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?

People arent being exposed to an international game, They are being exposed to a game between one national side, and a random and contrived team whose existance is solely to play against England and has a near constant turnover of staff

and why would you think people would support a nonsense team like a ROW 13? Nobody goes to a match to watch one side only. Why should i care if England win a friendly against a bunch on players who cant possibly have any pride in their jersey?

And they are doing the exactly the same thing by having east v west, we just get to include more English players. It becomes a real proving ground and trial game for international selection with a few guest stars thrown in.

Which is likely to be a more intense challenge Danny Buderus playing for the ROW against Roby, or Roby and Higham against Diskin and Lunt for international selection?

would you support a team with some Hull players in against a side made up of other SL clubs sides more, or a team with some hull players in against another with some hull players in?

as you would with east v west which you could do in exactly the same way as east v west.

yes as i proposed earlier on, we have 12 english sides in SL, 2 english players from each side voted for by the fans, 8 overseas players (again voted for by the fans) and 6 wildcards as coaches picks. Leaving two squads of 19.


Except it doesnt, it simply gives 17 english players a game against what would be a fairly average side that no-one cares about.

im sure it wouldnt be too difficult. Im also sure, considering players get paid for playing in these games and it formed part of international selection, they wont be too happy to be missing out. Also im sure the clubs wouldnt mind a slice of the takings.

Years ago when Origin was just starting a few Sydney Clubs were going to refuse to release players for the game. The ARL then made it compulsory to play as the player wouldn't have been able to play for the Kangaroos and were heading the Soccer/Football (pending where your from) route if the club's don't release players they don't play for the club now all the RLF would have to do is implement this rule simple as that.

The Super League Season is probably 3 matches to long as it is, so the comp get's culled back to 24 games a season and then have these games around the same time as Origin is in Australia.

A completely different thing the potential of being able to sell the games to be shown in other countries i.e given that a big contingent of the players in the 'Other Nationalities' squad would be Australian and New Zealand it could be shown in Australia and New Zealand(I hope that Fox got if it happens 9 treats League with contempt)

Is it not a game featuring players from one nation (England) and players from another nation (Australia)?


I think you'll find a lot of people go to a match to watch one team and not care what the other team is.

And why can't they have any pride in the jersey? Haven't some players come out and said they'd find selection an honour? You're speaking like all players wouldn't care, and that won't be the case at all. If it was the case, there wouldn't be teams like the Barbarians, and All-Star teams. Do you care that England beat Wales or France?


How can you talk down an Exiles team for being a "contrived" and then come out with an East vs West game with "guest stars"? Doesn't get any more contrived than that.
And no, it's not exactly the same at all. The only way you get experience of playing for England (under the coaching team, structures, experimenting the tactics with the players) is playing for England, not against half an English team.
Super League is already a proving ground for international selection. We now need to see which players can fit into the team the way the coach wants them to.


I'd hazard a guess at the first.


Depends who they're playing for. I wouldn't support New Zealand over England because a Hull player played for NZ.


But not as much quality as the best in England and the best of the overseas players, not to mention the bonus of the England players playing together.


Did you not just say the players from clubs from the East would play for the East and the West for the West? How would it be "friend vs friend"?


So, why would the overseas players have pride in this shirt then? How is this not contrived? You've basically gone against everything you've argued!


I disagree for reasons I've already said. And if I did agree, it would be a better game than England vs France/Wales, so still an improvement.


I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as that.
And I'm sure clubs, as happy as they would be with the takings, wouldn't be happy with the loss of their star players in important games (and thus potential loss of takings due to poor form).