Says who? You? How will we ever know or get the opportunity to at least try and get it somewhere near it with all the negativity surrounding it now. 25/30 years ago people didn't think the State of origin concept would work. It's the biggest game of RL in the world now.

People moan about the RFL not being pro-active and when they try a new concept and people moan.

Correct but it's not feasible to have NZ or Australia popping over for a mid season friendly to give our lads a real test so the Exiles is the next best thing. Either that or we have England v England in a trial game. I'm sure that will be moaned about too.

So play it at the end of the season when relevant, not mid season as it shows us nothing...

Maybe so, but do the players not need their rest then in the lead up to a World Cup? Also i think it would be in danger of being seen as an end of season knockabout and maybe taken less seriously than it already is unless it was built up as a genuine international trial game with everyone playing for their place.

Agreed, should be as a part of a build up. I know the Aussies have gotten the SOO to be an enormous event, but i just don't see it happening here. Cue all those saying "Well if you don't try, you never know". RL is/was already a much bigger sport in the Aussie mind when it started. RL is down the list in the public consciousness here.

Think about it, they are played for completely different reasons.

Also due to the SC changes how strong will an Exiles squad be in three or five years time? Imports are going to dwindle both in numbers and quality thats a pretty much given so how will the concept grow?

I like the idea for the end of the season as a friendly for a FULL England team, but making it out to be our version of Origin is just ridiculous.

I should think the way the game is going in Britain, there soon won't be enough decent 'exiles' to make up a team.

Maybe then we can have a good standard of 'War of the Roses'.

War of the Roses style would admittedly be closer to the Origin idea.

I dont see it happening though. I would hope that in a few years France and Wales will have improved to the point they provide more than an adequate test for England so that when the Exiles doesnt work we can do that instead.

I would much prefer Lancs v Yorks but they need to come out with eligibility rules to start and then state that if players don't play then they don't get picked for England otherwise we end up with 2 reserve sides. Lancs would have a decentish side

Tomkins
Charnley
Goulding
Ratchford
Riley
Sinfield
Myler
Morley
Roby
Hill
Farrell
Hock
O'Loughlin

I'm sure I missed a few out but not a bad 13 imo.

I know he was born in Oldham but it would seem so strange Kevin representing Lancashire as he's with synonymous with Leeds.

maybe a qualification rule could be "number of seasons played east or west of pennines?"

It should be based on origin, so that the current strong sides don't dominate it. This was a problem they had in Aus with the early days of origin when it was based on where you currently played, and since Sydney has a lot of teams and Queensland had very few, NSW were dominant. They changed it to "Origin" and it took off from there, really.

Isn't it based on where you first played first grade RL?

As much as Sinfield is a Leeds legend I'm sure he'd want to represent Lancashire. It would be crazy if he didn't.

If the Australian rugby league had anything about it, and wanted the world game to grow they'd release the English lads for any origin match. That would add huge interest to the games but they couldn't give a dam.

Example of 2 sides including those lads-

Lancs-

Tomkins, Charnley, Watkins, Ratchford, Riley, Sinfield, Myler, Graham, Roby, Mossop, Farrell, Hock, O'Loughlin.

Subs- Hill, Morley, Currie, Lomax.

Yorks- Hardaker, Briscoe, Cudjoe, Reed, Hall, Widdop, Chase, Crabtree, McIlorum, S Burgess, Ellis, Westwood, JJB.

Subs- G Burgess, Bailey, Ferres, Burrow.

Two very good sides there.