1. Webb
2. Richards
3. King
4. Monaghan
5. Roberts
6. Chase
7. Finch
8. Perry
9. Leuluai
10. Lima
11. Lauititi
12. Puletua
13. Fitzgibbon

While a lot have picked Dobson and Mason from Rovers, I personally would have an in form Galea in the side, he offers a lot more than some back row/ loose that have been mentioned.

They are a test nation. They are a test. They arent under any circumstances our training game for internationals against Australia and NZ. The fact they dont prepare us for Australia and NZ isnt relevant. It is disrespectful for you to infer that that is their job or how we should measure the worth of playing against them.
Which is why this is a pointless exercise. Getting away from the fact it wont do what you are saying. It is disrespectful, not only to France and Wales but the entire international game that we have decided to have a training game to prepare for international games against Australia and NZ than to actually play international games. Our games between Australia and NZ arent the only serious international games. There is a whole world of RL outside that deserves respect. Not having its credibility actively undermined by gimmicks like this.

That is your opinion. But im sure you understand it isnt a fact.
NZ dont have one. They have beaten Australia in 3 of the last 4 international finals they have played against them but havent won an ANZAC test in 13 years. They generally put out a second string because the NRL clubs wont release the top players for a mid-season test (sound familiar). The Kiwis wanted rid of it and announced it would no longer be played because of its lack of importance.
you arent only comentating on their quality. You are dismissing the importance of them being involved in international competition with us.

We have chosen to play nobody. We have chosen to play a team which doesnt exist. Its just a bunch of blokes getting together to play a game because they are paid to.


11k is better than most clubs in SL get.

But fine. If its a money making exercise, something we use as an event, sell it as a bit of fun, get people involved and get a bit of visibility good. Lets use it for that.

But lets not pretend it is anything else.
And again, you are comparing yourself and David Haye to France and England, yet you want to pretend that this attitude isnt disrespectful and arrogant.

Let me say it again for you. FRANCE ARE NOT A TEST FOR US. THEY ARE OUR COMPETITION. BEATING THEM IS AN END IN AND OF ITSELF. THEY ARE NOT THERE TO PREPARE US FOR 'REAL INTERNATIONALS' AGAINST AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND. THEY ARE AN INTERNATIONAL NATION WHO DESERVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO TEST ITSELF AGAINST OTHER INTERNATIONAL NATIONS. ALL OF THEM.

Im not dodging any question. You have changed your question because the premise of your original question was shown to be false.

Wales and France can and do play each other. Wales and France arent the ones saying they can only play one game a year. Wales and France could comfortably play us and each other.

It's a friendly! It is a hit out. That is what it is. It's not a major international. We've played NZ mid-season before. It was the same thing. That's what the aim was. To give our players a good hit out so we could see which players could add to the international team and which were out of their depth and what improvements might need to be made. Regardless of who we play, that's the aim. It's not disrespectful to say. It's not disrespectful to say that NZ was a hit out for us. It's not disrespectful to say we were a hit out for NZ. That is what it was. You're just being OTT in a desperate attempt to prove that your opinion is right and mine is wrong. There is no right or wrong on whether England should or shouldn't play France. It's an opinion.


The end of season tournaments are the only MAJOR internationals we play. The rest are friendlies and preparation FOR that tournament. What do you think means more to the Aussies? Winning an ANZAC test or winning a 4N game? England played Cumbria and NZ Maori last year in other hit-outs. Is that disrespectful to the international game as well? England cricket played a Presidents XI this week. Is that disrespectful to the international game in cricket? We play who we feel we need to play to prepare us best for the MAJOR international tournaments, just like SL teams play who they feel they need to play to prepare them for SL.

Try and use some other argument than "it's disrespectful", because quite frankly it's a load of rubbish!


They have never tested us. The result has never been in doubt.


Err... yes they do. They play Australia!


No they didn't. It was because of the lack of access to their top players, not because of its lack of importance.
It got revived due to a change of international attitudes.
As for generally putting out a second string, that wasn't through choice. However, if you look at the 2010 NZ ANZAC test team, it isn't very different to the 4N Final team.
ANZAC team
I am questioning the need to play them in a friendly, when we only have one friendly mid-season, and this game hasn't tested our players.


Sounds like a professional team to me.


5,698 isn't. Neither is 7,500. Neither is 8,326. They are the last three crowds for this game. You can't use a crowd for a major international to compare to a friendly. Those crowds are poor.


You've put that opinion across enough. We get it, you don't think it would be useful. I disagree entirely, and so do the England coaching staff. I don't think they're bothered about making money for the game in fairness, they're bothered about getting the best out of the England squad and I think they know a bit more than you do.


