England Vs Super League All Stars Confirmed 2011

[cpwigan]

Therein lies your error Cherry. You actually learn far more in defeat than victory at any level in any sport. France always gain far more from the games than England do. They always have. By playing better opposition you stretch yourself as individuals and as team by learning to cope with the pressure and raise your own standard. Defeats week in week out can damage confidence but other than that the learning curve when defeated is greater than when victorious. Going back to our last glorious era, IIRC, when Wigan played a team and beat them, that beaten team often played far better than anticipated in their next game.

France have done reasonably well at times but in the last 2 seasons injuries have robbed them of key players. Like England v Aus / NZ; France can ill afford to not have their best players available.

International competition is the key to driving any sport globally and yes at times the dominant nations have to be altruistic. Otherwise, where do you stop. England are currently not good enough to play NZ and Aus. So why should they bother? NZ and Aus should play a 3 / 5 test series. Bugger England.

The Origin concept was inmitially successful with Peter Fox creating a Queensland style mentality in Yorkshire against the tyically arrogant chip on the shoulder Lancashire. Like everything in RL it was not given a set date in the calendar, it was not marketed properly, nor did the RFL show any commitment to persevere and let it grow. 'Rome wasn't built in a day' It took Australia decades to create Origin as it is now and they never looked back.

If we take the ROW SL idea. The biggest disaster is the maketing gimmick selection policy. Talk about taking an idea from elsewhere and not thinking it through. If the ROW SL is supposed to be about testing England then alas it should be the coach selects the best XVII come what may and if that means 7 from Wigan, 5 from Wire and 5 from Leeds then so be it. The rationale and the marketing gimmick selection totally contradict each other. There is an assumption that XVII ROW SL with a weeks notice can suddenly present a fantastic opposition. Is anybody certain that will happen. What happens if England lose?

The RFL supposedly has a strategic plan. What is it? Where is it? The way they drop things at such short notice or bring in a new panacea suggests planning is done on the back of beer mats in a pub.

[gpartin]

Total waste of time.

[cpwigan]

Cherry the idea that you learn more in defeat than victory is based on personal experience supported by the comments / reflections of professional coaches / players in RL and every other team sport since I was born.

Look back at the comments Wigan players made last season about their defeats, the play off defeat.

If you win games easily you can easily develop bad habits and become over confident. Pressure and learning to cope with it / play under it is the key in sport. It always has been / it always will be.

Jack Gibson had a saying that with every victory you are one game closer to defeat.

The secret is not to lose the games that truly matter such as finals.

[cpwigan]

Cherry where does it stop? England are not good enough to play NZ / Aus. Should we be kicked out of international competition. After all repeated hammering dos nobody any good (your words)

Should we end International RL?

[cpwigan]

Cherry there are experts in Australia who advocate scrapping the 3/4N because we (England) are considered uncompetitive. At the present time we are a long way from winning successive matches v NZ or Aus and we are not considered a potential winner of the 3N/4N.

Aus had plenty of injuries too in the 4N

International Sport is the vehicle that markets sports and yet we pay lip service to it. Union exists virtually upon its international game and they expand it. Why did they allow Italy into their top competition when they rarely win a match?

If England lose to the ROW I fully expect the event to be consigned to the long list of experiments by the RFL.

[GeoffN]

Therein lies your error Cherry. You actually learn far more in defeat than victory at any level in any sport. France always gain far more from the games than England do. They always have. By playing better opposition you stretch yourself as individuals and as team by learning to cope with the pressure and raise your own standard. Defeats week in week out can damage confidence but other than that the learning curve when defeated is greater than when victorious. Going back to our last glorious era, IIRC, when Wigan played a team and beat them, that beaten team often played far better than anticipated in their next game.

I tend to agree, and that's one reason I agree with the "all-stars" concept, as there isn't another side available that could beat England. It means there is little point, from an England point of view, of playing France, Wales, Ireland, whoever.

France have done reasonably well at times but in the last 2 seasons injuries have robbed them of key players. Like England v Aus / NZ; France can ill afford to not have their best players available.

International competition is the key to driving any sport globally and yes at times the dominant nations have to be altruistic. Otherwise, where do you stop. England are currently not good enough to play NZ and Aus. So why should they bother? NZ and Aus should play a 3 / 5 test series. Bugger England.

The Origin concept was inmitially successful with Peter Fox creating a Queensland style mentality in Yorkshire against the tyically arrogant chip on the shoulder Lancashire. Like everything in RL it was not given a set date in the calendar, it was not marketed properly, nor did the RFL show any commitment to persevere and let it grow. 'Rome wasn't built in a day' It took Australia decades to create Origin as it is now and they never looked back.

If we take the ROW SL idea. The biggest disaster is the maketing gimmick selection policy. Talk about taking an idea from elsewhere and not thinking it through. If the ROW SL is supposed to be about testing England then alas it should be the coach selects the best XVII come what may and if that means 7 from Wigan, 5 from Wire and 5 from Leeds then so be it. The rationale and the marketing gimmick selection totally contradict each other.

Completely agree.

There is an assumption that XVII ROW SL with a weeks notice can suddenly present a fantastic opposition. Is anybody certain that will happen. What happens if England lose?

As you point out, that would be ideal preparation for playing Aus & NZ, and of far more benefit than hammering a European side.

The RFL supposedly has a strategic plan. What is it? Where is it? The way they drop things at such short notice or bring in a new panacea suggests planning is done on the back of beer mats in a pub.

Of course. That's how the RFL have always done things, and I don't expect them to change anytime soon.

I would be delighted if they had a similar shakeup to the England cricket management setup, where a similar gulf in class was recently overturned, but I won't hold my breath.

[cpwigan]

I do not know if it will be the case but one of the Monday RL papers pointed out that the Roses Origin concept died because Lancashire players did not treat as 'life and death'. A match v ROW despite rhetoric may well go the same was as it lacks full international status.

The problem with losing Geoff is that the RFL will dump it

[cpwigan]

If they follow the NRL example 3 or a similar number of players were automatically selected. The quotes in the press suggests selection by fans will take place. Personally I believe 90% of fans have not got a clue about the sport they follow and that applies to any sport.

[jobo]

Stupid idea. Go back to touring and as CP says seriously get behind an inter county comp.

It used to be a great honour to be even considered for your county. From school boy level right up to senior level. This facet of progression has disappeared from the modern game, imo much to its detriment. The players who were picked had to prove they were worthy of it as many a dad who thought his son should have been picked was waiting in the wings ready to have a go about the player who'd been picked before his lad.

By touring, over a period of a couple of months rather than weeks, it at least gave GB the chance to properly acclimatise. We played games against club sides that were hell bent on turning GB over and a lot of our players really did raise their game to a level that prior to touring, you wouldn't have thought possible. An example was a Scottish man who played prop, Hugh Waddell. Think he played for Oldham and was ok as a club player. He got picked to tour and all of a sudden he was up against players twice his size but half his heart like Slammin Sam Backo, Greg Dowling (best prop ever to play for Wigan), the Sorrensons, players you would think he couldn't hold a light to. He more than matched them and had a fabulous tour. It was well worth getting up at 6am to watch the games on BBC2.

Probably rambling a bit here but it's important to remember that our sport does mean more than just money and marketing.

[cpwigan]

Increasingly I believe there is an argument for all junior RL to become a summer sport but for professional and possibly open age amateur RL to go back to winter RL which would allow touring but I also believe the psyche of British people is to spectate during winter and during key holiday periods like Christmas.

In terms of skill development it has to be better for youngsters to play League in summer. Whatsmore, youngsters could play Union in winter then League in the summer giving a bigger talent pool for RL.