Not with crowds like this.

Scotland 22-51 New Zealand 67,144
England 54-12 Fiji 82,000
France 33-6 Australia 80,000

Not to mention the close games that also had big crowds

Ireland 12 - 16 South Africa
Italy 28 - 23 Tonga
Wales 12 - 26 Argentina

Meanwhile in RL

4,014
8,963
7,921

Let's not play a Northern Hemisphere Three Nations again until there is a least one more French club in Super League (i.e. Toulouse) and one Welsh club from South Wales in Super League (Wrexham is a backwater even for Wales)..

Also, let's hold the pool matches in bigger stadia, like KC, John Smith's and DW Stadium, in England, Stade Ernest Wallon in France, with the final at Old Trafford or Wembley. Nigel Wood suppresses attendances by holding matches in geographically remote and tiny stadia.

Until we can satisfy the professionalism criteria of having more French clubs and at least one Welsh club in Super League, and until we can at least half fill the above mentioned stadia for the relevant matches (including 40,000-45,000 for the Final) then the whole series is a great embarassment to our game, and a source of mirth for journalists and rugby union fans alike.

I've always been a keen advocate of getting big RL fixtures onto free-to-air TV, but I wish the BBC hadn't had the rights to this tournament.

Aside from personally seeing the opening game in Lens as a success because of the size of the crowd in a non-RL area, even that didn't look great from the point of view of the casual viewer because the stadium was far too big for the size of the crowd, and then the quality of the grounds of the other two group games just made the games look amateurish.

Tonight's game was obviously a better venue, but the positioning of the cameras meant that viewers were looking out over three tiny stands, one of which was only 1/3 full despite all of this week's claims that the game was practically sold out (all week terrace tickets were showing online as unavailable so this was particularly disappointing).

As far as the entertainment value goes, this is probably the dullest rugby league tournament I've ever seen. So sad, because I really want this sport to succeed and took a friend from Northern Ireland to his first ever game tonight, but trying to make out that this is an elite even in the sport's calendar was an impossible task because it was such a non-event.

I think the best thing we can do with years like this when there isn't an option of an Aussie or Kiwi tour is to play these games at the biggest grounds possible but actually make it part of Super League/CC clubs' season tickets - every fan gets one free ticket to the game of their choice, first come, first served, and tickets can still be purchased for those who don't qualify for a freebie.

Rather than selling tickets at £6 each like most of tonight's tickets will have been on the BOGOF offer, playing the games at somewhere like the Reebok Stadium or Elland Road (or maybe somewhere slightly more unusual around the fringe of the heartlands like Bramall Lane or Goodison Park if they can be secured at the right price) would make the perceived value of the event higher to the recipient, and could justify charging £15-£20 because people will be more attracted to a big event.

Playing at more reputable venues will then make the sport look more prestigious to casual observers.

As one friend has pointed out to me today though, at least a big positive from this tournament is that to those flicking through the channels without a particular interest in the game, they will have at least seen England totally dominating and may give the team greater stock ahead of the World Cup. We live in hope!

That's because the RL fans are too busy sat at home talking about how bad the crowds are.

But unfortunatly what most of us expected did happen, a lacklustre competition with a predictable outcome, just the way it is

1. 372,000+ witnessed 6 friendly Union games over the weekend at an average of 62,000 a game.
2. Italy v Tonga, that's IRB ranked 11 & 12, attracted 20,036 in Rome....12k more than the RL final.
3. Argentina Scalped Wales, Ireland nearly got SA and Italy Tonga was another close game.....England were expected to spank Fiji, as were the AB's the Scots.....the only surprise result was the wannabees getting spanked....but then again, France were RWC 11 Finalists.
4. Why do RL fans feel the need to compare international League to International Union? All it does is make international League look worse than ever.....32,526 watched the 4 games of League this autumn...less than half of the crowd in Scotland on Sunday.


You may think NH Union is average, but saying so doesn't make intenational RL any less of a basket case.

Rugby League fans are pathetic. They take absolute delight in attacking what has always been a smaller part of our sport, one which was even smaller in the so-called Golden Era to which they continually hark back.

Rugby Union international crowds have nothing at all to do with Rugby League ones.

Biggest enemy to the sport.

Off the field it was a success. Except for the England vs Wales game, all games were well attended.

On the field it was predictable. But in order for us to improve we need better local competition. To get better local competition we have to play them so they can improve. So we should probably do this more often.

Given my negative feelings before it all started, I feel now that it went as well as it could have.

Looking forward we need Wales to have at least 20 full time pros to have a chance to improve. So something needs to be done to make this happen. Hopefully it will carry on in none WC years. Maybe with the Knights when we have games with NZ/Aus.

I would also have an extra team so we can have 2 games a weekend. Maybe the winner of the second tier competition could qualify for it.

Super League fans are even worse.


I must have imagined attendances of 54569, 73631 and 57034 at Wembley... and attendances of 50583, 46615 and 43930 at Old Trafford... all less than 10 years before Super League appeared on the scene and screwed the international game. Not a single international attendance in the UK during the Sooper Dooper League era has matched any of those above.


