Yes. And it only came after something like 8 minutes of injury time.

Those who forget that Test series can only be doing it out of convenience for their own argument.

It was a classic trio of matches.

The Aussies knew they'd almost met their match. It was the same a couple of years later at Wembley in the World Club Final, when only Steve Renouf (and referee Dennis Hale) were the difference between the two teams.

How those days seem to have flown.

Edited for accuracy



PS

I seem to remember there being 60/70k + at Wembley, and then 50k at O/T with 40k+ at Elland road?

We didn't do too bad in 92 & 94 & the 95 World cup were we pushed the Aussies close in the series and then close in the World cup (Beating them once and narrowly losing in the 2 x World cup finals).
All in front of pretty Healthy crowds of 40k plus arenas and 70k crowds at Wembley for the WC Finals?
I also seem to remember 35k against Fiji at Central Park in a very profitable World Cup?

But I guess none of the above will fit in with the "Everything is rosey in the Garden Brigade?"

The stadium (Wembley) set the international record crowd for a rugby league game when 73,631 fans turned out for the 1992 Rugby League World Cup Final between Great Britain and Australia.

Still, we had better not let the truth get in the way of the "head in sand brigade" had we?

If the codes did eventually merge RL would get swallowed up big time.
If RL is not careful one day there will be one code of rugby,and guess which one it is.

It was the 2nd test at OT with GB 1-0 up. We were drawing at the time, Maninga scored and we got gubbed in the 3rd at Elland Rd.

You can have that one - it helped to set off the 5,250 and 4,193 that attended GB's last two home qualifiers before the final.

I see that lots pf people's memories are rather misty about events relating to test series. It took Wigan / Leeds Andy to actually post the truth of that series - the Aussies won the last game 14 - 0 in front of a crowd that was less than 5% more than attended the 2009 game between the same teams at the same ground; hardly earth shattering difference in attendance.

I see nobody has cared to comment upon the sub- 10,000 attendance for an Ashes game at Wembley - any thoughts on that?

Yep. It all comes back to me now!

Don't recall the 1973 game (too young) and don't have any stats to hand. If you're choice of that game is as selective as your choice of the dead season prior to SL (I thought something was up with your figures, even the most ardent Wigan fan wouldn't suggest Saints supporter base was really that low in the 90s!!) then I'm sure there's some other explanation.

I don't think thought that anyone doubts that certainly from the mid 70s through to the mid 80s the game was in a poor state in this country.

From the late 80s onwards with the emergence of Wigan (and Widnes to be fair, everyone forgets just what a class side they were) the game was dragged into the modern era, a number of clubs (not just Wigan!) went fully professional and the game kicked on to a level where we could challenge the Aussies without fear of embarassment.

The head in the sand/flat earth brigade would be happy to see us return to being a third rate sport with semi-pro sides. In the 70s and 80s with less competition from other sports and leisure activities RL could just about survive. It won't be able to do so in a 21st century world. We will be lucky to sustain a French style competition. Quote random selective facts all you want but the issue you can't get away from is the inability for RL clubs to keep pace with wage inflation. If this continues the future of professional RL is bleak.

Finally, I am amused by your argument that an SC would have stopped Halifax from having financial problems. Just like the SC stopped the GatesHull fiasco, or London's financial difficulties, or the financial problems at Bradford, or Sheffield Eagles' demise, or the repeated crises at London, or the recent Crusaders mess, or Wakefield's problems.... I can't believe you have suggested that the SC is a means of stopping clubs going bust. It is an utter failure as a financial control measure!

To be fair, in that game at Wigan last year, there was LOADS of tickets given away. At the grand final we were asked to enter a 'competition' to win tickets to one of the England matches, and I'm pretty sure everyone that entered won. As I went with 3 other people, and every one of us won 2 tickets to England v Australia at Wigan...

what's this???????

Rugby Union soon to be the only Rugby?????????

Just after Loughlin scored the try to get us level I was planning the biggest night out in history - then Eastwood missed his easiest kick of the day and the rest is history.

Why are people commenting on RL today v RL of yester year? There are too many factors to consider with the state of society etc which makes the two issues irrelevant.

Regardless of an improvement or drop the issue of where RL stands TODAY in comparison to RU is the main issue. I watched Boot and All this week to hear a discussion of the development of RL against RU, the international game was pin-pointed as a major issue-something I agree with.

This however is harder to correct, because we are discussing worldwide development in our sport, otherwise even if we developed a quality English team, England v Ireland would still be a farce as the Irish team is no match!

