Great article in the roar written last week (see below). International RL can be improved in many ways but the easiest and quickest way to improve the game is for England to win something. This year with Australia sporting a weaker team has to be the year (If not now then when else?)... Obviously if we were to win then the Aussies will have the perfect excuse....but what will they say when we don't? www.theroar.com.au/2014/10/13/ma ... by-league/

Great article in the roar written last week (see below). International RL can be improved in many ways but the easiest and quickest way to improve the game is for England to win something. This year with Australia sporting a weaker team has to be the year (If not now then when else?)... Obviously if we were to win then the Aussies will have the perfect excuse....but what will they say when we don't? www.theroar.com.au/2014/10/13/ma ... by-league/

Quote ="jamesthepratt"Great article in the roar written last week (see below). International RL can be improved in many ways but the easiest and quickest way to improve the game is for England to win something. This year with Australia sporting a weaker team has to be the year (If not now then when else?)... Obviously if we were to win then the Aussies will have the perfect excuse....but what will they say when we don't? www.theroar.com.au/2014/10/13/ma ... by-league/'" That article was written by Steven Mascord, who along with Andrew Voss is one of the main journalistic proponents of international rugby league. There is little to disagree with in the article.

Quote ="jamesthepratt"Great article in the roar written last week (see below). International RL can be improved in many ways but the easiest and quickest way to improve the game is for England to win something. This year with Australia sporting a weaker team has to be the year (If not now then when else?)... Obviously if we were to win then the Aussies will have the perfect excuse....but what will they say when we don't? www.theroar.com.au/2014/10/13/ma ... by-league/'" That article was written by Steven Mascord, who along with Andrew Voss is one of the main journalistic proponents of international rugby league. There is little to disagree with in the article.

Saying we must win, because Australia are weaker, pretty much ignores the fact that New Zealand are a strong side with potential to win even against a full strength Aussie side and Samoa who although unlikely to win the whole thing, are capable of causing a team trouble.
On top of that, saving the international game, isn't just about England. Why can't New Zealand or Samoa winning help the international game?

Add to that the loss of some of our best players, in Sam Burgess long term and O'Loughlin, Roby and others short term.
It isn't an all or nothing tournament, just like the others before. Would be a benefit to win, but it's not an all or nothing.

NZ have won the World Cup recently and the 4N. The problem is that even NZ aren't REGULARLY competitive with Australia. For every win/narrow loss there's a blowout - particularly in the mid season tests. In fact if RL Project's records are correct NZ hasn't beaten Australia at all since 2010 (is that right??).

As for England in Australia, the last win was 8 years ago in a 3N game where the result didn't matter, and the results around that game particularly in Australia have been awful (I've been unlucky enough to sit through 2 hammerings in Brisbane since 1999).

I don't think Mascord's saying its great that Australia are weaker, just that a win for England in particular would give the international game a real boost, but that what would really do it is for both England and NZ to beat Australia more than once in a blue moon.

The other issues he raises, about eligibility and trying to get players to represent other countries is also true, but until England and NZ compete really doesn't matter that much either. Origin eligibility rules would get changed only if the international game regained its place at the pinnacle of the sport. Attempts to strengthen second tier nations are irrlevant until England and NZ genuinely challenge Australia.

Agree with most of that except I don't think it's irrelevant to improve 2nd tier nations. I think it's vital. Part of the reason international RL isn't as important as it should be is that there are only 3 top tier teams. In Union England could get beaten by Australia, NZ, SA, Wales, France, Ireland and on a really good/bad day Scotland or even Italy.

In League there's only Australia and NZ. So we only get to play a competitive team when the NRL can be bothered to. If France & Wales were competitive we could play them every year and that would raise both attendances and media interest significantly, almost regardless of whether we can beat Australia or not.

International rugby Union proves that the standard isn't that important, it's competitive games against rival nations that captures people's and the medias attention.

...unless the 4 Nations is actually 3 Nations and 2 Samoans. Then it shows how desperate the game really is.

Scotland or Ireland winning this years European Tournament will underline this when the next 4 nations is again 3 Nations and a couple of tokens.

What is needed is investment (time as well as money) in these countries domestic competitions......"event" games like RLWC/4 Nations do little for the sport "back home" but they make Fat Nigel feel all warm and fluffy, so that's OK

Well the Fijian performances in RLWC have certainly helped the domestic game and raised the profile in that country so it can work if backed up with action on the ground in relevant country.

As for "saving" Int RL. I wasnt aware it was in danger? We have been losing to Australia for nearly 35 years, and yet people still enjoy watching test match RL. Go figure! NZ winning the RLWC hardly helped the NZRL, they are still skint and living hand to mouth year on year reliant on income from test matches.

Personally I loved watching scotland etc in the RLWC, some of the most enjoyable games featured those types of teams for me. Did it change the worlds sporting landscape? of course not but it was bloody good fun to watch RL played by these players who had pride in the country they were representing.

Never mind international RL, what do we have to do to SAVE ourselves from apocalyptic sensationalist posts every season?

Hello Michael,

After six seasons of licensed Super League garbage (2009 to 2014) my half empty glass is slowly beginning to show signs of being half full in anticipation of next season



I did tell you way back that 14 teams and a top 8 play-off format wouldn't work. Not enough money in the game and not nearly enough players of requisite quality for it to work. Playing standards collapsed accordingly. You were having none of it of course.

I think most of us preferred a 12 team competition to 14 teams bud. Doesn't take anything away from the quality i.e. I'm sure several players from Leeds' recent heroic sides would have been able to acquit themselves well in the NRL. We've seen what can happen when players get better coaching by the achievements of nearly every player who has gone down there. There are a few exceptions but those were, generally, players who weren't that special in Super League anyway.

I agree that improving the 2nd tier nations has to be the priority, if we can get the likes of France, Wales, Scotland, PNG, Samoa & Fiji to give the big 3 a game we instantly have a much better World Cup and 4 Nations tournaments.

I think the move to a more regular schedule of tournaments is a big step in the right direction though, the European nations at least seem to be playing most of the teams they fielded at the World Cup and the prize of winning a 4 Nations place gives something to play for.

As for the 4Nations, I think the injuries to England & Australia, and New Zealand being at home for their games with England and the Final if they get there should make it a very level playing field. Especially if Samoa pull off a shock against one of the big 3.