If NZ beats England 3 nil, that's a pretty awful marker then!



OK, but have Northern Irish people suddenly left the Union?



Again, as I showed above, not true. Welsh and Scottish reps won't have to miss any games for their team.



How many Welsh/Scottish need to be in the team until it can be called GB? What number, and what percentage of the team should they make up? What about players from the midlands, the south, London? As I said, it never seem to matter that there were no Welsh, Scottish players in the GB team for decades before, so it hasn't suddenly changed.



By that logic, since there are 17 Northerners in the team, play as Northern England. The rest of the country, the sports press, and Rugby Union people, regard the England RL team as a Northern team. By your logic above, once you start to get a consistent number of international class players from the midlands, the south, London, then play as England.

BTW for the London 2012 Olympics, the FA will run the rlGreat Britain soccer team supply only English players to GBrl. It will still be called GB.

There's a place for both. Tour games can be more competitive, generate more revenue, be logistically easier to plan and run, and be more meaningful to established RL communities than certain test matches, e.g. Big 3 tests against certain emerging nations.

I don't quote every sentence that "suits me". I quote every sentence that I disagree with (which was most of them). Which ones do you think "didn't suit me".

Ironically, the thing you're having a go at me for here (which isn't true) is exactly what you've done in this reply (i.e. ignore my reply to your comment that a crowd of 31k for a 4N Final being "a poor effort"icon_wink.gif.

Again, contradicting yourself.


That was my point.
You didn't "cherry pick" the best of English players like you said. You picked up some duds as well.
How many of the dud Aussies that come over here do you think the English public have heard of and are paid loads? They are called "cheap options" for a reason. You can pretend that we think they're all superstars all you like. The fact is, most fans ridicule their signings.

It happens both ways.


So they could be paying him big bucks then for all you know? Rusty even came over to England to convince him to sign, and you Aussies are wetting yourselves at how good he is.

Again, works both ways.


Me personally? Nothing other than the contribution I make to the club with my season pass and merchandise purchases!

Berro wasn't in the twilight of his career when we signed him, unless you think a 27 year old is "past it". As I said before, he was a current Aussie international, and the current MOM holder at the GF. He was in his prime.

Fitz was signed on a one year deal to aid in the development of the players around him with his work ethic (much like when we signed Kearney, which got us a Challenge Cup). Again, a World Cup finalist when we signed him. Maybe not his prime, but a continued level of excellence and a world class player, and still proves to be (which is why we resigned him). Rumours were that Roosters wanted him back. What would you have said then? Remember, you took back a 33 year old Jason Smith and kept him for 3 further years in your competition full of apparently only young up and coming Australians...


Because you've had enough of getting found out and embarrassing yourself? 2.6611328125:5