But as a team it's no stronger than England as its not like we gain someone of the calibre of Davies by combining the home nations

I agree that as a brand its more historical relevant and could be used for the four nations as long as Wales aren't competing

This.

we would gain a testing ground for around 80 players.

It's that time of the week again...

I'll just stick to ripping open the opening sentence as that's all I can be bothered to do. First point, can you point on your map of sovereign countries where it says "Great Britain & Ireland" for me please? I assume it must be on there for you to bring up the home nations not being sovereign countries? They are constituent countries though (well, Ireland isn't).

As for your second point, did this not happen under GB&I? I assume it didn't, as again you've brought it up as a negative. I'm guessing because they're called GB, there'll be some kind of difference to the recruitment policy of heritage players.

I'm hoping there is a reply. I would like to know why I should think GB is better to bring back than sticking with the home nations, but I'd like to confirm that these issues are exclusive to the home nations' existence first...

What sort of difference and how?

It would give us a chance to give 80+players a season a go at international level, as trail for GB. It would give us international games, it would mean that a player like Danny Brough or Gareth Carvell, or more importantly players like Dale Ferguson, Rhys Evans, Rhys Williams, Ben Flower and Elliot Kear didnt need to switch nations to be included at the top table

From my own point of view i have NO INTEREST in supporting a team called England and untill the time comes when the side is called GB i'm not going to be a paying customer.

Embarrassing, utterly embarrassing.

I think there is a place for both Great Britain and ENgland in the international calendar. Has to be England in a World cup. A return to the ashes would warrant a GB return for me and keeping GB for three/four etc nations would be good too.

people are talking about the GB Ashes tour but would Australia and NZ be keen? I am not so sure they would!

Unless they want a chance of winning the World Cup, which you'd assume they would.

It seems to work in Union with the Lions touring every 4 years. An iconic brand

If a touring GB side could make some money and bring in the fans I'd have it back tomorrow. Twenty years ago a British tour down under meant as much to me as a World Cup. Possibly more.

I remember getting excited about the 88(?) tour [iTWELVE MONTHS[/i before it took place. Endless conversations with mates in the lead up attempting to second guess the coach's final tour selections followed by endless rows over such-and-such a player being selected above someone else. Stupid stuff like the frenzied search to find TV access on some obscure satellite channel in order to watch the Second XIII go down to some club side. And NO video recorder I owned ever exceeded the record number of successive rewinds and plays I hit watching Mike Gregory's sixty metre try-scoring sprint - or Henderson Gill "doing a bit of a boogie".

Then there were the bets on "Player of the Tour", "Breakout Player of the Tour", "Points scorer etc. " - not to mention the enormous sense of pride one felt if one or all played for your club.

I miss GB tours. I miss them more than any other defunct RL spectacle.

I think we would see a Welsh team competitive with England before an England team winning the world cup.

Why?