Some of the ideas here are ridiculous, some of you are pretty much suggesting holding a World Cup every year.

Game got called off on the hour mark after it rained so much you couldn't genuinely couldn't see the person next to you (never seen rain like it in my life and I've lived in a city that flooded!). Talk of WC qualifiers is very premature. Nowhere near that stage yet.

I haven't.

Is this the same Ireland that has NEVER beaten New Zealand in the history of internationals between the two sides? Kinda puts paid to the argument that one team is capable of beating any other... or have Ireland never had a ‘good day’ against New Zealand?

p.s. I don’t normally put things in capitals but my never is factual and your never is simply predicting the future so I thought mine won out there

Ireland went crazy celebrating a pool stage win against Australia. It was that big a deal to them, and they're definitely in the better half of the Six Nations.

Hate to use them as an example but the soccer teams play so many internationals against so many teams tracking down the numbers each year is hard...

Different Nations England (RU) played 2010: 9
Different Nations England (RU) played 2011: 8 (inc WC)
Added Argentina, Georgia, Romania. Less Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Samoa.

Different Nations Wales (RU) played 2010: 8
Different Nations Wales (RU) played 2011: 11 (inc WC)
Argentina, Namibia and Samoa extra, otherwise the same.

Hardly a big difference there... the world cup just adds some also-rans. Otherwise sports tend to be running qualifying tournaments, or having competitions/friendlies with teams rougly a similar ability/rivals anyway...

We have (slightly) fewer nations than Ru of course at this point, don't see the harm in adding some consistency each year, whatever format is used? After all, we've basically had the WC each year anyway with the 3/4N, whilst leaving the other nations to their own devices.

The difference is that football has 200+ national teams, and a consistent programme of qualifying and major tournaments. Imagine if you had a tournament between England, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Brazil and Argentina every year, it would just be stupid. Regarding the rest of your post, I couldn't care less about RU.

Should go back to GB, as Wales, Scotland and Ireland are useless - then GB might be a bit more competitive v Oz and NZ.

Think about what you have just said.

Less international RL isnt going to grow international RL.

International RL is our greatest tool for spreading the game but for it to do that we have to actually play international RL.

Agreed, that doesn't mean that every team needs to play each other every year. I wouldn't be averse to a 5 Nations tournament two years between World Cups, but if we play the same competition with the same teams every year it would just be overkill. In fact, I'd be pretty happy if the international programme from last year, this year and next year is consistent for the three years where the World Cup is not being contested, obviously with an expanded World Cup Qualifying process over two seasons.

Keep with what we have got a Four Nations with a possible new team every year. We have played the 4 Nations now year on year with France, PNG and Wales making up the 4th. Granted none have ever won a game but give them chance to grow. Wales could of done a hell of a lot worse on Saturday if it was say 2009.

Saying that, I'd love America in a few years down the line to become involved.

regularity is how rivalries develop.

I agree that we get a fair bit of overkill, its something i think the 4 nations suffers from at the moment. Which is why I would want to see it move to every two years, one in each hemisphere every 4 years. With the world cup and a tour inbetween. I think that would give us a fair bit of variation.

But we would still lack the bread and butter of international competition. In football they get it through qualification tournaments, in RU the 6 nations and a 5 nations tournament would do that.

Its very very difficult for the general public to build up affiliation and recognition for a team and players who play only 3 or 4 competitive games every year. We need to be playing 7-10 games a year so people get to know who the players are and build up the affiliation with the team (and to build up rivalries with other teams)

Agree with what you're saying here, but just need to clarify by what you mean by a 5 Nations tournament. Do you mean a mid-season tournament between Eng, Ire, Sco, Wal and Fra? Because I don't think regular stuffings against Scotland and Ireland would be good at this stage.

Well wouldn't that be overkill?

You called the 8 Nations idea ridiculous by trying to say that it would be an annual WC, though I never said it should be a yearly tournament...

Anyway, it is at least a way to ensure the second-tier nations are getting more exposure to the top nations so that they too can improve by the next WC. Having only a select 4 Nations every year then closing the door on the rest is like helping the rich get richer and making sure the poor get poorer...

No

We should be looking at something like:

Year 1: European Cup and Pacific Cup, England tour of Southern Hemisphere/Australia test series/whatever
Year 2: 5 Nations with winners of European and Pacific Cup, rest of teams begin WC qualifying
Year 3: WC Qualifying concludes. Possible test series between England/NZ/France/any other nations that are want to play, pretty much what will be happening next year
Year 4: World Cup

Repeating the same competitions on a four-yearly basis doesn't mean overkill, football has been doing that for 50 years.

Pretty similar to what I said then.

I don't like the sporadic year 3 though. There's no structure to it.

What about:

Year 1: Series between England, Australia and New Zealand in England (Australia also play half of the other nations, New Zealand the other half), European Cup and Pacific Cup also for other nations.
Year 2: 5 Nations, winners of Pacific Cup and European Cup, WC Qualifiers for other nations to give other nine slots for world cup.
Year 3: Series between England, Australia and New Zealand in Australia, (England play half nations, New Zealand half)
Year 4: World Cup

and then year 1 it goes to New Zealand and Australia and England play half the nations etc. Just an idea

Yeah, i do.

But I also think that having a GB touring/four nations side, will encourage more players to play for, and stick with the home nations which would narrow the gap. Of course England will dominate to start with, but its also an opportunity for experimenting for the England squad, so i doubt the coach would learn a great deal from playing his best 17 every week, again narrowing the gap.

You could make it the 500 Nations, Aussie or Kiwi would still win it.

Thanks for your contribution

The one thing that Mr Lewis and Mr Wood have got spot on is the revision of the International calendar , until we have more competitive 4 nations competitions , it should not change , it is fine as it is , it is a genuine competition with other genuine competitions feed it

No problem. Just stating the obvious.

If it were to happen, which I think could be feasible - but only as a 2 group tier system - then I'm not sure why Wales or France are both deserving of a place.

I fancy both PNG and Samoa should have position, with either Wales or France losing out. Both have demonstrated to be far more competitive against the big boys, where Wales and France have never asked any questions of anybody.