TBF Clint Newton said this on the Super League Supermen show back in June but I didnt make that clear! The one thing that was obvious with the interview was that the overseas players would be up for it so to speak and there is always rivally when the Antipodeans play the pommies isnt there?

I am not against the roses option which you mention but because we are now more spread out as a game (not much I know!) the likes of Tony Clubb wouldnt qualify for either Yorkshire or Lancashire yet he is an England international.

If the RFL are savvy then they could easily arrange for an England A team to play curtain raiser against either Wales or France to ensure a bigger pool of players are getting rep experience but I guess that will be down to the clubs in SL who may not want that many players away on rep duty at the same time.

Its an idea I would like to see given a go and has proved very successful in Union with the Barbarians. -Dont the Aussies have a similar All Stars team which Sam Burgess played for last year?

The bottom line is Steve McNamara needs to get his squad together more often and for them to be exposed to a higher level of rugby which on paper at least the Anzacs in SL would provide.

As I say I think the idea has potential and I can understand you limiting players per club but I also think this causes a grey area. Using the Giants as an example say you are Shaun Lunt who would normally be a shoe in for this kind of game but because Robinson, Cudjoe and Brown play for the same team you are left sat at home watching hoping that neither hooker rips it up or thats you England squad jersey gone!

Lancashire v Yorkshire (or Rodstocks war of the roses )was tried in the late 80s if you remember. The first series was good as both sides were up for it, and seeing good crowds but then using the excuse that there are tooooooooooomany games most of the then 'star' players pulled out with dubious 'injuries' only to reappear for the their clubs 2 days later cured it seemed, which therefore left the fixture to be made up of lower league players has beens, and never wuzzes.Leaving us long suffering fans short changed again.
Sorry lads, but this will not work the players and the SL coaches will see to that.

Simple. Just say that any player who pulls out of origin is ineligible for an England shirt for the till the Next World Cup, harsh, but fair. Exceptions will be made for those who miss two/three league games before or after selection, but those who are simply faking injuries will just be exempt.

i think it would be a nonsense idea to do either yorks v lancs or England v RoW

A better way would be something close to the all star game in Aus.

East v West, we have 12 clubs, 2 english players from each side voted for by the fans, + 8 overseas players voted for by the fans max of 1 per club + 6 english wildcards picked by the coaches. 2 squads of 19.

The idea that it is the intensity of origin we should be looking for as it will replicate the intensity of international football and that will better prepare us is rubbish imo. But what it would do is
A) draw attention to the game
B) be a great 'festival of rugby' type event
C) get people involved
and from a playing point of view D) give 30 top english players the chance to spend 3/4 weeks through the season together, get them working with England coaches, get them used to being 'in camp' used to playing in other systems, used to playing together, and get them out of their comfort zone

if we do something like that i think it could be a great concept. If we are looking for something to be the next origin we will be sadly disappointed

Been there before with that, as we are in a no win situation, if the player is left out these colums will be full of fans complaing that if such n such had played then we would have won. Players and clubs will get round this by producing a sick note and they will be believed.
We have to accept that RLin the UK is ALL about SL not tours ???? international matches or rep matches ALL SUPER LEAGUE
IMO the best way would be for them to be banned from the next 2 club games.
But as I said earlier SKY, SL and the coaches will put a stop to it !!!!!!!!!!!!

Is this idea being floated around to give fans another couple of games to see each season, or in an attempt to improve the national side?

If it's the former, scrap it. A War of the Roses game, or Enland vs a Barbarians type team simply wouldn't attract the crowds. It hasn't in the past, and won't now. The WCC doesn't sell out and that's competed by the two best club teams in the world, two teams that would comfortably beat an England national side, never mind a side made up of just Yorkshire or Lancashire men!

If it's the latter, scrap it! Playing a couple of games a season more against opposition thrown together gives us nothing like the challenge a well trained Aus or NZ test team provide, so it's a waste of time. The way to improve the national side is for SL to improve as a competition. The RFL needs to tighten up overseas numbers (I know this is being done to an extent but it needs to be much more stringent, I'd have the number capped at 5 non-UK or French players), find ways of holding on to our best talent (rather than happily waving them off to RU) and most importantly work on junior development. More emphasis in the liscensing criteria needs to be given to reward club's who invest most time and resources into their academies, and there should be minimum targets for number of home grown players in each starting 17, rather than just in each squad, I'd suggest such the number should be 8 (obviously this would need to be intorduced gradually to allow club's with non-established junior set ups time to grow).

