No, as you say they are a representative team rather than an international team. I've got no issue with them playing a couple of friendlies in the build up to the Euro Cup if teams want a tougher challenge, but they can't be part of the tournament.

I very much like the sound of this - it adds England Knights as an extra competitive team in each competition and exposes the next tier of potential England players to the international game and get used to training/playing with each other

Do we know if the Knights will have any selection restrictions - an under 23/s side would allow the players who have excelled in Academy games over the past few years a next step on the ladder?

An international team is a representative team that represents a nation. The Knights represent England. They are an international team.
The latter comment is fine. Just depends what the tournament is. I don't see why they couldn't compete in a European Championship and leave the Euro Cup as a separate tournament (I do think it's a bit daft that the European Cup is called that when one of the teams in it are in the 4N and there's no qualification on the line. It's a different tournament really).

When they go down under, they could play the Aussie and Kiwi 'A' teams as well.

The England team will get nothing out of it. It wont do anything. Its a team against a made-up team. While you may wish to pretend that this made up team will have massive pride in their jersey, they wont. It will be seen as a kick about. It wont, in anyway help in the players find that next level you need to find to compete with NZ and Australia. If you think it will you are deluded
they did, we played them in a competitive game where the Catalans players didnt have a mass outbreak of injuries and they gave us a competitive game.

34-12 isnt a foregone conclusion. What we need is to get france interested. Give them something to play for so that they do play their best players. a Tri-nations tournament like the 6 nations in RU between Wales, France and England would benefit everyone, and it would be an actual international competition.

It doesnt go one way and not the other. France will improve because they are playing international competition. Not because they are playing better teams but because they are playing international competition, together, as a national side. They wont suddenly start catching us up because they are playing Wales.

It is massively disrespectful to both France and Wales to pretend it is a waste of our time even bothering to play them. We should be playing both. We should be playing a tri-nations tournament between the three teams from now until the end of time. Adding other nations when they get their professional game going.

We get the same as everyone else gets, International Competition.

You are being hugely arrogant, you dismiss beating France and Wales as if it was nothing in itself and their games against us are nothing more than warm ups to playing 'real' internationals against Australia and NZ. Whilst they are tier 2 nations they deserve much better than you casting them out as second class.

Wales and France deserve to play us, as we deserve to play them. Not to improve them or us but because they are professional RL nations.

We have 5 professional RL playing nations, 3 get to qualify automatically and every two years one of the other two are allowed to try and qualify for a competitive game against the other three, and you dont want me to say this is a bit arrogant and treating them with quite a bit of disrespect?

And yes it isnt a competitive game, for some reason we think we are better than to play France and Wales in a competitive game, then we wonder why they send out a second string to get smashed when we deign to give them a friendly.

ALWAYS a drubbing, how many mid-season tests against France do you think we have played? It can barely class as always anything.

There is massive benefit to the international games, there are international games being staged being the major one.

Fact is, once you get passed your inherent viewpoint that Wales and France arent worthy in themselves, and you get passed the fact they arent warm ups for Australia and New Zealand. You will see how pointless this friendly game against a made-up side is, and how disrespectful it is to these other nations to say we need it.

Wales can play France instead of England, it would also be international competition. I have absolutely no idea who told you otherwise,

France would love to play England ,maybe not mid-season according to previous BG comments but the problem with france is that not only are they generally already an inferior group of players compared to the english,their (or BGs) main problem is actually getting their best french players available to play.Assuming the bulk of the probable french national team is made up of players from the Catalan Dragons the french coach is constantly being denied access to these players by the Dragons president M.Guasch.This is really annoying for BG who has the backing of M.Larrat who is the boss of the FFR13.It's like Wigan refusing to release the Tomkins boys or Saints refusing to release Roby or Graham for example.
In RU there used to be the annual England Possibles v Probables match - has this ever been considered in RL ?

i seriously cant believe people are against this idea
a combined side of Kiwis and aussies will be a far better challenge to england than france ever were
ill certainly support it and ill bet many other antips living in the uk will as well

i'm sure if the RFL could find £5k a man to the winning team, it would inspire some of the more mercenary antipodeans to take it more seriously.

Or we could invest that £85k in development rather than wasting it on a stupid and pointless venture.

it could make a lot more than that with possible tv rights,sponsorship and gate reciepts.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but there is just as many reasons (if not more IMO) that justify the opinion that it will improve the team, and players will have pride.

I will also add that to put your opinion across as fact is extremely arrogant.


You said that they can get more players playing full time in the SL now. If they can, then they aren't. There aren't enough to fill a French test team. What this quote has to do with that point is beyond me.


But a mid-season test has never been 34-12. They've been *42-14, 56-8, 66-12, 60-6. They've consistently been walkovers.
*Played as GB, with a majority rested team.


