Because the England team will get more out of it than they will against a second tier nation. That is the long and the short of it.


So why haven't they then? Until that happens, they won't be anywhere near us so there's no point playing them yet if we are looking for a "competitive" game.


Playing a better team will help you to improve. I accept that. I don't think it will help France improve much however (which I have said), and it could do more damage off the field by losing interest in a game that is a foregone conclusion.

However, you are the one that doesn't seem to be able to accept that playing a better team will improve you. France playing England (a better team) will improve France, but England playing the All-Stars (potentially a better team, and certainly a better team than France) won't improve England? You've said that.

If you're going to say playing France will improve France because they're playing better opposition, you need to say the same about England playing the All-Stars.


But a mid-season international for France against us will help France improve? I don't get how it can be one way but not the other?


It's not arrogance at all, it's common sense if you have a limited number of fixtures to play games! Why aren't we playing both? Is it arrogant that we didn't play Wales last year? They're at a different level of the game to us. That isn't arrogance, that's fact. Otherwise, why don't we play Italy, Scotland and Ireland whilst we're at it? Or better yet, Germany in fact? Because both teams would get very very little from the game.


But we're not talking about replacing a competitive game so it's irrelevant.
The last mid-season friendly we played against the Aussies was 64-10. Did we play against them again mid-season?
If France (or Wales or anyone else) qualify to play competitive games, then we might see a better game. But a friendly against them hasn't proven to be a good contest.


Does it get good crowds and TV ratings? Does it bring money in? Do we beat the them every now and again? Is there other value to the international game here?

A mid-season test against France gets little interest, poor crowds, next to no media coverage, and the result is ALWAYS a drubbing. There is little benefit to the international game, and little benefit to England. At the end of the day, if we are organising friendlies for the sake of helping England's preparations, we need something that benefits England.


So France playing England is international competition, but France playing Wales isn't?
That hasn't explained one thing.

Why can't France play Wales instead of England?

I thought Sam Tomkins played well for England, and definitely did in 2009.

Hull FC only have 5 overseas players. So unless Rovers have as many as 12, it wouldn't be possible!

1 Greenshields
2 Monaghan
3 Delaney
4 King
5 Richards
6 Chase
7 Dobson

8 Perry
9 Randall
10 O'Meley
11 Menzies
12 Hoffman
13 O'Donnell

14 L'Estrange
15 Puletua
16 Cashmere
17 O'Hara

England team vs the All-Stars:
1. Sam Tomkins (Wig), 2. Ryan Hall (Lee), 3. Michael Shenton (St H), 4. Chris Bridge (War), 5. Tom Briscoe (Hul), 6. Danny McGuire (Lee), 7. Kyle Eastmond (St H), 8. James Graham (St H), 9. James Roby (St H), 10. Jamie Peacock (Lee), 11. Gareth Ellis (W Ti), 12. Sam Burgess (SSR), 13. Sean O'Loughlin (Wig).
14. Ben Westwood (War), 15. Adrian Morley (War), 16. Eorl Crabtree (Hud), 17. Luke Robinson (Hud).

All-Stars team vs England (if it's an open selection):
1. Brent Webb (Lee), 2. Joel Monaghan (War), 3. Matt King (War), 4. Iosia Soliola (St H), 5. Pat Richards (Wig), 6. Brett Finch (Wig), 7. Thomas Leuluai (Wig), 8. Jeff Lima (Wig), 9. Danny Buderus (Lee), 10. Mark O'Meley (Hul), 11. Ryan Hoffman (Wig), 12. Tony Puletua (St H), 13. Craig Fitzgibbon (Hul).
14. Josh Perry (St H), 15. Willie Mason (HKR), 16. David Fa'alogo (Hud), 17. Michael Monaghan (War)

All-Stars team vs England (if it's 2 per team max):
1. Brent Webb (Lee), 2. Joel Monaghan (War), 3. Setaimata Sa (Cat), 4. Iosia Soliola (St H), 5. Matt King (War), 6. Rangi Chase (Cas), 7. Michael Dobson (HKR), 8. Jeff Lima (Wig), 9. Danny Buderus (Lee), 10. Mark O'Meley (Hul), 11. Willie Mason (HKR), 12.David Fa'alogo (Hud), 13. Craig Fitzgibbon (Hul).
14. Josh Perry (St H), 15. Iafeta Palea'aesina (Sal) , 16. Luke O'Donnell (Hud), 17. Thomas Leuluai (Wig).

I like the idea of the England Knights as well (Knights is a nickname that I have previously suggested for the England first team, playing on the St George mascot, but it appears we are going along the line of other English sports by having a nickname for the second team, which is fair enough).

I'm guessing they will only play at the end of the season. I would suggest that they play in the same part of the world as the first team are playing, which could work out quite well.

