That goes back to the fact that the GB team would be England in a different jersey.

Are we looking to bring back GB to satisfy some nostalgic need or, would it actually add value/interest to the sport, either from the fans or the media.

This one again?

If you have England, you also have Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

If you have GB, you have exactly the same as England (because it's the same bloody players) but you don't have Wales, Scotland and Ireland at test level.

What is the bloody point? The crowds weren't exactly bigger (England have had bigger crowds over the last 10 years than GB have had). So what exactly is the point? Basically because some people don't like the shirt design we have now.

I'm sorry, but I don't think there's enough reason to drop 3 international sides in our already limited international competitions just to appease those who long for a nostalgia trip and nothing more.

Couldn't agree more. England already don't play enough games, to play the games we do play under two different names from one year to the next makes no sense.

Whether it's England or GB, what isn't in doubt is that international RL is on it's backside.

Australia would struggle to sell a 3-Test series against England/GB down under. How can you flog a series against a team who hasn't recorded a win against you in over a decade? The last time we did tour for real was in 1992.

GB did play a 3-Test series against NZ in 1996 under the Super League umbrella but haven't returned since to play a series, nor have they ventured anywhere near PNG or Fiji. Last time was the 1992 tour.

There have been lots of afterthought end-of-season 3 and 4 nations series mostly played in the UK to fill the coffers of the RFL for which they ought to be eternally grateful to the Aussies and Kiwis.

As for the home nations idea of building up Wales, Scotland, Ireland? Hardly anyone is interested. Those who qualify for Wales, Scotland and Ireland will always choose England because they want to face top tier international opposition as opposed to pub teams, so let's not pretend the home nations idea is going anywhere. May as well scrap Wales, Scotland and Ireland as they are no longer fit for the purpose.

The GB brand was far more effective in providing players with international opportunities to represent both GB and a home nation. Switching to the England brand has effectively reduced the scope of international RL and reduced its appeal accordingly.

Media interest in international RL also died when the game could no longer fulfil international schedules during a season as opposed to scheduling end-of-season afterthoughts often organised way too late to make any of the New Year sporting calendars. Other sports manage this but RL cannot.

State of Origin and Magic Weekends by plenty!

2004 UK
2005 UK
2006 Down Under
2009 UK/France
2010 Down Under
2011 UK
2014 Down Under
2016 UK

So when you say "mostly", you mean other than the first one, we've alternated every year?

William makes a fair point. Where is the home nations thing going? is it ever going to grow? i don't think so. Can't barely get one decent player among the three countries and interest in the game is practically zero and that's being kind!

Go back to GB imo. It is France that has the serious potential to grow , the home nations is just a pipe dream. use them for WC's and that is it.

How the hell does having one team instead of four provide more international opportunity?

How many GB players are getting the opportunity to play Australia and New Zealand this year?


That's not really the fault of England or GB brand though, so it's not relevant at all.

France does have serious potential to grow. Taking out 3 of their local opposition wouldn't help them though, would it? They get big crowds against Wales, Ireland and Scotland. They're a similar level on the field.

I just don't understand the rationale behind "just get rid of them because they're not working this second."

No point unless we pick Aussie/Kiwi players who qualify via Welsh, Irish, Scottish ancestors for GB i.e. Tyson Frizell or Pat Richards in his prime.

It's never worked though.Perhaps when we got the Union converts in the 80s/90s Wales could just about compete but those days have gone. It has no foundations to work. I'm in my thirties and should i be lucky enough to reach an old age I highly doubt these sides will ever be much more competetive than they are right now still using players that can't get games for the big three nations. It's sad, because i would love it to work along the lines of RU, but unfortunately it will never happen.

Number of Tests GB/England have played against Australia during the SL era = 27 (28 after next week)
Number played in England = 20 (21 after next week)
Number played in Australia = 7

Number of Tests GB/England have played against New Zealand during the SL era = 33
Number played in England = 23
Number played in New Zealand = 8
Number played in Australia = 2

TOTAL = 60
Played in England = 43
Played in Australia = 9
Played in New Zealand = 8

As you were.

Oh here we go again the "remain" attitude, you don't agree with me so I'll sneeringly dismiss you as a Luddite (in this case)



Of course you shouldn't live in the past that's just foolish. However to dismis the past and thus not learn from it is positively idiotic, but that's what arrogance does to people.

For anyone interested, the results of those internationals during the SL-era above are as follows...

[uGB/England V Australia[/u
In England - 3 wins, 17 defeats
In Australia - 1 win, 6 defeats
--------------------------------------
TOTAL - 4 wins, 23 defeats
--------------------------------------

[uGB/England V New Zealand[/u
In England - 13 wins, 2 draws, 8 defeats
In New Zealand - 0 wins, 8 defeats
In Australia - 0 wins, 2 defeats
-------------------------------------------------
TOTAL - 13 wins, 2 draws, 18 defeats
-------------------------------------------------

And if it had been GB instead of England, All of those results would be the same so, what is your solution ?

The GB brand was and still is very highly thought of in Australia. Pretty much all of our big wins have come under that banner. It's iconic. Famous red and blue V with the roaring lion the chest, it has history and meaning in RL. Those dismissing it i just don't get but each to their own.