The impact of this is even more of an issue when we see English players playing for Ireland only to defect from the team to join English in preparation for the WC!

What a royal mess.

I have only one more comment to add on this. That which states it's more expensive to build and run a modern stadium.

This has been proven to not be the case. The cost of maintaining Wilderspool and keeping it safe enough for people to go there every other weekend without the corrugated steel falling on them were crippling the Warrington club. Also the state of the ground meant it simply wasn't an attractive prospect to sell hospitality packages (like it or not, prawn sandwich bridgade people are an important revenue stream) to people with more money than the average punter. It's for those same reasons that Wigan moved out of Central Park, why Huddersfield are now in the Galpharm, why Widnes redevloped Naughton park, why Halifax were attempting to do the same before financially things went awry, why Saints are moving to a new stadium, and the same for Salford too (apologies to people who's clubs I've missed out of the list).

This has nothing to do with "putting more importance on the fans than on the players", and absolutely everything to do with trying to make the sport and it's surroundings better equiped, cheaper to maintain year-on-year than a crumbling falling down old cow shed, and a more attractive place to visit for businesses on both match-days AND other days (renting conference suites, etc).

Every expanding business makes sure its foundations are strong before attacking new opportunities which are high risk.
The RFL strategy is to look for the two in the bush before considering the one in the hand.
The advent of franchising has only impacted on a few clubs, namely Widnes, Fax and Leigh. Less so on Fev, Haven and Oldham.
The stadia at Widnes, Fax and Leigh are better than many in SL. The pool of players is bigger than many, but fans want to see their team at the highest level denying them the right to win that will kill the clubs.
SL needs 2 divisions of 10 FT clubs. It makes all games competitive, expands the player pool, creates an achievable goal for ambitious clubs not in the 20 and allows expansion in France where we have a player pool and history.
Let the RFL continue to develop the grassroots in London/SEast/Wales etc and when they develop semi pro they have foundations in place for SL.

Saints attendance in the "selective choice of the dead season" of 1995/96 was 7,144 whilst the previous season of 1994/95 it was 7,467, the one before 1993/94 it was 7,265 even in your supposed Halycon period of 1990 it was 7,391.

So what is this some other explanation for the crowd of 9,874 for the GB v Aus game at Wembley that you are referring to?

Looks like these "most ardent Wigan fan" may have to re-assess their views, although this does explain why a lot of Saints fans don't seem to realise rugby league existed prior to Super League - its because they never use to watch Saints in those days.

I note you haven't responded at all to the points I made about Halifax and the failure of the SC to ensure financial stability and the point about the inability of RL clubs to match wage inflation and the inevitable long term consequences of that.

But I won't duck your points. If you're right about Saints figures (any scousers want to confirm whether your crowd figures were just bad or were as truly awful as Paul is suggesting?) then certainly in Saints case and in that of many other clubs there wasn't a golden age (though the international scene was much healthier). To be honest I don't remember it as a golden age, its more about the fact that other sports - football and RU have kicked on from the early 90s and we haven't and now seem to be going backwards. Yes the crowds are reasonably healthy these days but finances aren't and our ability to attract and retain top players is under threat and there's a serious question mark over the long term future of the game.

I'd ask Paul T, who queried my point about the costs of building and running modern stadia, if I'm wrong about that, if old stadia really are cheaper then where is the money going from the increased crowds that Paul Y is talking about? Ticket prices have certainly increased at least in line with inflation yet clubs are still going bust and revenue doesn't seem to be going up (Wigan's is barely £5m although this is a bit artificial as lots of revenue is effectively diverted to the stadium company which in return charges the rugby club very little for arguably the best ground in the SL). It's certainly a conundrum!

I should also say Paul Y that I don't know the circumstances of the 1973 game, which is getting on for 40 years ago. I do know that crowds in the early 90s for internationals were much healthier than they are now, the world cup held here then was a real success in financial and crowd attendance terms, whereas England are now a laughing stock frankly at international level and the interest from fans is accordingly low.

Does any one think that the BBC's decision to move to Media City in Salford quays will have a benefit to the profile of our game in the long run. With the sports dept now being relocated up here hopefully it will have easier access to our star players

Only if they hire their staff from the local area. If the existing staff relocate to Manchester from London then little will change as the same attitudes will be prevelant.

