – it’s different in cricket. Can something be manufactured? I don’t know – who’s going to pay for the marketing required? Can a Lancashire player repeat Arthur Beetson’s punch on a team mate Mick Cronin that ignited Origin back in 1983? That’s probably what it needs – a proper incident of ill feeling between two club team mates to set the tone and make the game matter.

The second reason is that players and clubs always knew that performance or selection in the county game didn’t really impact on the international selection. Our player pool is too small. That means clubs will withdraw any player with a slight injury. Players will “go through the motions” a bit or at least Lancashire used to do that so it never becomes the contest we need it to be. Can we make some rules to increase the importance of the fixture? I doubt it.

Lastly the “exiles” game shouldn’t even be considered. Any game needs to have two sides that represent something that fans can get behind. Not so long ago we had enough Kiwis to have a potential game versus a good NZ side – that would’ve been better – not do-able now though.

I like the idea of Yorks v Lancs but it will need time and funding to bed in properly. Also make it financially rewarding for the players is key so they put their heart and souls into it... we need to do something.

Need a big sponsor to pull a good Roses series. Hadn't considered the wages factor but that is key. Big match fee and prize money would certainly help.

That's why it's so important that IMG drive this. It's something that could be a success if it's properly worked through, as opposed to the usual "it's a bit sh*t, but it will do" approach RL traditionally prefers.

Needs a carrot dangling in front of the clubs too to release the players otherwise as previously mentioned earlier in the thread certain clubs will suddenly pull their players or they'll become mysteriously unavailable.

Would you want to shout about it?

Without a doubt

If Wane wants the Roses match to be our Origin then IMG need to earn their corn for once and market it and push it and stick with it.

FWIW , I’d run a campaign and compare it to Origin and in short stress the history and extreme violence of the Roses and compare it to State of Origin.

Compare 40 odd years of origin and a few punch ups with a war that lasted 32 years with over 100,000 dead.

Show the skull found at Towton with the big hole in the back. Explain how Game of Thrones was based on the war of the roses.

Mention 28,000 dead at Battle of Towton

Get Sam Burgess talking to Gordon Tallis or modern age players ask them how many have been killed in the NSW v Queensland wars?

Then market it as

The Roses
Real war since 1455
See the next battle…

I get the points about us having less quality to pick from but I think if Wane backs it which he seems to be , players like say Minchella would see it as a great chance to put down a marker

It's not happening anytime soon

Not with the Ashes apparently back on the menu.

The Tonga vs Aus game was excellent. Aus are there for the taking. The international game down under at least, is as strong as it’s been in a long time.

For me it’s up to England to A, take advantage of that and challenge, and B, take a bit of a lead for the game this side of the world.

Granted B is much harder.

The game doesn't have the cash, especially at a central level. The NRL bankrolled the Samoa tour.