Exactly. Well said.

Again, this makes no sense. There is no logic.

How can GB and Ireland represent the sovereign state of the UK, but not the sovereign state of the Republic of Ireland?

You do realise that the term "Great Britain" is just an island, like Ireland is just an island.

Therefore, the term "Great Britain & Ireland" either represents two separate islands (so no sovereign nations), or the two sovereign nations that encompass them. You can't just pick one and say the other isn't a part of it any more than you can pick the other. It is completely illogical (especially as saying it represents the UK and the island of Ireland means you've included NI twice).

You do also realise that the term "Eire" (misspelled) can mean both the Republic of Ireland and/or the island of Ireland (including NI).

The term "Great Britain and Ireland" refers either to two islands, or the two states encompassing them. What you have said is just daft.


So it's pointless and achieves nothing.


How? Because their national sides aren't good enough?

In the period of 2011-2013, Wales will have played in the highest competition available to them. They're hardly being excluded.

And what of France? No one seems to care about them. They're "excluded" (translation: haven't been good enough to qualify) from the 4N sometimes.

It's the nature of sport. Does having England rather than Europe lack incentives for players and development in France, Italy, etc? How far do you go with this?

If Wales, Ireland and Scotland want to incentivise playing for their nations, try need to increase the development there, increase their competitiveness in the competitions they're in and move up the international RL ladder. They do not and should not need a pseudo-national team one step above them to provide them with heritage players. France don't have that luxury. Neither does any other nation.

If you read my posts, you'd see that I'm not actually that bothered about Cektic Tigers, and don't see a need for them at this time. I just see their inclusion being as logical as the inclusion of GB and Ireland.

So it's you that has missed the point.


You're confusing your opinion with fact. Not everyone loves GB. Get over it.

To argue that everyone loves GB as a point to bring then back shows your lack of arguing ability. It is as affective as me arguing that "everyone loves England so keep them!"

Everyone does love GB though, there's a century of tradition behind the rivalry. You're basically arguing that the sky isn't blue...

Come up for air Wellsy, you've lost sight of where up+down is.

The OP doesn't. I don't. The vast majority of people discussing the GB subject on TotalRL.com don't.

So again, if that's your only argument, you really are going to struggle as everybody doesn't love GB. You're trying to claim a fact that is just an opinion, and actually the fact is that everybody doesn't love GB. Some people do, some people don't.

And the sky is grey from where I'm looking!

oh i love GB... i cried when we won in sydney in 2006,i own many a GB jersey...i own 3 of the "classics" jersey from 2001-2003 lol...but i'm also a internationalist,i see the value of having 4 home nations in the spot light.....but now i don't see GB being of any value until it contains actual english,scots & welsh (ireland want nothing to do with GB btw)......the whole point of "combination sides" like GB, the union lions & barbarians..is that they are a sum of their parts..ie players from multiple nations becoming as one!


people are forgeting why we became,firstly,northern union 13, then the lions,then GB (late 1940s)...its so england could beneift the welsh & odd scots union coverts....GB now and for the next generation won't contain any genuine welsh or scots players(or irish that won't be playing for GB anyway)....thats why bringing GB back is pointless.....yet a celtic tigers combination team for welsh,scots & irish players makes more sense.



and to that aussie who keeps saying the aussie public have no interest in seeing england.........2 things...the biggest cricket series you play is against england.......and you RL commentators always called GB " the english" anyway...lol

Because the Ireland side, isn’t the national side of the ROI. It is the representative side of the Island of Ireland.
It is referred to as GB for ease of use. Like the Team GB Olympic team


We are including NI twice, because they are eligible as British Citizens and also as representatives of the island of Ireland.

This is what you are not seeming to understand. The Ireland in the GB&I doesn’t refer to the Republic. It isn’t GB (inc NI) and the Republic of Ireland. It is GB as a nation, and Ireland as a representative side of the island of Ireland.
Thats a nice peice of pointless trivia you've invluded.
Why you insist on this false dichotomy i dont know.
Or it refers to the country of Great Britain, and the Rugby League team Ireland (which isnt a sovereign nation but a representative side of ROI and NI) Which is what it is, because thats what it does.
No more pointless than the England side not having representatives from everywhere in England
Because they dont play them.

Yes, that two year period is entirely representative. Problem Solved!!

France should play more games aswell. As for your dig about them not being good enough to qualify. Remind me what England do to qualify?

You go forever. England, Aus and NZ arent the be all and end all of international RL. It doesnt start and stop with them. Everyone, should play everyone else.
Its not about providing them with Heritage players. Its not about incentivising them. Its about Rhys Evans having the choice the play for the land of his birth in irregular 2nd tier competition, or playing for England in regular top tier competition. The choice should be England or Wales, which do you feel you represent best and thats it.

Yes it is, because England is a national side, not an amalgamation of several national sides. By your reasoning we might as well create an 'England, Singapore and Bermuda' combination team, all the players would be from England but that would be ok because the England team doesn't contain players from every region.
Don't play what? If Ireland or Scotland had won the European Cup, they would have played in the Four Nations. The fact that they didn't do so is irrelevant, they now have the same opportunities as every other nation whereas they didn't before.
You said that Wales and other nations were being excluded from top-level internationals. This is clearly not the case.
It's not a 'dig' at France to say they weren't good enough to qualify, they didn't win the European Cup which was clearly designated as a 4N qualifying tournament. I don't particularly like the fact that England, Australia and NZ are afforded a higher status but it's logical, we can't have a 20 nations competition that everyone automatically takes part in every year and IIRC England, NZ and Australia are the owners of the 4N concept. The World Cup is a different story where everyone should have to qualify.
Agreed. This is not consistent at all with bringing back GB. Bringing back GB creates disparity and segregation within the international game that is not there currently.
If Rhys Evans had chosen Wales, he would have played in the exact same competitions and had the exact same opportunities as with England. The fact that he didn't is his problem.

