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.

You think a team of part-timers from a nation not even regarded as fourth best in the world would beat a team of full-timers who have been regarded as second to third best in the world? I'd like to see he odds on something like that!
Who was the last team to beat Aus/NZ outside of the big three and when was that?


it's not arrogant at all. It's a pretty fair claim based on the strength of the two nations teams and past results in similar situations. It's not undue, it's not unfounded. And it cannot be compared to Eng/GB vs Aus.

I'm beginning to think you don't understand the meaning of he word arrogance!


If the other side of the stick is winning 0 and winning more than 0, than yes, it is worse

this whole argument is pointless.

until france has at least 25 players worthy of plying there trade in the SLE they will never compete with england in friendlies or competitions.

A Championship select would beat France on occasion , they would provide a better test for the Euro Countries