Quote: SmokeyTA "No, we played an NZ 2nd string of mostly European based players that was taken so seriously Clinton Toopi captained at fullback. That was a friendly.
France SHOULD be a proper test match, with the proper respect that deserves. It is only because of our disrespectful attitude towards it that it is treated so poorly by the French. If we deigned to give them a proper real test match as part of a proper real international calendar they would put out their best side which is more than capable of giving us a game.
Which is why I said we should play both Wales and France in a round robin tournament to have a tournament. They arent however the only major internationals we play. A Test match against France is a fully fledged major international.
'"
So it's not treated as a proper test match at the moment, it's just a friendly. How would you go about making it a "proper" test match? How would you go about making it more competitive (like when they play in the 4N)? It's a two way street here. If they can't put out a proper squad, how would you change that without affecting the SL season? These are all considerations that need to be made. It's all fair and good saying "it needs to be more competitive" and "taken more seriously", but how do you go about doing that? It's not disrespectful that it is a friendly if it is a friendly we are after. And it's not disrespectful that it isn't a major competitive game if the criteria that make it a major competitive game cannot be achieved due to other limitations.
At the end of the day, we can play who we like in a friendly so long as they agree to play the game.
Quote: SmokeyTA "A 4 nations game, the ANZAC test means nothing to each of them and is treated with little respect. Do i think a fully fledged test match between Australia and NZ with players actually allowed to play would matter? certainly. In fact the reason the Kiwis no longer wanted to play the ANZAC test was because of that exact distinction. '"
But you're not offering a solution other than saying "it needs to be fully fledged". How do you achieve this? What would make this just as important to people as a 4N game? I don't think a stand-alone fixture would ever achieve such a feat without being part of a wider tournament, but there isn't the room for that in the calendar (having Wales and France play more games mid-season would seriously hamper Crusaders and Catalans, and making the season longer isn't looking after our players, and shortening the SL season could (and probably would) financially cripple our clubs.
In an ideal world it would be that simple, but these are the challenges facing the international game.
Quote: SmokeyTA "no, they were part of a tour.'"
What difference does it make? Was Cumbria part of a tour? Why didn't they play Wales like they did the two previous years? Why was this not disrespectful? Why didn't England play Tonga or Samoa on tour?
Quote: SmokeyTA "We didnt play Pakistan last year as part of a warm up to play Australia and this ashes series isnt a warm up for the world cup later this year. It would be disrespectful however if England decided they no longer wanted to play a series against Pakistan and would instead play 3 games against the overseas players playing over here to prepare them for Australia.'"
I don't get how England playing Cumbria or NZ Maori isn't considered disrespectful but playing an All-Stars team is? It seems you are changing your criteria as what is deemed to be disrespectful to suit here.
Quote: SmokeyTA "Do they? you dont see Leeds refusing to player smaller clubs '"
But they aren't competitive games, and Leeds have no desire to consider them as competitive games. They are merely friendlies for the real deal.
Quote: SmokeyTA "and you arent arrogant. 34-12 isnt a result that is never in doubt. Its a good test.'"
It is, you are right. But the game in question was a 4N game, not a mid-season game, which has never proven to be a good test.
Quote: SmokeyTA "in a game you have admitted they dont really care about, which they havent won for 13 years.'"
But it's a practice game. The result isn't that important to them, but the experience against better opposition is. You might not agree that the experience is important, but I do, and the England coaching team believe it is important. They have something that we want - a harder test.
Quote: SmokeyTA "So it works that quick does it? So we can expect to win the 4 nations at the end of this year? Considering it is the only example where it isnt that different it can only have had an affect from last year cant it? but the 12 preceeding years you admit it wasnt an NZ first team, it was a 2nd team and the game wasnt treated seriously?'"
It wasn't a second team at all. It was a weakened first team, yes. But to say it was a second team is a lie.
And no, we can't expect to win the 4N just because of one game. I've never said that, even though you've asked me time and time again and I've always said it will "help" us. If we have a test and they have a test, why would I expect just us to win?
Quote: SmokeyTA "And you are placing the importance of playing a friendly to 'prepare' us for competing with Australia and NZ rather than actually competing with France. And you wont admit this is disrespectful to French RL.'"
I am comparing the importance of preparing for a major international tournament over the importance of playing a one off game mid-season, yes. That isn't disrespectful. And that game is a game that the other side are extremely disadvantaged at, and you've even said don't take it that seriously. Why should that game be more important than our need to prepare to win a major international tournament?
Quote: SmokeyTA "Does it? cant have played much then'"
A bunch of players that get paid to play sounds like a professional team to me. Don't need to be Darren Lockyer to work that one out.
Quote: SmokeyTA "So we make test matches against France major internationals and stop using them as preparation for Australia and NZ'"
You still haven't said how you would achieve this without causing other problems?
Quote: SmokeyTA "So then why bring up something you dont believe to be a reason for it as a defence of it?'"
Because if the game is not achieving what the England coaching team want from the game, then the only reason to keep it would be for media, marketing and money making reasons. Since these aren't achieving much either, there is not much reason to keep it over something that could achieve these things.
Quote: SmokeyTA "England and France are at the same level. They are both professional nations. In fact their professional clubs play in the same league. In fact the French position isnt vastly different to the NZ position of 15 years ago. They deserve to compete.'"
