Quote: SmokeyTA "What about them? They should be given all the help possible to develop the game their game, introduce their national side and allow their national side to play in international competition. Against everyone. '"
So you would think it would be a good idea for someone like say Italy to play regularly against the likes of Australia, New Zealand and England?
At the end of the day, there aren't enough tier 1 nations at this time for everyone to have regular games against them. There are barely enough for them to have regular games against each other. And there is barely enough room in the international calendar to fit in the odd game against other nations when they are at full strength (no tier 2 nation will ever be full strength mid-season due to lack of player depth and clubs not releasing players).
Quote: SmokeyTA "Im not saying we shouldnt have youth representative sides, im not sure of the point of reserve international sides. Either you are playing for your nation or not. But i have nothing really against them other than their pointlessness, if you want one fine, my reaction is 100% "meh".'"
Some players don't follow the same progress as others. Some are still developing into potential internationals up into their mid-20s. Some younger players could do with experienced heads around to aid their development also. I think it's important to factor in more than just age. Some people might not be interested, that's fair enough. But just because some aren't interested doesn't mean it shouldn't be done (not saying you're saying that, but some people will).
Quote: SmokeyTA "And im not saying we should force players to play for other international sides they may not want to, im not sure where you think anyone has said this. In fact i would go as far as to say you are well aware nobody has said this and are simply introducing it to back up a point you know to be weak. '"
Headhunter is suggesting that England Knights is a bad idea because we are encouraging players to not play for the Celtic nations due to "false hope" that they may play for England. Basically, without it, their only way to play representative rugby would be for another nation that they qualify for or wait a long time and risk not being in the shop window of international rugby league (which could be limiting to their career).
Quote: SmokeyTA "All I have said is that if you choose to play for Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France, Fiji, USA, Tonga, Samoa etc etc, you have the same opportunities to compete at the top level in international competition as you do if you choose to represent England, Australia or NZ. Because otherwise we are incentivising players to choose to play for England, Australia, NZ to the detriment of the other nations then complaining that they arent up to standard. They never will be when they never play us and we steal all their best players.
It isnt about forcing anyone to do anything, its about giving players and the international game the opportunity.'"
Not everyone gets the same opportunity in life. It's a terrible idea to give all nations that are essentially at completely different levels the same opportunity. Players in Scotland, Ireland, anywhere in mainland Europe outside France, etc. don't have the same opportunities as those with SL clubs near them. They have to move to make a career, or they can stay at their club and hope it builds to something. It is very similar (not the same) with international RL. You cannot expect Kenya RL to have the same opportunity as NZRL. That's life. Not everyone gets the same opportunities because of how well developed the game is in certain areas, and having them play games against England, New Zealand and Australia regularly (and get stuffed) isn't going to improve the situation. In fact, I'd go as far as saying it would be MORE damaging. Players want to be playing competitively. Playing a team that is way out of your league constantly will not encourage anybody. It will just drain morale.