So you're saying that France aren't interested now? Isn't that something you were criticising an All-Stars team about?! If France aren't interested, then how can you be fighting for them to play in this fixture?!

I would love to see a European Tri-Nations with England, France and Wales. I've even mooted it in the past (alongside an All-Stars game). Unfortunately, it seems that we can only fit in one game mid-season, and we have to arrange a game that is best for us.


The fact that we can only fit one international in, and we have chosen not to play France, and your apparent tantrum at that fact, leads me to believe that there is some problem with France playing Wales instead of England.

We can only fit one fixture in at the moment. Is it disrespectful to Wales that you think France should play England?

Exactly.

Its not my opinion. It is the default position. It is up to you to prove it. You havent.
Nope, i said that the french test team was professional. It was.
so the question isnt what team can we make up to play. Its why is this the case and what can we do to change it.

no-one should be playing this game.
So lets play an actual international game.
why do you keep making up i dont want France and Wales to play each other?

Because international games are what we doing. Its what you think you are preparing for. Winning international games is why we have an international team. So lets play international games.

The benefit is winning international games. The benefit is thats the point of it. If we beat france or wales then we win. We have done what we have prepared for. Games against these teams arent warm ups they are the main events.
So it seems strange to take the one international game we have and swap it with a non-international because we have a limit of internationals.
its a massively better way to sell the international game to the public than by not playing an international game, which is what you are proposing.Lets follow this through. What is this 'test' we are needing for? is this 'test' to prepare for international games? or is this 'test' like a 'test match' you know how France, Wales and England are 'test nations' and playing each other is a 'test match'

You seem to be expressing your opinion as fact here. My my that is hypocritical of you



IOr somebody looking for a scapegoat. Australia havent lost an ANZAC test in 13 years, NZ barely put a squad out. Why is it only us in international rugby that need this?


And you say you arent being disrespectful.

And you are right, we cant play everybody, its strange then that we are choosing to play
nobody.
4. Wow. 4 whole mid-season tests. And they havent caught up yet? oh well then lets not bother. If we have played four games at our convenience and they havent beaten us? well I can fully understand us giving up on them after a huge four games.

I mean we have definitely stretched the Australians in our last four games havent we?

It really isnt sinking in is it? Beating France is an achievement, beating Wales is an achievement. They are international sides against whom we play international games. Beating them, and winning is the end point. It is the achievement. They arent our sparring partners, they arent the tune up fight. It is disrespectful to those nations to treat them as such. Which is what you are doing.
so you made it up then.
What part of me saying that they should play a tri-nations tournament with Wales and France, we should play Wales and France,and my constantly mentioning of Wales and France led you to believe i wanted them to play France but not Wales?

Agreed it could be done but.........

How?

If no tv rights will there be any sponsors/advertising then?

If the game has sponsors/advertisers are they getting "cheap" or paying top dollar (viewing figures and socio-economic factors come into this)?

Just look at "international" attendances in this country recently, what would you charge?

The "my club", "my club", "my club","my club","my club", is so entrenched, as shown by many posters in these forums, that how could you convince people to go?

Will clubs allow their little "preciouses" to play in a non game (see under injurys England Moronball team) but their recovery is remarkable after the event!!!

Would love to see it happen.

Would love the TV figures to be the best in the country.

But................................................

"Test" in the sense that our players are being tested, that they are actually having to put in a significant effort to win, and not cruise through comfortably and still put on a massive score.
Not "test" in that it is a test team. France are a test team, but to suggest that they actually test England in this fixture in a competitive sense takes some justifying...

This may not necessarily be the "test" that we are looking for, and I have said that previously. But it is the closest thing we can get, which is why it deserves a go.


They haven't. It is a fact. Getting 9-11 tries past them in every game, with only 1-2 in reply is not a test.
How can you justify that England are being tested in a game that has proven to be a walk-over every time from start to finish?


It isn't just us that needs one. You've just said here, the Aussies have one. The Kiwis have one. The Kiwis are tested by the Aussies. The Aussies usually beat the Kiwis because (as usual in international rugby) it is always played to their way (at their home, usually with their officials) and it's an ambush. The one time it was played in NZ they lost.
We aren't the only one that need one. We're the only one of the big three that doesn't have one!


Yes, I do say I aren't being disrespectful. It isn't disrespectful to comment on the quality of your opposition.

We haven't chosen to play nobody. We've chosen to play a team with much stronger players in. You're not even trying to offer an argument anymore.


If there were other benefits to this game (i.e. big crowds, interest, money, etc.) it wouldn't even be a second thought dropping it. But there isn't. This game has gotten less and less interest as the years have gone by. The French need more SL players to be competitive. They need to fill a team.


But they have generated interest, money, crowds, etc.


When you play a friendly, they are your sparring partners. That's what friendlies tend to be for. If David Haye had a match against me, no matter how seriously I took it, it wouldn't be a test for him would it. It's not disrespecting me to say so, it's just a completely different level!