Obvious way to get an intense game to me would be for the England team to play a 3 match series against 3 club sides - mid season. International players would play for their club side. High prize money split amongst winning team would ensure players don't feign injury to avoid playing. Any club side that beats England team is allowed to wear some sort of 'honour' on shirt for remainder of season. Played at home ground of club team would ensure good crowd.

Why don't England just play Hull KR?

East vs West? Are people kidding? Who really cares if they're from the East or the West of England? What about those that are in the middle? West Yorkshire is about as central as you can get in the North. Who do they support?
And Yorks/Lancs is dead. Lancs is not what it used to be. It is outdated, which is why it won't get much coverage or support. You'd be just as good having Yorks vs North West. At least it includes Cumbria and actually includes some SL teams (since none or in Lancashire anymore).

The best in England and the best Australian imports will have more quality players than East vs West or Yorks vs Lancs. That is why it will be more intense. It will give less English players a chance, true. But these players have a chance to get into that team by playing well in the Super League up to that point. This game is about getting the players as ready as possible. If there is more than one game, then players in the fringes will still get a chance.

I'm totally for it if they can market the opposition well as a team worth playing and a team that the ex-pats over here would want to watch. If they just call them "the Overseas XVII" or something dull like that, it won't be that interesting to them and the event will struggle to take off. At least we know that England will sell (although it's still not completely over in the league world). The more we can market England, and the more we can get over a competitive mid-season international series, the better the international game will be perceived. I think if the ARL got behind it a bit as well and stated that they will consider players for Australia, it would provide a bit of incentive for the overseas players as well. Doubt that would happen, but with Australia's recent declining power at international level, you never know! The NRL is rammed full of imports as well, after all!

I just want to know how they intend to fit three international games into the middle of the season! I'd love to see it, but how are they going to get clubs to agree to release players for both teams for three games?!

It's as near as you're going to get from State of Origin.

Nobody cares if they are from the east or west of England, nobody really cares if they are from yorks or lancs as we have seen. Similarly no one would care if they are from England when the alternative is everywhere else in the world.
They are all artificial and contrived and no rivalry will ever be built in any of them.

as i said if anyone is looking to build another Origin, they will fail. So dont bother.

What the east v west concept would do, is separate the clubs in to two camps, simply relying on the already existing rivalries in SL. The best players from Wigan, Warrington, Saints, Quins, and Salford against the Best of Leeds, Bradford, Hull, Hull KR, Hudds, Cas and Wakefield

they will be pretty much the same players, just more engliash players. and as such give us less of a reason to bother with it.Then it will fail and do nothing. It would be pointless and a waste of money.

People wont watch an England v artificially contrived overseas X111. Its a pointless and worthless concept that does none of the things we actually want it to do.

make them.

Because they'd lose

considering every team who finished above you had fewer overseas players and more England internationals and the fact i have seen a game of rugby before, i think you are wrong

I disagree with that. I'd support England whoever they play, and I'm gutted every time they lose. I'd think there are a fair amount of people that think the same, and I'd think that is what the RFL would want. It's better for the international game, and more exposure of the international team would be better for its brand.
Selling a Lancashire team that isn't Lancashire, and an "East vs West" game that wouldn't have anyone other than exhibition fans interested wouldn't get any intensity what-so-ever. It would be about as big as the Carnegie 9s at best.


And I agree. But England playing international games isn't looking to build another Origin. It's looking to get England more games to improve them as a team so they have a chance against the best in the world! They need to spend more time in the camp, with the coaching staff and with their team-mates so they can become a better team and more organised team. The best way they can improve is by playing games against better opposition.


In what way is it relying on the rivalries? If they are playing in the same team as their rivals, then in what way would the rivalry matter? It won't bring them together if they don't care about the team (see Yorkshire/Lancashire games in the past that were just Wire/Wigan/Saints fans abusing each other, and the same for Leeds/Bradford).

At least with England vs Australian All-Stars/Exiles you have a team that everyone supports (England) against a team of quality, and you can even sell the "friend vs friend" angle.


How will there be pretty much the same players but more English players? Are you saying Aussies should play for East vs West? Or are you saying that the second string of England is better than the Australian contingent in SL? Because if the latter, I feel you will find many many people that disagree with you! (You'd find a lot of people thinking that they'd beat our first string!).


Why won't they?
And as has been said, it is not pointless. It has a meaning. An important meaning, and one England have been lacking - decent, intense competition to improve and prepare the international team.


Do they not have legal rights (you know, being the players employers and that)? If we could just pull players out whenever we liked as easy as that, surely we'd have done that years ago for more than one game?