We haven't won an Ashes series in England since 1959. In 1990 we won the first at Wembley then lost at Old Trafford and Elland Road. Last win was in Aus in 1970 when we lost the first in Brisbane and won the next 2 played at the Sydney Cricket Ground. I saw both series wins.

That's a good idea, but based on past form I'm sure it won't happen!



Hadn't considered the 'Skolars turf' thing - Wembley is closer to us, you can see the arch from Trailfinders.

I wish the RFL would pick a permanent London base for internationals. Apart from Wembley it looked like the Olympic Stadium was going to be it with matches against Aus and NZ - and nothing since.

I'm not convinced the Tour should be against England, we lose good talent this way, should it not be Great Britain? It's a big stadium, just hope if we are not 2 - 0 up in the series by then, that we are at least 1 - 1 to get a reasonable crowd.

Who do we lose by playing as England and not GB? The whole squad is English, except Coote who clearly isn't good enough. Philbin played for Ireland in 2017, but then switched to England Knights last year.



Besides, GB is dead. Just a matter of time.

Hopefully 25-30,000 tickets will sell in advance.

From a commercial point of view the series at 1-1 will be the best case scenario for a full house.

Cant see the problem with it going to spurs, it's a brand new stadium and state of the art. Personally I thought the Olympic stadium was a poor venue in location and venue layout.

Wembley is fine but it's probably driven by cost as much as anything. What sort of interest they can generate will be a reasonable indicator of the state of the game! With CC and GF numbers down another big event that requires travel for the core supporters of the game might effect total ticket sales.

As for the turf suffering, RL tends to do less damage to the grass than football

Which ever way you look at it, playing game 1 in 28,000 stadium then game 2 in a 38,000 stadium before heading to a 62,000 stadium for game 3 when series could be over is just plan daft.



Without knowing costs or availability are we saying northern crowds can't/won't fill Old Trafford, Anfield etc.

My point was why don’t the RFL choose a stadium in London as it’s ‘base’ and stick with it? So visiting fans get used to it, can meet up in the same pubs, cafes etc...

And as far as London grounds go White Hart Lane is a bit of a pig to get to.

Tottenham is not the nicest part of London either. No matter how grand the stadium is.

By that logic the internationals should always be played in the same stadiums.

Why not try somewhere new? The logic of fans getting used to it and going to the same pubs not really an issue when it's only one game every couple of years.

As for which stadiums up north, thank goodness they are not using Anfield again, footy fans might like it but strewth it's a poor venue.

Not been to elland road in a while so not sure what it's like.

Look on the other side, had they brought it to a stadium in london with a 40k capacity we would have been whinging about lack of ambition.

Doubt it NB, not sure I can remember a time when RL has shown any ambition.



Of course there is nothing wrong in trying other venues but Spuds really? Perhaps they got a good deal as Levy desperate to get money in. But it is a bit grim on the old Tottenham High Road.