You're still dodging the question.

We can't have a Tri-Nations.

So what's wrong with France playing Wales instead, and we play the All-Stars instead? At least Wales get a game in this situation. As you say, Wales need international games also. So why isn't this better for everyone?

i dont know when this game would be played but i can't believe sky wouldn't want to make something big out of this.
they should look for a new sponsor,a big bank like santander-call it the santander challenge.
Around 7 thousand turned up at the lsv knowing it was going to be a rout .imo this game will be bigger than that game.i cant remember what the prices were for that game but i'd keep them roughly the same.
apparently the clubs have agreed to this game so all we can do is hope they are as good as there word and release there players if not then other players will get there chance.

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:
Lance Hohaia, Sam Perrett, Junior Sa'u, Steve Matai, Jason Nightingale, Benji Marshall (c), Kieran Foran, Frank-Paul Nuuausala, Issac Luke, Sam Rapira, Bronson Harrison, Zeb Taia, Adam Blair.
Aaron Heremaia, Sika Manu, Jared Waerea-Hargreaves, Ben Matulino.
4N team:
1. Lance Hohaia 2. Jason Nightingale 3. Shaun Kenny-Dowall 4. Junior Sa'u 5. Sam Perrett 6. Benji Marshall 7. Nathan Fien 8. Frank-Paul Nuuausala 9. Thomas Leuluai 10. Adam Blair 11. Sika Manu 12. Simon Mannering 13. Jeremy Smith 14. Isaac Luke 15. Greg Eastwood 16. Frank Pritchard 17. Ben Matulino


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...

:2dhxlduzNo, 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.

:2dhxlduzWhich 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. :2dhxlduzA 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. :2dhxlduzno, 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.
:2dhxlduzDo they? you dont see Leeds refusing to player smaller clubs
:2dhxlduzand you arent arrogant. 34-12 isnt a result that is never in doubt. Its a good test.
:2dhxlduzin a game you have admitted they dont really care about, which they havent won for 13 years.

:2dhxlduzSo it works that quick does it? So we can expect to win the 4 nations at the end of this year? Considering it is the only example where it isnt that different it can only have had an affect from last year cant it? but the 12 preceeding years you admit it wasnt an NZ first team, it was a 2nd team and the game wasnt treated seriously?

:2dhxlduzAnd you are placing the importance of playing a friendly to 'prepare' us for competing with Australia and NZ rather than actually competing with France. And you wont admit this is disrespectful to French RL.


:2dhxlduzDoes it? cant have played much then

:2dhxlduzSo we make test matches against France major internationals and stop using them as preparation for Australia and NZ


:2dhxlduzSo then why bring up something you dont believe to be a reason for it as a defence of it?

:2dhxlduzEngland and France are at the same level. They are both professional nations. In fact their professional clubs play in the same league. In fact the French position isnt vastly different to the NZ position of 15 years ago. They deserve to compete.
:2dhxlduzWhy those two clubs? Seems a very strange example? But if Leeds were looking to play their games against Made up gimmick of the week 13 instead then i would be in favour fo them playing Toulouse. It would be idiotic not to be.:2dhxlduz Why not? That would be a good thing

:2dhxlduzFrance ARE major internationals. They arent our training ground. They arent our test dummies. They dont play us to learn or get better, they play us to compete. The play us because that is the point of international RL. Win Lose or Draw it is mission complete, We have played international rugby. We have finished the game. Our aim has been met. By simply staging the game we have done what we set out to do. Stop treating France and Wales as stepping stones.

:2dhxlduzOnly because it is a friendly and not a test match and people like you have such a disrespect for International RL. Playing France is a major international. It is only because it is downgraded to a friendly that it is treated so poorly
:2dhxlduzNobody said everyone should aspire to play us. Im not sure where you have got that from. I said they should play us. The only arrogant part is us thinking we are better than even bothering to compete with them. They can play Wales and do, and will continue to do so. We are the ones also missing out here.

:2dhxlduzBecause France, and Wales for that matter arent the ones putting this limit on there. We are. They can play each other, any time they want, and most years do play each other with no involvement from us. It is us who are deciding that we are too busy to play more than one game and too good to waste it on them.


:2dhxlduzWhy does it have to be mid-season? Again this is our proviso. Are you still trying to tell me its not arrogant or disrespectful for us to say we are too busy to play more than one game, too good to waste on either of you, i know you play each almost every post-season but play each other mid-season aswell. Instead of us. Cos we're busy and too good.

:2dhxlduzThere was a problem with the french season being at a different time to british season, plus it is a fairly recent up turn for welsh RL. But whilst we are off every year playing the 'important' internationals france and Wales have played each other. It seems odd you think them not playing each other twice a year is proof of anything really.


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!!