I'm comparing a contest between two people at different levels of sport to two teams at different levels of sport.
I could say Leeds should play Toulouse. Why shouldn't Leeds play Toulouse every year? Why not the rest? Why not an extended WCC? Why? Because there are only so many games we can play, and if we're looking for games to prepare us for the major internationals, France hasn't proved successful for us. And you could argue that we haven't proved successful for France as well. Have they gotten better by getting stuffed by us mid-season? Have they learned anything from it?


The second sentence of your post says the opposite.
A mid-season international is not a major international. Beating them is not of much importance, neither is the result. That's how friendlies work.
They can play Wales. It makes no difference if all they are after is an international. They can play any other international team. It shouldn't matter if we don't play them. You could say it is arrogant that you think we are that important that everyone should aspire to play us.


You know that the original question was implying France vs Wales instead of France vs England. You've tried to have it both ways by saying you like that AS WELL. That is not what I mean. I'd like it AS WELL. But we only have one international game in the mid-season. Why can't France, in that one international game, play Wales instead of England? Why MUST they play England? You still haven't answered it.


Wales and France haven't played each other mid-season for a long time (if ever, I haven't checked the entire history). If we could play them both comfortably, why hasn't it been arranged? If they could play each other comfortably, why hasn't it been arranged? Perhaps because it's not comfortable to arrange, and there is limited space in the competitive season for fixtures?

So, I'll ask it again. Why can't France play Wales in the mid-season game instead of England? Why must they play England? Not in "additional" mid-season tests. Not alongside a game against England. Why, if we can only fit in one international mid-season game, must France play England and not Wales? Still waiting...

No, we played an NZ 2nd string of mostly European based players that was taken so seriously Clinton Toopi captained at fullback. That was a friendly.

France SHOULD be a proper test match, with the proper respect that deserves. It is only because of our disrespectful attitude towards it that it is treated so poorly by the French. If we deigned to give them a proper real test match as part of a proper real international calendar they would put out their best side which is more than capable of giving us a game.

Which is why I said we should play both Wales and France in a round robin tournament to have a tournament. They arent however the only major internationals we play. A Test match against France is a fully fledged major international. A 4 nations game, the ANZAC test means nothing to each of them and is treated with little respect. Do i think a fully fledged test match between Australia and NZ with players actually allowed to play would matter? certainly. In fact the reason the Kiwis no longer wanted to play the ANZAC test was because of that exact distinction. no, they were part of a tour. We didnt play Pakistan last year as part of a warm up to play Australia and this ashes series isnt a warm up for the world cup later this year. It would be disrespectful however if England decided they no longer wanted to play a series against Pakistan and would instead play 3 games against the overseas players playing over here to prepare them for Australia.
Do they? you dont see Leeds refusing to player smaller clubs
and you arent arrogant. 34-12 isnt a result that is never in doubt. Its a good test.
in a game you have admitted they dont really care about, which they havent won for 13 years.

]
Because they will already be playing them at the end of the season. But there is no real reason they cant. But that isnt justification for us not being part of European International RL. You could use the same argument to justify any game. Why cant England play a Yorkshire side? why cant England play the USA, why cant England play Canada?

How was the All-Stars vs Indegenious game in Aus received?

Well received.

Should France and Wales get a shot at playing the 'Other Nationalities' as well in time?

So it's not treated as a proper test match at the moment, it's just a friendly. How would you go about making it a "proper" test match? How would you go about making it more competitive (like when they play in the 4N)? It's a two way street here. If they can't put out a proper squad, how would you change that without affecting the SL season? These are all considerations that need to be made. It's all fair and good saying "it needs to be more competitive" and "taken more seriously", but how do you go about doing that? It's not disrespectful that it is a friendly if it is a friendly we are after. And it's not disrespectful that it isn't a major competitive game if the criteria that make it a major competitive game cannot be achieved due to other limitations.

At the end of the day, we can play who we like in a friendly so long as they agree to play the game.


But you're not offering a solution other than saying "it needs to be fully fledged". How do you achieve this? What would make this just as important to people as a 4N game? I don't think a stand-alone fixture would ever achieve such a feat without being part of a wider tournament, but there isn't the room for that in the calendar (having Wales and France play more games mid-season would seriously hamper Crusaders and Catalans, and making the season longer isn't looking after our players, and shortening the SL season could (and probably would) financially cripple our clubs.
In an ideal world it would be that simple, but these are the challenges facing the international game.


What difference does it make? Was Cumbria part of a tour? Why didn't they play Wales like they did the two previous years? Why was this not disrespectful? Why didn't England play Tonga or Samoa on tour?


I don't get how England playing Cumbria or NZ Maori isn't considered disrespectful but playing an All-Stars team is? It seems you are changing your criteria as what is deemed to be disrespectful to suit here.


But they aren't competitive games, and Leeds have no desire to consider them as competitive games. They are merely friendlies for the real deal.


It is, you are right. But the game in question was a 4N game, not a mid-season game, which has never proven to be a good test.


