Is there not a stronger case for a probables v possibles England game? A game consisting of, perhaps, the likes of Cudjoe v Shenton, Roby v Robinson, Briscoe v Hall etc etc...

Double the number of players clubs have to give up for a week?

Is the game being played on a normal SL weekend? If so, there's not a cat in hells chance of doubling up the squads with the clubs' consents.

Or alternatively just watch the usual superleague fixtures

So you would think it would be a good idea for someone like say Italy to play regularly against the likes of Australia, New Zealand and England?
At the end of the day, there aren't enough tier 1 nations at this time for everyone to have regular games against them. There are barely enough for them to have regular games against each other. And there is barely enough room in the international calendar to fit in the odd game against other nations when they are at full strength (no tier 2 nation will ever be full strength mid-season due to lack of player depth and clubs not releasing players).


Some players don't follow the same progress as others. Some are still developing into potential internationals up into their mid-20s. Some younger players could do with experienced heads around to aid their development also. I think it's important to factor in more than just age. Some people might not be interested, that's fair enough. But just because some aren't interested doesn't mean it shouldn't be done (not saying you're saying that, but some people will).


Headhunter is suggesting that England Knights is a bad idea because we are encouraging players to not play for the Celtic nations due to "false hope" that they may play for England. Basically, without it, their only way to play representative rugby would be for another nation that they qualify for or wait a long time and risk not being in the shop window of international rugby league (which could be limiting to their career).


Not everyone gets the same opportunity in life. It's a terrible idea to give all nations that are essentially at completely different levels the same opportunity. Players in Scotland, Ireland, anywhere in mainland Europe outside France, etc. don't have the same opportunities as those with SL clubs near them. They have to move to make a career, or they can stay at their club and hope it builds to something. It is very similar (not the same) with international RL. You cannot expect Kenya RL to have the same opportunity as NZRL. That's life. Not everyone gets the same opportunities because of how well developed the game is in certain areas, and having them play games against England, New Zealand and Australia regularly (and get stuffed) isn't going to improve the situation. In fact, I'd go as far as saying it would be MORE damaging. Players want to be playing competitively. Playing a team that is way out of your league constantly will not encourage anybody. It will just drain morale.

No. A game that nobody cares who wins will have little interest. They might as well just line them all up in a straight line and pick captains like when they're at school.

I like that idea. It's a goer...

Jamie Peacock on one side, Adrian Morley on the other. Both given a mic. Line all the players up, pick one at a time until you have 17-a-side, and then we all get to laugh at the ones that are left! It really will be like school all over again (although I was always first to be picked )

Yes, i think the international game should consist of international teams playing against each other.
So why waste one of the very few international dates we have, not playing international rugby?

And they dont have the chances choosing to playing for the Celtic nations. A players options are chose a celtic nation and play in secondary international tournaments and never have an opportunity to play in the primary ones or the play against the tier one nations, or chose to play for the Knights and play in the same tournaments and have the opportunity to play against tier one nations. It does incentivise players to chose England to the detriment of the celtic nations. Which is a bad thing. In isolation there is nothing wrong with a Knights side. When added to everything else there is.

They dont compete at different levels, they compete at the same level. There is only one International Level. Competition will dictate largely that the better teams will play each other more often because the latter stages of competitions will only include these sides. But we dont have that. Kenya RL dont have the opportunity to earn their chance to test themselves. One northern hemisphere side every 4 years gets that chance. Its a less than token effort.

Who cares who wins between what is likely to be an England B team and a random assortment of overseas players?

The latter has nothing to do with the question.
You think Italy, a national team with very little experience and made up almost entirely of amateurs, should be playing Australia, New Zealand and England regularly?


I explained why in the post you quoted.


This has more to do with the lack of an international window. A decision to make a reserve side for an international team should have nothing to do with the presence of nations around them that would want to capitalise on their heritage.

In an ideal world, England would be playing the European nations more. But the fact that we'd stuff them pretty much every game (and the ones we don't, we'd still pretty comfortably win) would mean a lack of interest, a lack of attendance, a lack of profile, a lack of sponsorship and a lack of money. International RL doesn't have that luxury. We need to do what we can to keep it going, and having England play Italy, Russia, USA, Kenya, Germany, Serbia, Ukraine, South Africa, Canada, Jamaica, etc. all year won't be cost effective, and probably won't help anyone in their development.

There needs to be avenues for nations to progress (which there are more now than there has ever been) to playing against the top nations in competitive games in non-WC years. Look at Wales and PNG. But not everyone can play the top 3 teams, and it's in most nations best interests that they don't. I think it's ridiculous that you do. Is it even possible to have everybody play the top 3 in a year?


Kenya RL can arrange matches, build their international ranking, earn themselves places in more prestigious tournaments, and work their way up that way. It's a bit like the licensing system in SL were you have to earn your stripes in more ways than one. And I'm pretty sure you're for that.

You can pretend there is one level of international competition if you like, but there isn't. It might be that way in football, but it isn't in other sports. How often do England RU play teams outside the top tier?

Yes, I think the international game should consist of international teams playing against each other. Australia are an international side, Italy are an international side.

No, you said the calendar fit in very few international dates, and we should be using them for tier 1 nations to play each other. You havent explained why, considering we have so few international dates, too few to play tier 2 nations, that we are using one to play a gimmick side.


I havent said we shouldnt have one. I have said my reaction to the international reserves is a huge "meh". They dont even count as caps, who cares if someone puts together an England Knights squad. Its no different from someone putting together an England Gingers squad and giving them a game. Its pointless, pretty much worthless so who gives a damn. Im simply saying it has the effect of incentivising players to choose England over the celtic nations. This is a bad thing. I have no problem with 'all things being equal' a player with two nationalities choosing England instead of Scotland. I do have a problem with England and the established nations loading the dice in their favour. Which is what the current international calendar, the knights squad being a part, does.
it doesnt need to be an ideal world. We are more than capable of doing that in this uncertain world. And? and? I thought the point of international RL was to have nations playing against each other. You seem to see it as a money making excercise. That may be the root of the differences

You think getting the American national side over here wouldnt help their development? you think that national sides wouldnt benefit simply playing in high visibility games? that more players wouldnt be attracted to play for them if they were playing in high visibility games? You think that an Italian internationals greatest achievement, something they told the kids about in 10-20 years time, that they played on the same field as legends like Peacock, Morley, etc wouldnt be the biggest inspiration to the next generation? wouldnt build interest in Italy? You think anyone in South Africa is as excited about friendlies against Jamaica as they would playing against England?


Nobody is saying every nation plays every nation every year. It gets boring the amount of nonsense ideas you come up with, attribute to someone else then argue against. There are 200+ nations in the world, we should be aiming to have national sides for every one, are we going to play 200+ international games every year? no, that would be mental. We could maybe play between 4 and 8?

It is nothing like the license system. It would be an idiotic analogy.

All the time. In 2010 the played Italy and Samoa, in 2009 they played Argentina 3 times, in 2006 they played Argentina again, in 2005 they played Samoa, in 2004 they played Canada, 2002 they played Argentina, 2001, they played Canada twice, the USA, and Romania.

Potentially double the numbers anyway with exciles Idea. Clubs in NRL give there players up for SOO