You mean Rugby Union scorelines have nothing at all to do with Rugby League one's surely? Oh, I forgot... that doesn't suit your agenda does it?

It's clear the sport is dying. The only option is to move back to winter IMO.

Correct.
Pre-Super League World Cup (1995) - Total attendance 265609 from 15 games, average attendance 17707.
Post-Super League World Cup (2000) - Total attendance 263921 from 31 games, average attendance 8513.


You won't have long to wait. It's called February and March, though I appreciate that the primary function of Super League is to provide a schedule filler for Sky Sports during the soccer and union off-season. It knows it's place in the sporting hierarchy.

How on earth does soccer and union cope playing throughout the whole of winter? Tough buggers, eh? Players and fans alike. They must be mad!

The drop in attendence more likely to do with ppl being more spoilt for choice nowadays. Check out viewing figures for some of the rubbish on BBC and ITV during the late 80's, early 90's. They got much better viewing figures than today, now was that because of the programs being better or lack of channels to choose from.

The reason International RL isn't popular is because it only has 3 proper teams, that it was more popular in the 70's and 80's says more about the simplicity of the times than the sport in general. Comparing attendences from then and now is a weak and sloppy way to form your view but I've come to expect that of you.

Everything old = good, Everything new = bad....the sooner the likes of you disappear from RL the better, contrary to your expected claims that the sport NEEDS your like to tell us what is wrong. Its negative views like yours that stop people viewing before they've even watched because they hear how "rubbish" the game is from 'fans' who claim to love it. Contrary to what you like to think YOUR OPINION ISN'T IMPORTANT to the overall game, even though you'd love it to be for the sole reason that you can say "I was right all along". That you and many others think doing things 'how they use to be' is the way to go is only a sad reflection on how stuck in the past you are and how you are a glass half empty man, i feel sorry that this way of thinking will be how your entire life goes.

Just to add to the list of moans.
The commentary and "expert" comment on the BBC was absolutely shocking.
People moan about Eddie & Stevo but they are a far better listen than yesterday, even if Stevo has his moments.
When you compare this to the Union coverage, it makes our game look very poor indeed and this is after making allowances for the"raw material"
that they are working with.

too true

The international game is in a trough. A World Cup win would almost certainly be the most effective way for England to drag themselves out of it. I doubt the value of the current series will be known until next autumn but should we win then I'd regard the current series as a worthwhile venture.

The crowds reflect where we are right now. No point trying to disguise it or wish the BBC hadn't shown the series. No amount of marketing will sell the international game (or more accurately England) until we can post a creditable series win.

No doom and gloom intended, I believe this will happen. I spent yesterday evening leafing through the Rothman's Yearbook from 1976, the year I started watching the game. Back then, the average first division crowd was fractionally over 2k. Some things can change for the better.

Yep, be gone you antiquated old sod.

This ship is sailing to a bright new world & the last thing it needs is old school whinges constantly harping back to a rose tinted era.

Just let go & leave it to the new breed.

The tourney gave England a chance to get some game time together and gave the likes of Watkins, Hill, Charnley and Hardaker some time with the England squad. It was never going to be much of a contest, with only one profesional club outside England in the northern hemisphere it was always going to be (and will continue to be) difficult for Wales and France to compete. Hopefully they'll have a larger pool of players to pick from for the world cup. We're just going to have to accept that at this point in time that France and Wales are long way competing with the top 3, but to stop playing them would be a mistake, I don't see how playing less international matches is going to improve things.

From a performance POV England's defence was structured, with good line speed and technique around the ruck. The attack was hot and miss at times but with so many players to come into the side I'm not too concerned at the moment.

As far as the selction goes I think Tomkins is the obvious selection at FB, I still have doubts about his positioning and ability to defend kicks but he's easily the best option we have at the moment. The wingers will probably be Hall and one of Charnley/Briscoe. Both have strengths and weaknesses to their game and there isn't much to choose between. I hope Broughton can improve and play himself into contention to give us more competition on the flanks.
The centres IMO will be Watkins and Reed, Watkins is easily the most complete centre we've got and if he can stay clear of injuries will be a shoe in for selection. I think Reed will be the left centre, I think Cudjoe has done alright but I'm not sure he's done enough to displace Reed.
I think the halves will be Sinfield, and Chase Widdop or Myler. Myler and Chase haven't really made the spot theirs so this is biggest selection decsion McNamara will have to make.

I think the series was good. The fact that England won is irrelevant. The margins of victory against France was less than we've been beat by Australia a few times in recent years. France will get better the more chances they have to play.

