Why not?

What's the argument for not?

Lack of money in the sport, funding from sport England for the England brand. Aussies don't like international matches. The rfl/sl also don't appear to like international matches.

Clubs don't want their best players playing extra games in the off-season.

Just a few to Start off

That's it basically, nothing more needs adding.

So all those years that the Ashes tours were going ahead, there was lots of money? What happened to it?

The Austrailian players want international matches and they love touring. I've heard that from the players themselves.

The clubs lose their best players to injury anyway and there's still international matches that do happen where they could lose players to injury. Plus the disciplinary board chomps at the bit in anticipation to hand out bans to the top players.

The players might like them, but the clubs who have invested money in the players certainly don't.



The clubs don't like that either. But have all that, and then add on another half a dozen high intensity, and historically very aggressive, games which only increases the odds of these things happening but are also meaningless beyond bragging rights.

Since sports started to be operated as businesses, and players seen as assets, the clubs look at ways of minimising risks to protect their investments. Stopping meaningless tours, test matches, and exhibition games is one way of doing that.

It's disappointing from a spectators point of view, but that's professional sport.

Well that is enough for me to stop being an attending spectator. If it's disappointing for spectators, yet costing more money than when it wasn't disappointing, then you'd have to be mad or a mug to continue as a spectator.

A generation of players including Sam Bugess, Sam Tomkins, James Graham, Ryan Hall, Kallum Watkins, Tommy Makinson and John Bateman have never experienced a single victory over Australia. Mainly because they rarely get the opportunity. Andy Farrell played in five victories over Australia and he's only one generation before them. And that's why none of them can be classed in historical greatness. The only time the players get awarded in the honours list these days is for doing something off the field rather than on it.

With the emergance of the Pacific Island nations, I think we'll see a further decrease in international matches between England and the Southern hemisphere nations outside of world cups, and the Southern hemisphere nations will just have matches between themselves.

Think it will be the opposite myself.

Tonga, Samoa and NZ in a 4N will do nicely.

Leave the Aussies to play with themselves.

Jason Robinson's International career in Rugby league spanned six years. He played in 19 International matches.

Jason Robinson's International career in Rugby Union spanned six years. He played in 56 International matches.

Maybe the International game is the biggest reason why Lesgue plays second fiddle to Union?

Of course Robinson only got to play in one Ashes series, the home series in 1994. They then scrapped it. You can see why he moved to Union with those representative numbers.

The message being sent is that if you have any ambition in Rugby, then go to Union.

We played them in a series in 97 too, and 2001, and 2003.

We did. But the 97 series was a bit mediocre. It was the Super league test series that didn't take off. In 01 and 03 it wasn't a tour as such but it was a tough, competitive 3 game series (which is why it should exist) by then though, Robinson had seen the light and moved to Union to progress his career, as had the other star player, Harris.

Willie Mason speaks fondly of that 03 Ashes on James Graham's podcast. Great Britain didn't win a game, however I think it's the most competitive Ashes of my lifetime, and I saw 1990 and 1992. We were close to winning all three games, but didn't win any (i think we were infront going into the last five minutes of each test, one of them with twelve men from the off). And then the scraped it.

So why don't the rugby union clubs worry about their players playing in the International arena?

It's pretty much encouraged in the code that is winning the battle of codes.

Was a pretty under strength Aussie side IIRC.

Not sure what Robinson choosing to leave has to do with it, but you're right....the profile of the international game is what elevates them above us

How under strength was it? It had Lockyer, Minichiello, Gower, Kimmorley, Webcke, Buderus, Fitzgibbon, Civoniceva. That's pretty strong. We had Cunningham missing as well as Richard Horne on the wing. And Morley missing from the first tackle of the first test.

That's a good question, and one I don't know the answer to.

If I had to hazard a guess, it would be that the international calender is too established and steeped in tradition to disrupt. The Six Nations (formally Five Nations, and Home Nations before that) and the British Lions tours have been a part of Rugby Union for well over a hundred years, and the governing body want to keep them. The clubs probably have little say in the matter as the RFU have complete control.

RFL have already disbanded the Ashes, which ran infrequently anyway, and will struggle to revive it now.

I can remember the RL Ashes, the Tri-Nations, the Four Nations, and the War of the Roses. Its a pity they have gone, but clubs want to keep the players fit and available for the League and Challenge Cup games only these days.

Hopefully IMG look at the Union models and emulate them to some extent. But that would need co-operation with the the Australian, New Zealand, and other countries governing bodies. Who aren't really interested anymore. Anything closer to home wouldn't make sense - there isn't enough talented players outside of England - apart from the War of the Roses/County of Origin series, but that hardly grows the sport outside the M62 corridor due to the lack of interest from anyone else.

Well there's a start. A war of the roses series. If at the moment the only interest is in the M62 corridor, then give those interested people in the M62 corridor a representative competition.

The reason there is no interest in places like Scotland Wales and Ireland is because besides a World Cup every four years, there is no incentive for youngsters to have dreams of achieving.

An annual home nations championships would be a starting block, granted England would probably win it for the first 10 - 20 years, but in time the following generations pool of kids from those nations will improve as there will be an outlet to represent their nations at elite sport. Look how many World class players Scotland used to produce in Football when there was the annual home nations championships and the decline in that number to pretty much zero since its demise.

If I had it my way there would be an annual War of the roses series. An annual home nations championships (probably include France in that) There would be a World Cup every four years. An Ashes series every two years and the other year would have a four nations tournament with the top two of the Northern hemisphere and the top two of the Southern hemisphere.

Club rugby would take a back seat in having their star players available to them when the representative competitions are being played. That would give more players the opportunity and the platform to play Super league thus creating a bigger playing pool playing top rugby league whilst at the same time getting representative games where the best players take on the best players.

Or we can just go on the way we are and look forward to Bill Arthur calling a game between Warrington and Wigan again next season and the season after that and the season after that one?

Quote ="giddyupoldfella"How under strength was it? It had Lockyer, Minichiello, Gower, Kimmorley, Webcke, Buderus, Fitzgibbon, Civoniceva. That's pretty strong. We had Cunningham missing as well as Richard Horne on the wing. And Morley missing from the first tackle of the first test.'" https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/ ... ugbyleague

Quote ="giddyupoldfella"How under strength was it? It had Lockyer, Minichiello, Gower, Kimmorley, Webcke, Buderus, Fitzgibbon, Civoniceva. That's pretty strong. We had Cunningham missing as well as Richard Horne on the wing. And Morley missing from the first tackle of the first test.'" https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/ ... ugbyleague

After the disaster which was the last lions rebrand I am amazed anyone would call for that to come back.

Also the days of a kangaroo tour are well gone in the modern game. Not a chance the NRL would allow that and I genuinely don't think the players would sign up to it.

The players union in the NRL already complain about the amount of games there members play for what they get paid.

The traditional tours where they play club sides and invitational sides are definitely long gone, but no reason why we can't play them in a 3 test series every 2 years home and away. Surely it's good for both nations financially? I think we definitely get 25-30k crowds and maybe more at OT, Anfield or St James'

On a slightly separate note, Australia and NZ need to bring back the Anzac test.

I miss the tri-nations. Used be great having GB, NZ and Aus regularly playing. Throw in Tonga and Samoa you’d have a right international fixture list.

Was that the one where we didn't have a winger because Ash Handley apparently wasn't good enough to play on the wing but apparently Blake Austin was? I don't think a coach from the 1980s game was the right way to go for us in 2019.