England and France aren't at the same level. You've even said yourself! You called France tier 2 earlier. That isn't the same level.
They are tier 2 and not tier 1 because they can't field a full team of full-time players.
France aren't in a similar position to NZ. NZ have players all over the NRL. They have players that have been brought up through Australian teams because there are a lot of NZ born people living in Australia. There are very few French people in England that come through the system in the same way. However, Wales ARE in a similar situation to NZ, as there are a fair few Welsh people that come through the English system. This is why I think Wales will (and arguably already have) taken over France unless the French get another SL team. They face completely different cultural challenges that I'm sure even you would agree on.
Quote: SmokeyTA "Why those two clubs? Seems a very strange example? But if Leeds were looking to play their games against Made up gimmick of the week 13 instead then i would be in favour fo them playing Toulouse. It would be idiotic not to be.Why not? That would be a good thing'"
Catalans chose to play a French Presidents Select (a "made up" team) in a friendly over a local French team once in a friendly. Is that disrespectful to the French league teams? Or does that mean they wanted a sterner test and couldn't get any English clubs to come over? This is the challenge we face with the international game and getting strong enough games to prepare us.
It is not disrespectful to turn down a team for a friendly no matter who they are. If they don't provide what we are looking for then that is our choice to make. For all we know, we could ask France to play a friendly one day and they turn us down for the same reason. Someone has even suggested that Bobbie Goulding has said that they don't benefit from the mis-match of a mid-season friendly against England.
Quote: SmokeyTA "France ARE major internationals. They arent our training ground. They arent our test dummies. They dont play us to learn or get better, they play us to compete. The play us because that is the point of international RL. Win Lose or Draw it is mission complete, We have played international rugby. We have finished the game. Our aim has been met. By simply staging the game we have done what we set out to do. Stop treating France and Wales as stepping stones.
Only because it is a friendly and not a test match and people like you have such a disrespect for International RL. Playing France is a major international. It is only because it is downgraded to a friendly that it is treated so poorly
'"
It is not a major international. You're confusing a major international team with a major international games. Major teams can play in minor games, and vice-versa.
The aim isn't just to play internationals for the sake of playing internationals at all. We have not set out just to play an international game. That clearly isn't the aim, otherwise we wouldn't be playing the All-Stars.
Quote: SmokeyTA "Nobody said everyone should aspire to play us. Im not sure where you have got that from. I said they should play us. The only arrogant part is us thinking we are better than even bothering to compete with them. They can play Wales and do, and will continue to do so. We are the ones also missing out here.'"
You seem to be of the impression that if we don't play other international teams, we are disrespecting them. What about other nations? Are France disrespecting Scotland for not playing them mid-season? Why are we so important that teams should play us (which you HAVE said)?
Quote: SmokeyTA "Because France, and Wales for that matter arent the ones putting this limit on there. We are. They can play each other, any time they want, and most years do play each other with no involvement from us. It is us who are deciding that we are too busy to play more than one game and too good to waste it on them.'"
I would say that the French not being able to get hold of their best players mid-season is a pretty big limit put on them! It's the reason why there aren't more mid-season internationals! You can pretend all you like that we could easily arrange loads of mid-season internationals, but the fact is there are SL games on and it is difficult getting players released. We aren't deciding we are too busy. It's the challenge we are facing with SL mid-season.
As for "most years", last time was the first time since 2006 that the French played the Welsh (Wales in WC qualifiers in 2007, France in WC in 2008 and 4N in 2009), and I'm not sure if they even played each other in that competition in 2006.
Quote: SmokeyTA "Why does it have to be mid-season? Again this is our proviso. Are you still trying to tell me its not arrogant or disrespectful for us to say we are too busy to play more than one game, too good to waste on either of you, i know you play each almost every post-season but play each other mid-season aswell. Instead of us. Cos we're busy and too good.'"
It doesn't have to be mid-season, but we are talking about the mid-season game here! Who has said we might not play them at the end of the season?! If we play them then instead, is that problem solved?
And again, you say they play each other at almost every post season, but when was the last time apart from last year that that happened? And is it happening post season this year? It could be once in 5 years, but that equates to "almost every" to you!
Quote: SmokeyTA "There was a problem with the french season being at a different time to british season, plus it is a fairly recent up turn for welsh RL. But whilst we are off every year playing the 'important' internationals france and Wales have played each other. It seems odd you think them not playing each other twice a year is proof of anything really.'"
They haven't played each other much, and they haven't plans to this year.
We haven't NOT got plans to play the French at the end of the season this year.
We DO have plans to play the Welsh.
Quote: SmokeyTA "Because they will already be playing them at the end of the season. But there is no real reason they cant. But that isnt justification for us not being part of European International RL. You could use the same argument to justify any game. Why cant England play a Yorkshire side? why cant England play the USA, why cant England play Canada?'"
Again, will they? Wales are playing us in the 4N. You need to check your fixtures.
There is no real reason they can't. So it isn't a problem. Your reason of saying it's disrespectful is not a real reason. We do play the other nations. But we want a better mid-season test as well and there is limited time to do all of it. That is why we can justify it.
The latter part is my point exactly. Is it disrespectful that we don't play Canada? USA? No.