So far as England are concerned, we learned that we have better potential in the three quarters than we have had in a short while. Just concerned how they may cope defensively against Australia in particular. I think we've learned that we still don't have any half-backs (at least the way the coach seemd to be thinking). Sinfield is a great player but not a half-back to frighten the big teams. Chase and Myler remain a long way short of international level, in my humble opinion (based on their performances for England to date)I think we've learned that barring an injury crisis, Hock will not start against Oz or NZ, although I think he may be in the squad and play against the weaker opposition. I'd love it if Tomkins could play stand off with the Leeds lad at Full Back.

with graham, sam burgess, westwood, roby and crabtree to come back in alongside ellis, hock, o'loughlin and hill, i think we have the pack to match anyone. in hall, charnley and briscoe we have 3 international wingers imo, and jones bishop, riley and dixon are waiting in the wings, so were ok on the wing, the emergance of watkins is a breath of fresh air, and with atkins, yeaman and reed, we seem to be getting a little competiton for places in the centre's, and young evans at warrington can hopefully fullfil is potential and put his name in the frame. tomkins and hardaker are both capable exiting fullbacks, so that just leave's the half back's and this is where we are weak, i don't know the best halfback combination we could pick, probably because we don't have any of note, one thing's for sure though, i would rather lose with ritchie myler or danny brough playing than win with rangi chase playing.

john bateman would be my darkhorse to make the world cup squad, but the main aim is find a half back pairing, where that come's from? dont ask me.

My two penneth

Overall, this series was what it was always going to be. On the field an England win with the opportunity for McNamara to get his squad together for a decent length of time and find some confidence by getting a few wins and running in some tries (I also thought they were pretty determined in defence on Saturday for a game they were always going to win so clearly he is injecting a bit of pride in the shirt). Off the field, it was a chance to get international League in the media and make as many references to next year’s world cup as possible

In both cases, pretty much job done

On the selection front:

Full back jersey is Tomkins barring injury and despite a few defensive weakness is a real threat with the ball. Hardaker is improving quickly and is a very capable backup

Agree with many that we have the best options on the wing than we have had for years – probably since the Offiah/Robinson days. Hall is nailed on and I still prefer Briscoe to Charnley as he brings the ball away from his own 22 stronger against better defences and that’s going to be key against the big guns. Having said that, I would have no problem with Charnley in the team as he is a very good winger

For me, Watkins has sealed the right centre spot – again some defensive weaknesses to work on but if we are to win the big games, he has attacking game to turn matches. Cudjoe probably didn’t do enough to hold onto his spot with competition from Atkins and Reed and I would go with Reed for his all round game

We may as well stop debating the Sinfield role – he has just played the last three international games as captain and half back and we have also played our last international game before the World Cup starts. Like it or not, he will be the first half back on the team sheet. With Sinfield at 6, the question is who else in the halves – I thought Myler played well and didn’t deserve to be dropped for the final but clearly McNamara sees Chase as a man to add something extra to the team. I am not sure and didn’t think he has a great game on Sunday – pickig a team today, I would go with Myler but I do think that a year from now Lomax will be in with a shout as he is developing a very good all round game. Brough blows too hot and cold for me, on his day he is great but that day is not often enough

Widdop would be in the team at stand off if Sinfield were not there but I am not sure if they are suited to play together. Widdop would be in the squad no doubt

In the front row, I would go with Hill, Graham, Burgess and one other in the 17. At the moment, that is probably Mossop but Crabtree has never let anybody down in an England jersey and a year from now I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see George Burgess pushing for a full England spot if he gets some decent NRL game time as I expect. Morley should be around the squad but I don’t think he is right for the 17 now

Can’t look past Roby for the hooking role and I would have Burrow on the bench over McIlorum

Ellis and Westwood for the second row – Hock can be devastating on his day but (like McIlorum) he is liable to give away too many stupid penalties. Perhaps the same can be said for Westwood but I think he adds more to the team than the other two. I thought that Jones-Buchanan was very good this series but he lacks size to be effective against Australia and New Zealand, same for Jon Wilkin and Liam Farrell

Once again, O’Loughlin has played well in an England shirt and with Sinfield in the halves he is a lock in for loose forward

Ablett gets some bad press on these boards but his versatility could warrant a bench spot (another option could be Widdop)

So, I would go for

Tomkins
Briscoe (Charnley)
Watkins
Reed
Hall
Sinfield
Myler (Lomax)
Graham
Roby
S. Burgess
Westwood
Ellis
O’Loughlin

Hill
G. Burgess
Burrow
Ablett/Widdop


And finally... a successful World Cup with an England win would be the best thing to happen to our sport for the last 40 years and do wonders for the profile of the sport. Any RL administrator or fan, regardless of club or political bias, should do everything they can to make this happen

Pretty much agree with all of that word for word. Really frustrating regarding the half back role. I believe we have an international 6 in Widdop, but Mcnamara seems to have decided Sinfield is to have that shirt which weakens our attacking threat IMHO.

I've said it all along, Sinfield should be in the squad, doing the organsing and kicking, but from 13. Don't buy the argument he's not big enough, he's one of the best defenders in the game.

Sinfield plays 7 and more to the right (whatever is on his back), Widdop plays 6 and is on the left. I'm liable to change my mind all the time but that seems like the best combo for me atm.

NO IT IS NOT - YOU ARE WRONG

The last 6 nations was gash.