I'm not dismissing it at all but, as I said in my earlier post, there just aren't any Welsh, Scottish or Irish players that would make the team ant to revert to GB, could make us look worse than we do now.
The history is great and our International success came under the Lions name but, changing back to it wont make a scrap of difference to the players ability and wouldn't change results.
IF and its a huge if, the other home nations were individually strong and GB was a greater force than England then, it would make sense to change back but, to do it now would just be tokenism.

That kind of attitude has often been prevalent in Rugby League.

It is a sport which has rarely made a fuss about its history and it's often a huge research project in itself to discover anything about the game beyond even the last decade!

Other sports celebrate their history.

RL is very dismissive of it in this country, and particularly so during the SL-era.

Anything prior to SL is dismissed as backward, played in winter, by fat players, on muddy pitches, with Hovis bread adverts prevalent and not worthy.

Where proper tours, Ashes series, domestic cup competitions are considered foolhardy.

Instead, get ready for a brave new modern world of mid-season summer internationals involving England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales and France. And that's assuming the RFL ever get around to organising it in time. There is a Magic Weekend to take care of first after all.

The only hope for the future of international RL is.....
1) Switch back to winter season in the UK.
2) Switch back to GB (for top-tier tests V Aus/NZ) and home nations V France, PNG, Samoa. Tonga, Fiji, etc.
3) World Cups involve home nations.
3) Proper mid-season tours (Lions, Kangaroos Kiwis) and Ashes Series back on schedule (which requires 1 above).

Otherwise, it's screwed and on its backside... as it has been for the past two decades.

I honestly don't think the Aussies care whether we play as Great Britain or as England. What they want is competitive matches in front of packed out stadiums. They won't think highly of GB or England if they are beating us easily every time we play them.

You talk about the history of the game and that it is on it's backside but, where the hell was the game just before the switch to the summer era.
If you want a definition of "on it's backside", have a look back and remind us just how healthy the game was before Uncle Maurice brokered the SL deal.
The game was as close to dying as it has ever been.

I'm not for one minute saying everything is great, it clearly isnt but, it's in better shape than the mid - late '90's

It's not all about results.

It's about not crapping all over a successful brand with historical significance.

It's about nurturing something you have which actually worked very well!

Would any other sport shoot itself in the foot like RL has done?

The whole country knew of Ellery Hanley, Shaun Edwards, Garry Schofield, Jason Robinson and Co when they played Ashes Series under the GB banner. As mentioned above by Biff Tannen, the GB brand was iconic... it meant something... hardly any other sport played as GB apart from the Olympics and their Team GB branding.

Hardly anyone outside of parts of the M62 stretch has heard of Luke Gale, Ryan Hall and James Graham, and they have even less interest in the England RL branding because there are plenty of other much bigger sports with bigger media profiles to lend support to the England branding instead.

Replacing GB with England?



It's tantamount to New Zealand in RU ditching the All Blacks branding and claiming it isn't modern or progressive enough.

We're discussing international RL which was doing rather well and had a far higher profile pre-1996 than it does today.

International RL is most definitely not in better shape since the switch to summer rugby in the UK.

this.. the game was in a financial mess here, commercial value very low also.

but hey, we had GB tours so lets forget about all the wrongs of pre-super league era.

Enjoy your Magic Weekends.

And your Eddie Stobart/First Utility type commercial deals.

The thing is, you're talking about a different era. That was (mainly) pre-Sky TV and before the airwaves were swamped with Premier League football and all sorts of other sports. It's much harder now for RL to gain any attention.

Back in the 1980's when I was growing up, there was very little live sport on TV. I remember every Saturday watching Football Focus with Bob Wilson and then checking out the Grandstand schedule for the rest of the day. It was mostly horse racing and odds and sods of other sports like badminton or motor cycling. It was a real treat when the Five Nations rugby union was on or Great Britain were playing Australia in rugby league.

The world has changed. There's a Premier League match (Chelsea v Everton) on today at the same time as England are playing Scotland. That's what you're competing against now. You don't have a captive audience on the BBC like you had back in the 1980's/early 90's. That's why the product on offer has to be high quality or it will go under the radar.

This is just balls. The whole nation didn't know of Schofield etc.
They knew the Wigan players. Not because of internationals or GB. But because of the Challenge Cup and because the only broadcast media available was BBC radio and 3/4 TV Channels.

That doesn't work in an age of massively centralised national media and age of hundreds of TV channels and the internet.

You are pretending to a significance and national importance that simply didn't exist.
Just because people happened to know Martin Offiah's name does not equate to what you are suggesting.

The same goes for your ludicrous suggestion that the only reason we don't have Aussie tours is because we don't play in the winter. That's just battedry of the highest order.

Leeds just last year played a game in winter against the Kiwis. Totally disproving your agenda-driven drivel.

The Aussies couldn't care less whether we played winter or summer seasons. It's about them wanting a full off-season for as many NRL players as possible. And they certainly won't release their players mid-season.

The GB name and team should be used but so should England and the separate nations. To not do so massively limits the ability of the other nations to build their own brand and identity.
Of course there was a recent proposal for a GB tour down under. Sadly it wasn't accepted by the Aussies.

But hey, I guess it's easier to make up sh|te and repeatedly state it in the hope someone eventually believes you. I believe a particularly strange, orange man in America is using the same way of debating currently.