:3isutjg4Only if we fundementally misunderstood ther relationship between England, The UK and the UK Crown Dependancies. :3isutjg4Australia, England, and NZ dont play Ireland, Scotland and Wales in regular top tier internationals.

:3isutjg4We dont need to. Nor do we need to have a 4 nations every year. Nor do we have to treat games against Wales, Scotland and Ireland as warm ups. I wouldn’t want a twenty team tournament every year. I just don’t think that games against England, Australia, and NZ being a ‘reward’ for other nations is right. I don’t think it sets the right tone, I don’t think it treats countries equally. International RL is international RL whether it is England v Australia or Wales v Serbia. It is as important that England play Wales regularly, as it is that England play Australia regularly and that goes for every nation.

That two year period isnt representative of international RL. It doesnt acheive anything to pretend it was. GB isnt a replacement for Wales, Ireland, Scotland or England. It is in adittion to it.

I don't want to get into that. The fact is that if we accept England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland as national teams, then GB is effectively an amalgamation of national teams. And if that amalgamation contains players from only one of the four national teams involved then there really isn't any point, we might as well just play as that one national team.
They don't play Lebanon or Canada either. The point is that all the nations have the opportunity to reach that level. The fact that they don't is because they are not good enough on the field. In football, Wales do not regularly play at the World Cup because they aren't good enough to warrant that status, that's just the way sport is. If Scotland RL found 20 world class players, under the current system they would play regular top-tier internationals. Just as France, Italy or anyone else would. And if they were unable to do so, then the system would need to be changed, but it would need to be a system that was fair and relevant to all nations. 'Bringing back GB' doesn't help anything in this regard.
I agree completely, and again that is totally inconsistent with the idea of bringing back GB and relegating the likes of Wales and Ireland to second-tier status.
It's evidence that nations are not being excluded. Obviously England are more likely to play in bigger matches and win trophies, because RL is much bigger in England than it is in Wales, you will never get a fair comparison between the two for that reason. If someone like Evans wants to abandon his nation in favour of playing in bigger games then there isn't really much we can do. It's the same situation as Uate and Australia, should we create a combined 'Aus-Fiji' team so he can play for both? What needs to be done is to bring in standardised international payments so there is no financial benefit from committing to a certain nation, and of course the whole structure of the RLIF and governance of the international game needs to be reformed. But I don't see how bringing back GB helps in any way or achieves anything other than muddying the waters.

GB isnt an amalgamation of 4 (or 5) national sides. It is GB in and of its own right. It doesnt matter if all the best players are English, just like it wouldnt matter if we had an England side solely represented by players from the North.

They should.again, international RL is the aim, whether that be between Scotland and Norway or England V Australia. Beating England, Australia, and NZ isnt the aim. International RL is. We need to get away from looking at the international game as Australia, England, NZ and then everyone else. These teams have a right to compete. They have a right to test themselves against any other nation, and you are right 'Bringing back GB' doesnt help in this regard, nor does it hinder, but that isnt the reason for bringing back GB. Bringing back GB would always have to be in addition to this.

But it doesnt have to.
GB isn’t instead of Wales, Scotland and Ireland any more that it is instead of England. It is in addition to them.
It isnt, it is an unrepresentative small sample.If fiji were playing regular international competition then (forgetting origin) Uate would likely be playing for them. THere is something we can do, there is something obvious that we can do. Play more international competition.

For me GB is practical more than romantic. Scotland, Wales, Ireland aren’t likely to tour Australia anytime soon. They cant afford it, and if they could the money would probably be better spent elsewhere. That’s where GB comes in, as a touring side. I would include them in the four nations as well, but I think that happens too often at the moment and it dominates international competition too much

I aren't talking about the Ireland national side. I'm talking about the Great Britain & Ireland Lions side.
The Lions aren't just GB. They include Ireland as a whole. I'm not sure if you realise this, and the more you talk about it, it appears you think that the Republic of Ireland aren't included in the Lions side. They are. Brian Carney was from the Republic of Ireland. He represented the Great Britain & Ireland Lions.

It is referred to GB because it is easier. It is NOT like the Team GB side. Team GB don't represent the Republic of Ireland. The Lions (in both union and league) do, as well as the UK.



British Isles = Great Britain (island) and Ireland (island). The Lions are not the team of the UK alone.
Therefore, the Lions represent TWO sovereign states. It really isn't that difficult.


Well you appeared to be trying to use it as some way of distinguishing between Republic of Ireland and the island of Ireland, which was pointless.


Great Britain isn't a country. It's an island.
Ireland isn't a country. It's an island.
Just because you keep repeating this, it won't make it any more true.

The UK is a country. It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Lions are an amalgamation of the two islands of Great Britain and Ireland. They make up the British Isles, which is why the badge says "British Isles XIII". It is a representative side of two sovereign nations. That is a fact. It's not opinion.


I'll agree to disagree on the rest, because we'll just go round in circles and it's based on opinions mainly.
But the earlier part of your post is just plain incorrect.