No, I mean whopping margins like 60-6 and 66-12 in the last 2 years (we are making this decision based upon recent results remember). In the same period, our worst loss has been by 30 points (46-16) in the final of the Four-Nations (which we reached by beating the world champions). You have to go back to 2002 to find a defeat as big as the one the French suffered at home to England - the only, albeit teeny tiny, difference being that GB had to fly to the other side of the world to play a midweek test in Sydney.



You can get worse, you can lose 100% of your matches over the same timescale, like France against us. And you could top it off by losing to Wales in a second tier tournament too.

in the last 21 years?

I can't see why people seem to have a problem with the fact there could be an interesting and slightly different Rugby League match coming up to go and watch.

If this was football and England had the chance to play a team consisting of English based foreigners (we could call them 'Arsenal' or something) I reckon the public would support it.

It's little wonder that the sport of Rugby League hasn't spread with any success much further south than Warrington.

All you people do is argue all the time. It's getting a bit 'previous' now.

why just the last two years? and Why ignore the 34-12 result?

You are comparing 2 friendlies 60-6 and 66-12 then ignoring the last friendly that England played against Australia which finished 64-10.

Oh btw and France havent lost 100% of their last 20 matches against us

How far back do you want to go to make a decision as to whether the current French team are providing decent competition for the current England team? What have results from years ago got to do with the decision as to how best to prepare an England team in 2011?



You are missing the obvious conclusion here - did Australia continue to play mid season friendlies against England after that friendly result or did everyone decide that it was pointless?

Nobody is saying France can't play in competitions they qualify for, just that these friendlies are as pointless as the one you refer to, which was never repeated.



I didn't say they had.

So you think if it was announced that the England football team would be playing a one off game (maybe to become a regular fixture) against a brand new side containing the best foreigners that are currently playing in the Premier league no one would be interested?



Yup.

People are right.


You ARE deluded!

I dont know, how far do you want to go back? the 34-12 result was between the two results you quoted

Do Australia continue to play against England? When we were demolished by Australia in 2002 we had an Australian tour in 2003 and the start of the tri-nations (in earnest the 99 tri-nations wasnt really the same format, or regularity) in 2004. What are replacing the game against France with, that includes France? We swapped the friendlies for competitive games, our results were closer, when we have done the same with France the results have been closer. If we follow your logic, why are we casting France out and not bringing them in?

So which time scale was the same timescale if not the same as the timescale which was mentioned?

Not in mid season friendlies, no. That is what we're talking about, is it not?



We have given France the chance of competitive games against us in the 4N - they didn't qualify as they couldn't even beat Wales.



The "same timescale" was the same length of time over which the 20 games against Australia had been played, obviously.

No, games against France in general. As i said previously, we should have a mid season tri-nations against Wales and France, it would be one extra game, it would be competitive games, and we would be more likely to see players like Carvell stick with Wales improving their squad (changing back to GB for games against Australia and NZ)

what do we to do qualify for the 4N. And France only get the opportunity to qualify for every other tri-nations

so 20 games then? It would only be fair to use the same scale.

Thing is though, we aren't replacing an imaginary mid season tri-nations with a game against the all stars, we're replacing a mid-season friendly against France.



Be demonstrably and comfortably better than the next best team.



If they could qualify for the thing in the first place and ever beat anybody in it (let alone make a couple of finals like England), then I'm sure they'd be asked back every year.



No, hence why I said "same timescale" not "same number of games". Thought it was quite clear myself. Quite what results from before RL in England was even fully pro have to do with whether we play France in a mid season friendly in 2011, I have no idea.

Over what timescale?

Seriously, you're not expecting to get anything other than a fog plaiting session out of this are you?

Which is why any all stars gimmick (if at all) should be in addition to, and not replacing international RL. We could do both. Or we could just drop the pointless all-star game.

When did we do this?
and how are the supposed to do this when we dont play them any more?

Ahh, so you want to compare 20 tests against Australia to 6 against France. And for no discernible reason we set that timescale, randomly at 11 years. That seems, well.... random.