Woods is spouting rubbish.
The results would have been the same regardless of the shirt.
What we are called is irrelevant. The blame should fall with the coach and the RFL in general.

Fair point, although I was referring specifically to the four home nations and the GB+I team, rather than the overall tier 1 and tier 2 levels of international RL. I wouldn't be putting Scotland in to be 50-0 down at half time against Australia because under my terms only GB+I from the British Isles would be playing against Australia. The Pacific Islanders are a different scenario.

But are they?
Ireland can claim to have maybe 3,000,000 passport holders in the UK at any time. Many more are entitled to claim said passport on the grandparent rule. My Son, a 5 yr old Kiwi can claim an Irish passport, not just because I hold one, but because his Grandfather was born in Ireland. He can also claim and English one, because his grandfather as born in Ireland when it was still part of the UK.
In 2011, 2,000,000 okers referred to themselves as having Irish heritage.
Between the UK and Australia, Ireland, if they were to go down the Jack Charlton route, could be as powerful as any of the Pacific Islands.

The question is, does having a team of heritage players = development of the game, or is it just drilling down into the development already done in NSW/Qland/Auckland and the M62?

GB as a brand was dead and should remain so. It was an ill though out tour that was never going to work and the fact that AU are touring next year to play England underlines this. As does the proposed AU v Toronto farce......if AU want to develop the game, then playing a bunch of mercenaries isn't the way....bringing a 2nd string side to Europe and playing Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England Knights and France midweek does!

If the RFL are serious about the branding of the game and national pride, why not invest a fraction of the money they lost from this tour in paying production costs for the games I suggested to be televised on a FTA chanel? Wednesday night, C5, 7pm KO. Wales v Australia development side......surely it wouldn't rate any worse than an episode of countdown!

Yes, because I was referring specifically to our own Test team, and how I personally believe they would be best represented. Essentially that I favour GB+I rather than England, and how I believe the four separate home nations should operate below Test level. I wasn't talking about the whole of international rugby league and eligibility rules!

The only other sport that feels the need to tour as GB is Union. They do so as an "extra" channel to their being. Are you saying that League should treat Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England as 4 feeder countries to 1 Test side, but Tonga, Samoa and Fiji should be allowed test status?
I have to say that's a very odd stance.
GB, NZ, Australia, PNG & France are the only nations that do not rely on heritage teams. We either accept this, or we embrace heritage teams and "pretend' to have an International Game. Which is it, because there is no middle ground!

The Pacific Islands aren't the same as the UK in terms of being four countries in one. In fact I'm not certain, but I don't think anywhere else in the world is like that!

As a country we're in quite a unique position. All Olympic sports compete under the "Team GB" banner, boxers, motorsport drivers, etc are all stated as "British", so it's not just rugby union that uses it. Even the Ryder Cup team was originally GB+I before becoming Europe I think. The cricket team is England and Wales. If RL was played professionally in all four home nations then it would be worth competing separately. It isn't though, so yes, I think each should operate separately as a development side with only one, GB+I, Test side.

Again, I'm only talking about the British Isles teams, not the whole of rugby league, so Tonga and the rest have nothing to do with this.