I like the idea, i think the RL public have got fed up of seeing us hammering a poor French side year after year so we need a bigger test and this would surely give us one .

Problem is we hammer France and have some players who, in that game, look like they could be capable of tearing the Aussies/Kiwis apart but disappear when a 'bigger' test comes along.
looking good against a poor side is all well and good but we need to be testing the England squad before we face the big boys and this kind of game should give us a test.

Why are people so frightened that we might lose?

It's better for England's development to be playing in games where we have to hit a high intensity to compete. I'd be very disappointed if we just rolled them over as the match wouldn't serve the purpose it is intended to serve.

If we get hammered, then we'll just have to find ways to step it up a gear in 2012.

nice to see some others that "get it"

Precisely.

The French offer no real opposition to us, and this will be more of a test. I certainly don't share the opinion of many that we'll get battered.

A lot depends on who will be coaching the so called 'All Stars'. You would have to suggest it will be an Aussie or a Kiwi. My money is on Shaun McRae.

Justin Morgan, he's used to coaching a team of overseas players

(thought I'd get it in before Gutterboy!)

England v SL 'All Stars'

Marketed properly this could turn out to be a good yearly fixture. I'll certainly be supporting it anyway.

I'm excited.

The next post probably sums it up a bit...


The attitude that we are a great team because we stuff the French every year.
If players struggle against this "made up team" (use what ever derogatory phrase you like, probably makes the situation worse for England if they struggle), then this attitude of us being "on the up" will go, and players might actually realise that they need to pull their fingers out if they want to compete against the stronger nations... or even to get selected at all.

Of course, if we stuff them (which I don't think we will at all), then we're back to square one with the "waxing lyrical". It might not make us beat the Aussies, but it will certainly help building a better attitude to it if the game is competitive.

they are'nt gonna be called the "all stars" by the way....


they will be 'the Other nationalities'...playing in green jerseys....

Really?

I havent even read that this fixture is anything more than an idea yet.

Any links?

What about the Barbarians?

Seems to be a concept that works well in RU.

I think it could work really well. Hopefully it will be marketed properly by the RFL, and will hopefully serve as a competitive game for England.








PS: First Post, hi everybody

Get out while you still can Young Warrior. The masses on this forum will turn upon you and cast you into the pit for all eternity for talking such sense.

Meh, let them try.

Aaahh, so you think the people in charge of our game have been lulled in to a false sense of security by our beating a france 2nd string in mid-season tests----repeatedly

But never learned from their mistake when we went on to be defeated by NZ and Australia------repeatedly

But when we play a contrived out of the many overseas players (mostly average) we have in this country players who could be bothered playing 13, and dont win easily, they will suddenly be shocked out of this complacency and improve. Unless of course we do win easily in which case the same complacency will be there.

I'm in favour of the idea, hope its set up correctly though.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying - do you think an overseas select would be a tougher game for England than France? That's all it boils down to - getting as intense a game as we can for England mid-season.

i dont think it matters, I dont think Australia were the best team in the world for years and years because they played an NZ 2nd string in the ANZAC test. I dont think they are the best because of Origin. I think it is a very naive way of looking at it.

I dont think the Kiwis are better than us because their 2nd string play an ANZAC test.

The Aussie and Kiwis are better because of the fantastic youth and development structures they have, the intense competition, match preparation, training, nutrition etc, as well as their improved ability to attract the best young athletes into the game.

It is a sticking plaster on bleeding jugular. It addresses none of the deep structural problems our game has in this country and will have 0 effect on our ability to beat the Aussies.

The main problem is yet again, it is the RFL trying to be all things to all men, and ending up doing nothing for no-one. It doesnt address the problems we have, it has cost the game of rugby league a real, actual, international and isnt a pure RL 'event' which we would use to build visibility and get people involved.

Are they a better team? yes. Will it be more intense? probably not. Is there any point? it doesnt look like it.

All that may be true - so are you advocating that in the short term we don't even bother trying to better our England side's preparation and just throw the towel in and kneel before the unbeatables?

Surely given your assessment we should be grasping every possible opportunity to better prepare our national team, as they are already at such a disadvantage?

NOTHING MUCH AS CHANGED I WAS AT BOOTHFERRY PARK IN 1982 AND WATCHED THE AUSSIES ANNIALATE US. FOR POOR GEORGE FAIRBURN IT WAS LIKE THE ALAMO!!

But this wont give us an advantage, if we are going to do something lets do something that actually helps.

If we are putting the development issue to one side, and purely looking at the here and now, we have thrown away an actual real international for this gimmick? Sticking with that would have been better for the game as a whole.

If we have given up on France having deigned to give them a whole 4 tests arranged at our convenience then lets go all out and have a festival of RL. Lets have an east v west all star game, voted for by the public, a big weekend down in london, with fan parks, meet the players, music, drinking, a party for the game like the pro-bowl but as a trial game. The players get a week with the england coaches and a hit out, the fans get involved, Mcnamara gets a trial game and everyone has a bit of fun

I just dont see why we are going with something which is so obviously a gimmick and pretending it has some serious reasoning behind it. It stops being pointless and becomes counter-productive. If England lose the international game and the country loses credibility, it wont reach the intensity needed to be of any real use because there is nothing riding on it. We lose an international game, and we dont get the visibility and involvement of what i put above.

You don't think it is of more use than putting 60 past France?



Don't agree - nobody benefits from us humping France so badly - least of all the French.



The point is that the first choice England team get to play together and work on combinations against a strong side - East v West doesn't do that, you just split up the England side.



Don't agree - England v France has been downright invisible in recent years, because everyone knows it will be a 60 point humping. That does no good to England OR France - what is being proposed now has people excited and I would guess it will pull more fans than England v France and be of more benefit to the England side than East v West.

Not to mention the fact that your proposal would be in direct competition for RL fans' cash to an event that the RFL already stage in the Magic Weekend.

Could the all stars include people who are English but don't play for England e.g Danny Brough, or would it be strictly antipodean?

No, not at all. The game is secondary to the time we get coaching the players and them spending time together in game.

The game benefits by staging actual international games. It is the point of having international sides.

Except it doesnt, it gets a week in camp. The game as i said is secondary. The idea that we can work on combinations, or that this side is 'strong' compared to Australia and NZ is nonsense. They wont have the defensive patterns or attacking patterns the national sides have. They wont have the intensity of the national sides, and it wont prepare us in anyway for a game 6 months down the line. We will be playing (at best) a side similar to the 6th choice Australian side, coached by a coach who wouldnt get close to the national side with none of the preparation that the Aussie or Kiwis will do. We will learn nothing from this match we wouldnt learn against France.


England v France was an international game. It wasnt a trial game or a warm up. It was competition in itself. The last England match, in doncaster, pulled in 11.5k. Thats not bad. How many do you think are going to go to this gimmick game? considering a 4nations group game against Australia gets about 23k. and NZ about 19k

Well yes, thats what is supposed to do. Only RL fans seem to complain that they need to pay for things.