William makes a fair point. Where is the home nations thing going? is it ever going to grow? i don't think so. Can't barely get one decent player among the three countries and interest in the game is practically zero and that's being kind!

Go back to GB imo. It is France that has the serious potential to grow , the home nations is just a pipe dream. use them for WC's and that is it.

]
How the hell does having one team instead of four provide more international opportunity?

How many GB players are getting the opportunity to play Australia and New Zealand this year?

]
That's not really the fault of England or GB brand though, so it's not relevant at all.

France does have serious potential to grow. Taking out 3 of their local opposition wouldn't help them though, would it? They get big crowds against Wales, Ireland and Scotland. They're a similar level on the field.

I just don't understand the rationale behind "just get rid of them because they're not working this second."

No point unless we pick Aussie/Kiwi players who qualify via Welsh, Irish, Scottish ancestors for GB i.e. Tyson Frizell or Pat Richards in his prime.

It's never worked though.Perhaps when we got the Union converts in the 80s/90s Wales could just about compete but those days have gone. It has no foundations to work. I'm in my thirties and should i be lucky enough to reach an old age I highly doubt these sides will ever be much more competetive than they are right now still using players that can't get games for the big three nations. It's sad, because i would love it to work along the lines of RU, but unfortunately it will never happen.

Number of Tests GB/England have played against Australia during the SL era = 27 (28 after next week)
Number played in England = 20 (21 after next week)
Number played in Australia = 7

Number of Tests GB/England have played against New Zealand during the SL era = 33
Number played in England = 23
Number played in New Zealand = 8
Number played in Australia = 2

TOTAL = 60
Played in England = 43
Played in Australia = 9
Played in New Zealand = 8

As you were.

Oh here we go again the "remain" attitude, you don't agree with me so I'll sneeringly dismiss you as a Luddite (in this case)

Of course you shouldn't live in the past that's just foolish. However to dismis the past and thus not learn from it is positively idiotic, but that's what arrogance does to people.

For anyone interested, the results of those internationals during the SL-era above are as follows...

GB/England V Australia
In England - 3 wins, 17 defeats
In Australia - 1 win, 6 defeats
--------------------------------------
TOTAL - 4 wins, 23 defeats
--------------------------------------

GB/England V New Zealand
In England - 13 wins, 2 draws, 8 defeats
In New Zealand - 0 wins, 8 defeats
In Australia - 0 wins, 2 defeats
-------------------------------------------------
TOTAL - 13 wins, 2 draws, 18 defeats
-------------------------------------------------

And if it had been GB instead of England, All of those results would be the same so, what is your solution ?

The GB brand was and still is very highly thought of in Australia. Pretty much all of our big wins have come under that banner. It's iconic. Famous red and blue V with the roaring lion the chest, it has history and meaning in RL. Those dismissing it i just don't get but each to their own.

I'm not dismissing it at all but, as I said in my earlier post, there just aren't any Welsh, Scottish or Irish players that would make the team ant to revert to GB, could make us look worse than we do now.
The history is great and our International success came under the Lions name but, changing back to it wont make a scrap of difference to the players ability and wouldn't change results.
IF and its a huge if, the other home nations were individually strong and GB was a greater force than England then, it would make sense to change back but, to do it now would just be tokenism.

I honestly don't think the Aussies care whether we play as Great Britain or as England. What they want is competitive matches in front of packed out stadiums. They won't think highly of GB or England if they are beating us easily every time we play them.

You talk about the history of the game and that it is on it's backside but, where the hell was the game just before the switch to the summer era.
If you want a definition of "on it's backside", have a look back and remind us just how healthy the game was before Uncle Maurice brokered the SL deal.
The game was as close to dying as it has ever been.

I'm not for one minute saying everything is great, it clearly isnt but, it's in better shape than the mid - late '90's

It's not all about results.

It's about not crapping all over a successful brand with historical significance.

It's about nurturing something you have which actually worked very well!

Would any other sport shoot itself in the foot like RL has done?

The whole country knew of Ellery Hanley, Shaun Edwards, Garry Schofield, Jason Robinson and Co when they played Ashes Series under the GB banner. As mentioned above by Biff Tannen, the GB brand was iconic... it meant something... hardly any other sport played as GB apart from the Olympics and their Team GB branding.

Hardly anyone outside of parts of the M62 stretch has heard of Luke Gale, Ryan Hall and James Graham, and they have even less interest in the England RL branding because there are plenty of other much bigger sports with bigger media profiles to lend support to the England branding instead.

Replacing GB with England?

It's tantamount to New Zealand in RU ditching the All Blacks branding and claiming it isn't modern or progressive enough.