But it isn't improving us. That's the point.

Basically, we have a choice here of helping our international partners out by playing them in games of low-calibre that they inevitably get stuffed in and we get next to nothing out of...

Or we help our own international team out by getting them a more competitive game that will probably get more media attention because it isn't a foregone conclusion that we'll win and so will also probably get a bigger crowd, not to mention it will help the international team more in preparations.

If you do the latter, RL fans complain that we are sh*tting on the minnow nations.
If you do the former, RL fans complain that we will never be near the Aussies and Kiwis because we aren't tested.

Quite simply, RL fans will always find something to moan about. Give it a go before whinging about never being able to work. There is a good chance that it will work.

And will someone tell me what France get from playing England that they won't get from playing Wales (apart from a tonking!)? It's still a full international in front of a five-figure crowd in a game that will be competitive and a real grudge match to boot!

We aren't a charity. We can't drop our own plans for the sake of everyone else. We can't play everyone. That is fact. Just like there are only 14 licenses in SL, there are only so many places available at the top of the international ladder.


By getting more players playing full time in the SL so that they can actually field a full-time international team?

You can't argue that the reasons we can't catch the Aussies is because of internal coaching issues, etc. and then argue that France can't catch us because they won't play us. It's a combination of both. But France could play us every week of the year and won't ever beat us because they aren't all full-time. Whereas England would beat the Aussies and Kiwis a few times because we are full time, we just don't have the other systems in place. This is hopefully looking at addressing one of the many.


How were Wales benefiting exactly? They haven't been playing us mid-season?
They still get their shot (which they need to earn) in the 4N and the WC. But the mid-season test isn't doing much for France yet, and until they get more players it won't do. They're best playing Wales (who have no-one to play). It kills two problems at once then.

Will someone explain why it is better for the "international game" that France play England (and get stuffed as usual) and not Wales (which would be competitive)?

Can't wait for the next France-Wales match it should be an absolute belter!!

I think Wales beating France was not just one of the best things to happen to Welsh RL, but also French RL. It was the kick up the backside that France needed which said perform or you don't get to play with the big boys, you don't have a right to it.

The next match between these two will be brutal, I imagine. Just what is needed to bring both teams on. Yes, both nations need more professional players and resources etc etc, but I think pitting these two against each other regularly and forcing them to compete for the chance to play the big boys is what is needed. It'll certainly bring them both closer to England's standards a lot quicker than just letting them play England every year.

So why waste one of our limited international dates on a made up side?

They can do that now.

im not, you are. I dont think that a game against a mid-season contrived side will improve us for international competition. I think playing France is international competition. You seem to be arguing that playing against better teams mid-season will improve teams, but wont accept that a game against france does the same thing for them.

This mid-season game will in no way benefit us against the Aussies. Frankly it smacks of pandering. It seems like the action of someone looking for excuses because they dont have the answers. I we put in place the infrastructure we need, throughout the game, we will beat the Aussies. A mid-season game against a RoW x111 will have no influence on it. We would be better placed either playing actual international competition against france or Wales, or having a full on event, which is enjoyed for what it is.

They played at end of season. How bloody arrogant do you want to be? France and Wales, two nations we want to invest in the game and grow have to earn the right to play against England! Christ there are 5 nations with a fully pro side and you want to cast 2 of them aside because they dont meet your standards. France v England in their last competitive game was 34-12, Our last competitive game against Australia finished 34-14.

Our last three results against Aus, 34-14, 46-16, 52-4
Frances last three results against us 60-6 34-12 66-12

Lets just hope Australia dont show us the same lack of respect.

Because its international competition. Its the reason national teams exist.

spot on.

Hopefully it will have a vote system like the NRL all stars game with only 1 player per team allowed and the 2 captains of Wales and France along with Pat Richards due to his Man of Steel Status as automatic selections. Voting wise the team I would pick if it followed the NRL rules would be:

1. Greenshields
2. King
3. Howell
4. Isa
5. Richards (MOS)
6. Witt
7. Dobson
8. James (Wales captain)
9. Buderus
10. O'Meley
11. Hoffman
12. Elima (France captain)
13. O'Donnell

14. L'Estrange
15. Perry
16. Cashmere
17. Morrison

Totally 100% agree.

I this was Facebook, I'd be liking

this by now

Soliola for me then, in for Delany

it should be a open vote

The same could be said about Sam Tomkins who has performed awfully in the real tests.

Richard Agar, even it up a bit.

Couldn't England play a combined Hull Antipodeans side, the will easily have enough players!