But it's a practice game. The result isn't that important to them, but the experience against better opposition is. You might not agree that the experience is important, but I do, and the England coaching team believe it is important. They have something that we want - a harder test.


It wasn't a second team at all. It was a weakened first team, yes. But to say it was a second team is a lie.
And no, we can't expect to win the 4N just because of one game. I've never said that, even though you've asked me time and time again and I've always said it will "help" us. If we have a test and they have a test, why would I expect just us to win?


I am comparing the importance of preparing for a major international tournament over the importance of playing a one off game mid-season, yes. That isn't disrespectful. And that game is a game that the other side are extremely disadvantaged at, and you've even said don't take it that seriously. Why should that game be more important than our need to prepare to win a major international tournament?


A bunch of players that get paid to play sounds like a professional team to me. Don't need to be Darren Lockyer to work that one out.


You still haven't said how you would achieve this without causing other problems?


Because if the game is not achieving what the England coaching team want from the game, then the only reason to keep it would be for media, marketing and money making reasons. Since these aren't achieving much either, there is not much reason to keep it over something that could achieve these things.


England and France aren't at the same level. You've even said yourself! You called France tier 2 earlier. That isn't the same level.
They are tier 2 and not tier 1 because they can't field a full team of full-time players.
France aren't in a similar position to NZ. NZ have players all over the NRL. They have players that have been brought up through Australian teams because there are a lot of NZ born people living in Australia. There are very few French people in England that come through the system in the same way. However, Wales ARE in a similar situation to NZ, as there are a fair few Welsh people that come through the English system. This is why I think Wales will (and arguably already have) taken over France unless the French get another SL team. They face completely different cultural challenges that I'm sure even you would agree on.


Catalans chose to play a French Presidents Select (a "made up" team) in a friendly over a local French team once in a friendly. Is that disrespectful to the French league teams? Or does that mean they wanted a sterner test and couldn't get any English clubs to come over? This is the challenge we face with the international game and getting strong enough games to prepare us.
It is not disrespectful to turn down a team for a friendly no matter who they are. If they don't provide what we are looking for then that is our choice to make. For all we know, we could ask France to play a friendly one day and they turn us down for the same reason. Someone has even suggested that Bobbie Goulding has said that they don't benefit from the mis-match of a mid-season friendly against England.


It is not a major international. You're confusing a major international team with a major international games. Major teams can play in minor games, and vice-versa.
The aim isn't just to play internationals for the sake of playing internationals at all. We have not set out just to play an international game. That clearly isn't the aim, otherwise we wouldn't be playing the All-Stars.


You seem to be of the impression that if we don't play other international teams, we are disrespecting them. What about other nations? Are France disrespecting Scotland for not playing them mid-season? Why are we so important that teams should play us (which you HAVE said)?


I would say that the French not being able to get hold of their best players mid-season is a pretty big limit put on them! It's the reason why there aren't more mid-season internationals! You can pretend all you like that we could easily arrange loads of mid-season internationals, but the fact is there are SL games on and it is difficult getting players released. We aren't deciding we are too busy. It's the challenge we are facing with SL mid-season.
As for "most years", last time was the first time since 2006 that the French played the Welsh (Wales in WC qualifiers in 2007, France in WC in 2008 and 4N in 2009), and I'm not sure if they even played each other in that competition in 2006.


It doesn't have to be mid-season, but we are talking about the mid-season game here! Who has said we might not play them at the end of the season?! If we play them then instead, is that problem solved?
And again, you say they play each other at almost every post season, but when was the last time apart from last year that that happened? And is it happening post season this year? It could be once in 5 years, but that equates to "almost every" to you!


They haven't played each other much, and they haven't plans to this year.
We haven't NOT got plans to play the French at the end of the season this year.
We DO have plans to play the Welsh.


Again, will they? Wales are playing us in the 4N. You need to check your fixtures.
There is no real reason they can't. So it isn't a problem. Your reason of saying it's disrespectful is not a real reason. We do play the other nations. But we want a better mid-season test as well and there is limited time to do all of it. That is why we can justify it.
The latter part is my point exactly. Is it disrespectful that we don't play Canada? USA? No.

This really is a poor idea. Can you imagine how many late injury withdrawals, encouraged by the clubs, there will be? I'll bet by the second or third time this happens they are having to dip into the National Leagues for players for the 'All Stars' side.

If this game goes ahead in GB that is how it should be sold/marketed, IMO!!

the NRL all stars game is played pre season.

Why don't we just allow France or Wales (or France and Wales) to play permanently in the Four Nations, make it a 6 Nations, England, Australia, New Zealand, France, European Qualifier, Pacific Qualifier.

why are ireland and scotland not being mentioned as opponents for france and wales ?.

The Four Nations is predictable enough. Why make it an even more drawn out, meaningless excercise to get to an Auz v NZ final?

A game like this should be held before the season starts.