I doubt I was alone in cringing whilst watching our recent "credible" internationals against Australia

Yet for some reason there would be outcry if they refused to play us anymore, despite our recent record against them being similar to France's recent record against us.

lol....its been 5 or 6 games since we last beat australia and we beat the current world & 4nations champs as often as they beat us.......its been 21 years since france last beat us...yep thats similar records...lmao

Let's look at some facts.

Last season, England lost by 20 points away in Melbourne (with some very dodgy refs calls), and 14 points away in Wellington.

In the same year, France lost to us 60-6 in England, following on from us beating them 66-12 in Paris the year before.

We have beaten both NZ in a series and Australia in one off games in recent history. Remind me when France last beat England/GB? They didn't even win the European cup in 2010 so didn't qualify for the four nations.

Compare the two situations all you like - fact is, it's a nonsense comparison.

our record against Australia

34-14 loss, 46-16 loss, 26-16 loss, 52-4 loss, 33-10 loss, 12-23 win, 20-6 loss, 26-14 loss, 12-8 loss, 24-12 win, 4-44 loss, 18-22 loss, 20-23 loss, 12-18 loss, 64-10 loss, 20-12 win, 12-40 loss, 8-28 loss, 22-2 loss, 42-6 loss.

In the last 20 games, we have a total of 3 wins

France may not have beaten us since 1989 but i doubt we have played much more than 10 games against them since then

our last competitive game against france was 34-12, pretty similar in score to our last game against Australia (which you missed out, as it was between the two results you quoted)

I can see you're not going to be convinced, despite all the facts suggesting we are far more competitive with Oz/NZ than France are with us.

Lets agree to disagree.

You havent suggested any facts, you have simply said we are much closer.

The facts themselves suggest we arent.

I'm assuming you've ignored the times in the recent past when we have beaten France/NZ/OZ, and imagined some times where France have beaten us/Oz/NZ? Don't remember us losing to Wales recently either.

But hey, go with what you like (which seems to be that actually beating teams, or losing to them by smaller margins, doesn't suggest you're any more competitive than not beating them and losing by whopping margins).

Do you mean whopping margins like 46-16, 52-4, 44-4, 64-10 and 42-6.

We have beaten Australia more than France have beaten us, because we play Australia more than we play France. We have lost 85% of our last 20 matches against Australia, you cant get much worse.

Are you really trying to tell us that if we played France as much as Australia they'd beat us? I don't.
Who was the last team we lost to that wasn't Australia or New Zealand?


You can. 100% of the last 20 years of matches.

england have played france far more times (about twice asmany in fact) than england has played australia



technically speaking of course

Still doesn't change that 'All Star' matches should be in addition to the international programme, not replacing them. As far as I'm concerned, England should have annual games against France and Wales at the very least and also alternate between playing against Ireland and Scotland in that time.

And you say you arent arrogant or disrespectful to France

. Eventually yes, they would. They have, and they will again.
France i think.
That would be different. Not necessarily better or worse. Just different.

No, I mean whopping margins like 60-6 and 66-12 in the last 2 years (we are making this decision based upon recent results remember). In the same period, our worst loss has been by 30 points (46-16) in the final of the Four-Nations (which we reached by beating the world champions). You have to go back to 2002 to find a defeat as big as the one the French suffered at home to England - the only, albeit teeny tiny, difference being that GB had to fly to the other side of the world to play a midweek test in Sydney.



You can get worse, you can lose 100% of your matches over the same timescale, like France against us. And you could top it off by losing to Wales in a second tier tournament too.

in the last 21 years?

I can't see why people seem to have a problem with the fact there could be an interesting and slightly different Rugby League match coming up to go and watch.

If this was football and England had the chance to play a team consisting of English based foreigners (we could call them 'Arsenal' or something) I reckon the public would support it.

It's little wonder that the sport of Rugby League hasn't spread with any success much further south than Warrington.

All you people do is argue all the time. It's getting a bit 'previous' now.

why just the last two years? and Why ignore the 34-12 result?

You are comparing 2 friendlies 60-6 and 66-12 then ignoring the last friendly that England played against Australia which finished 64-10.

Oh btw and France havent lost 100% of their last 20 matches against us

oh yeah thats why football does it all the time. invents teams and gets massive support.

What it definitely doesn't do is make sure that even the big international sides have to play the smaller international sides very very regularly.

It certainly wouldnt make sure that a team like San Marino played the big sides, or Andorra.

In fact football is known for its lack of internationals and its dumping of them for gimmick games.

Oh hang on................

How far back do you want to go to make a decision as to whether the current French team are providing decent competition for the current England team? What have results from years ago got to do with the decision as to how best to prepare an England team in 2011?



You are missing the obvious conclusion here - did Australia continue to play mid season friendlies against England after that friendly result or did everyone decide that it was pointless?

Nobody is saying France can't play in competitions they qualify for, just that these friendlies are as pointless as the one you refer to, which was never repeated.



I didn't say they had.

So you think if it was announced that the England football team would be playing a one off game (maybe to become a regular fixture) against a brand new side containing the best foreigners that are currently playing in the Premier league no one would be interested?





Yup.

People are right.


You ARE deluded!

I dont know, how far do you want to go back? the 34-12 result was between the two results you quoted

Do Australia continue to play against England? When we were demolished by Australia in 2002 we had an Australian tour in 2003 and the start of the tri-nations (in earnest the 99 tri-nations wasnt really the same format, or regularity) in 2004. What are replacing the game against France with, that includes France? We swapped the friendlies for competitive games, our results were closer, when we have done the same with France the results have been closer. If we follow your logic, why are we casting France out and not bringing them in?

So which time scale was the same timescale if not the same as the timescale which was mentioned?

Why do you think they dont do it Barry?

Not in mid season friendlies, no. That is what we're talking about, is it not?



We have given France the chance of competitive games against us in the 4N - they didn't qualify as they couldn't even beat Wales.



The "same timescale" was the same length of time over which the 20 games against Australia had been played, obviously.

No, games against France in general. As i said previously, we should have a mid season tri-nations against Wales and France, it would be one extra game, it would be competitive games, and we would be more likely to see players like Carvell stick with Wales improving their squad (changing back to GB for games against Australia and NZ)

what do we to do qualify for the 4N. And France only get the opportunity to qualify for every other tri-nations

so 20 games then? It would only be fair to use the same scale.

Thing is though, we aren't replacing an imaginary mid season tri-nations with a game against the all stars, we're replacing a mid-season friendly against France.



Be demonstrably and comfortably better than the next best team.



If they could qualify for the thing in the first place and ever beat anybody in it (let alone make a couple of finals like England), then I'm sure they'd be asked back every year.



No, hence why I said "same timescale" not "same number of games". Thought it was quite clear myself. Quite what results from before RL in England was even fully pro have to do with whether we play France in a mid season friendly in 2011, I have no idea.

Over what timescale?



Seriously, you're not expecting to get anything other than a fog plaiting session out of this are you?