Quote: Wellsy13 "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.'"
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
Quote: Wellsy13 "
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.'"
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.
Quote: Wellsy13 "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.'"
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.
Quote: Wellsy13 "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.
It wont.
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 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.
Quote: Wellsy13 "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.'"
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.
Quote: Wellsy13 "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.'"
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.
Quote: Wellsy13 "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.'"
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.
Quote: Wellsy13 "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?'"
Wales can play France instead of England, it would also be international competition. I have absolutely no idea who told you otherwise,