One of the football fans who works in my office (60+ year old lady) made a comment to me yesterday: "I was listening to the radio the other day and I noticed that they always feature Rugby League news last - it feels like they'd promote a game of tiddly winks before they'd talk about your lot".

It's definitely a conundrum and one that none of us on here (on either side of the argument) are likely to have a 100% accurate answer to, given that we do not have (I'm assuming) access to all of the reported accounts for all RL clus over the past 20+ years.

I would say though that a newer stadium with increased revenues can only help the situation, all of the clubs who have or are about to move stadiums have made very clear that the cost of maintaining their old grounds were/are crippling them - that does not necessarily mean that a new stadium will be a magic bullet and turn them in to a profitable company, it does however imply that they should, at the very least, stop haemorrhaging money on maintaining and keeping safe an old, decaying ground. So in short, it's perfectly possible for a club to still lose money in better facilities, but just not as much as it had been in a crumbling old wreck that nobody wanted to go to.

If the clubs concerned aren't paying finance costs or high lease costs for the ground, then I agree the clubs' position should be a lot healthier. It doesn't seem to be though, which suggests that the financial mismanagement at a lot of clubs may be even more severe than is generally known.

The fact remains that lots of clubs are still losing money despite the low level of the SC. (This isn't an argument for keeping the SC at a low level, by the way, it's proof that clubs need to sort out their finances). If you have 10k fans paying £12 a ticket going to 15 home games then that alone covers the SC (£1.8m), even before Sky money, merchandising, sponsorship, matchday sales etc. Something seems to me to be going badly awry.

I understand there are smoke and mirrors in the case of Wigan in that the club doesn't get lots of revenue streams it would normally do because they go to the stadium company but in return gets to pay a low rent for a great stadium, which is why the revenue seems very low for such a big club, but that doesn't explain the position of lots of other clubs. Apparently most clubs can't pay any more than the SC level, which has been frozen for over a decade. It's not a good situation at all!

As someone was asking you can get most of the attendances from [url=http://www.saints.org.ukhere[/url including Saints away games. Overall Saints attendances tend to follow the same postwar pattern i.e. boom after the war, decline from the late 60s through to about 84-88 when there's a general increase depending upon against whom we're playing. If you look at Wire and Leeds games there's been a general increase since the late 80s for Saints with a slight decline for our games against you until Super League when there's been a slight increase.

It's in the other lesser fixtures though e.g. Wakefield where there are noticeable differences. The only times pre-SL that we had big crowds v Wakefield is in year's when we were near the top of the table in 88 (think we had an unbeaten start to the season that year or something similar) and 92 (Central Park Deadlock Year). Our lowest SL attendance for Wakefield is 6,746 which is still higher than 16 out of the previous 24 pre-SL. In fact, the average SL attendance against Wakefield is higher than all but one Wakefield game pre-SL since 1967. The one game that is higher was the year of the Central Park Deadlock.

Of course not all teams are the same i.e. Cas is a bit more up and down and Bradford soared from steady 6-7k pre-SL to 10k+ (only to slip back again). Where we've gained is by having less Cumbrian clubs who either didn't bring much support or failed to attract more local support than normal to Saints.

Overall there's been an upward trend since the glory years of the short-term imports (mid-80s) with a slight drop off in the couple of years pre-SL before a steady upward trend again. I expect with the new ground that there will be an upward trend again as most other clubs have experienced similar.

I'm honestly shocked we make the national news, such is the bias - and yes we're always last.

We can't raise the cap because we don't have the money people say, what's to say we can't get 3rd party sponsorship deals excluded from the cap but cannot exede a certain amount?

Another way would be to get rid of Harlequins and Wakefield and replace them with Widnes and Halifax, the novelty of playing with the big boys would bump their home crowds up and bump others up when they travel to away games. One in Lancs and one in Yorks to help with this, clubs would prosper and a rise in the cap would be attainable.

One thing to do would be let each club have a certain ammount outside of the cap (Say £50,000 a year for arguements sake) which they could use only if they wanted and if they could afford it whereby they could snare Union players/French/Southern players to trial them. Say for instance, Crusaders could have a major financial backer and want to sign Gavin Henson to build the profile of the club in Wales but is reluctant to use a big part of the cap on a gamble so the cap is holding the sport back, if they had in place what I proposed he could have some counted on the cap and the extra £50,000 a year to subsidise his wages. RL gets a ready made celeb/star in Wales and generates more publicity in Wales for RL, everyones a winner baby! You heard it here first.

Gareth Thomas had a higher profile then orange man and it didnt work