Example, when England are playing in the Northern Hemisphere (4N with Eng, Aus, NZ and Euro Champs), the Knights play in the European competition in place of the European Cup winners (who will be in the 4N).
When England play in the Southern Hemisphere (4N with Eng, Aus, NZ and the Pacific Champs), the Knights play in the Pacific competition in place of the Pacific Cup winners.

Keeps the balance then, and makes use of the Euro and Pacific competitions that don't have a prize for winning them every other year. And also allows us to have backup players ready to step straight up to the England first team (and allows our unused players to keep playing competitive games). It's a good initiative.

That's a horrible idea. Why are you so keen to have non-international teams playing in international tournaments?

England Knights aren't an international team?

Last time I checked, they are a representative team from one nation. They may not be the first team, but they are a team.

They don't have to be a part of the tournament. They could just be playing friendlies on the bye-weekends. England 'A' used to play in the Euro Nations tournament.

No, as you say they are a representative team rather than an international team. I've got no issue with them playing a couple of friendlies in the build up to the Euro Cup if teams want a tougher challenge, but they can't be part of the tournament.

I very much like the sound of this - it adds England Knights as an extra competitive team in each competition and exposes the next tier of potential England players to the international game and get used to training/playing with each other

Do we know if the Knights will have any selection restrictions - an under 23/s side would allow the players who have excelled in Academy games over the past few years a next step on the ladder?

An international team is a representative team that represents a nation. The Knights represent England. They are an international team.
The latter comment is fine. Just depends what the tournament is. I don't see why they couldn't compete in a European Championship and leave the Euro Cup as a separate tournament (I do think it's a bit daft that the European Cup is called that when one of the teams in it are in the 4N and there's no qualification on the line. It's a different tournament really).

When they go down under, they could play the Aussie and Kiwi 'A' teams as well.

The England team will get nothing out of it. It wont do anything. Its a team against a made-up team. While you may wish to pretend that this made up team will have massive pride in their jersey, they wont. It will be seen as a kick about. It wont, in anyway help in the players find that next level you need to find to compete with NZ and Australia. If you think it will you are deluded
they did, we played them in a competitive game where the Catalans players didnt have a mass outbreak of injuries and they gave us a competitive game.

34-12 isnt a foregone conclusion. What we need is to get france interested. Give them something to play for so that they do play their best players. a Tri-nations tournament like the 6 nations in RU between Wales, France and England would benefit everyone, and it would be an actual international competition.

It doesnt go one way and not the other. France will improve because they are playing international competition. Not because they are playing better teams but because they are playing international competition, together, as a national side. They wont suddenly start catching us up because they are playing Wales.

It is massively disrespectful to both France and Wales to pretend it is a waste of our time even bothering to play them. We should be playing both. We should be playing a tri-nations tournament between the three teams from now until the end of time. Adding other nations when they get their professional game going.

We get the same as everyone else gets, International Competition.

You are being hugely arrogant, you dismiss beating France and Wales as if it was nothing in itself and their games against us are nothing more than warm ups to playing 'real' internationals against Australia and NZ. Whilst they are tier 2 nations they deserve much better than you casting them out as second class.

Wales and France deserve to play us, as we deserve to play them. Not to improve them or us but because they are professional RL nations.

We have 5 professional RL playing nations, 3 get to qualify automatically and every two years one of the other two are allowed to try and qualify for a competitive game against the other three, and you dont want me to say this is a bit arrogant and treating them with quite a bit of disrespect?

And yes it isnt a competitive game, for some reason we think we are better than to play France and Wales in a competitive game, then we wonder why they send out a second string to get smashed when we deign to give them a friendly.

ALWAYS a drubbing, how many mid-season tests against France do you think we have played? It can barely class as always anything.

There is massive benefit to the international games, there are international games being staged being the major one.

Fact is, once you get passed your inherent viewpoint that Wales and France arent worthy in themselves, and you get passed the fact they arent warm ups for Australia and New Zealand. You will see how pointless this friendly game against a made-up side is, and how disrespectful it is to these other nations to say we need it.

Wales can play France instead of England, it would also be international competition. I have absolutely no idea who told you otherwise,

France would love to play England ,maybe not mid-season according to previous BG comments but the problem with france is that not only are they generally already an inferior group of players compared to the english,their (or BGs) main problem is actually getting their best french players available to play.Assuming the bulk of the probable french national team is made up of players from the Catalan Dragons the french coach is constantly being denied access to these players by the Dragons president M.Guasch.This is really annoying for BG who has the backing of M.Larrat who is the boss of the FFR13.It's like Wigan refusing to release the Tomkins boys or Saints refusing to release Roby or Graham for example.
In RU there used to be the annual England Possibles v Probables match - has this ever been considered in RL ?

i seriously cant believe people are against this idea
a combined side of Kiwis and aussies will be a far better challenge to england than france ever were
ill certainly support it and ill bet many other antips living in the uk will as well

i'm sure if the RFL could find £5k a man to the winning team, it would inspire some of the more mercenary antipodeans to take it more seriously.