Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

World Cup Interval

World Cup

  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 Southern Tiger

Southern Tiger
  • Coach
  • 457 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 03:18 PM

OK, this was new to me and something I hadn't previously considered but  might warrant some discussion. Considering that the World Cup is exclusively played in either the UK & France or Australia & NZ and there appears to be an appetite for the tournament in both locations, is there a fair argument to stage the tournament every 2 years alternating between the hemispheres therefore each hemisphere still has 4 years to prepare?


If you don't like Rugby League, you don't like Rugby

Posted Image

#2 dcc

dcc
  • Players
  • 87 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 03:36 PM

That's what makes the WC so special, the anticipation and the fact its not just another tournament.

 

The 4 nations is the 2 year tournament you want, so you get the best of both worlds



#3 Southern Tiger

Southern Tiger
  • Coach
  • 457 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 05:22 PM

No I actually want more international RL for all the nations and this format would ensure that the game could continue to grow rather than the present situation that fails continuously to build a sustainable international platform. Happy to go with the 4 nations in the non WC years though, I.e. every other year or alternatively use these for an expanded WCC event.
If you don't like Rugby League, you don't like Rugby

Posted Image

#4 bird

bird
  • Coach
  • 2,138 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 05:29 PM

Its been 2yrs, 3yrs,6yrs, 7yrs, 8yrs. After 60 odd years, someone clicked that 4yr is best one. Just keep it that way.



#5 Grollo

Grollo
  • Banned
  • 310 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 08:15 PM

Its been 2yrs, 3yrs,6yrs, 7yrs, 8yrs. After 60 odd years, someone clicked that 4yr is best one. Just keep it that way.

It took them long enough to realise we had a world cup.

We might get a settled tournament when sport is outlawed sometime later this century.


What you are aware of you are in control of; what you are not aware of is in control of you.

#6 Southern Tiger

Southern Tiger
  • Coach
  • 457 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 08:55 PM

RL needs more Int. Comp particularly for the emerging nations and there is no less interest in The British Open, F1 British GP, 6 nations or Wimbledon and they are every year. Euro Cup, UEFA you name it. Also it might help to keep our top names in the game, it's just this 4 year WC tradition that holds it up IMO but the for's outweight the against's.
If you don't like Rugby League, you don't like Rugby

Posted Image

#7 BenGilesRL

BenGilesRL
  • Twitter
  • 34 posts

Posted 26 April 2014 - 01:27 PM

I agree with every one else. 4 yrs is best for the world cup

However a solution for more international fixtures needs to happen.

#8 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 20,381 posts

Posted 26 April 2014 - 02:44 PM

Athletics switched from a 4-year to a 2-year interval for their World Championships, and that has worked okay, but that's a week of competition in one place, not several weeks of matches spread around a host country. Oh, and a sports media that is, on the whole, on that sport's side.

 

The amount of organisation needed to make the last RWC such a success would be tough to replicate with a 2-year turnaround. But I agree, there must be more opportunities for the nations outside the big three to compete against each other in between the RWC.

 

Some modest investment (travelling costs etc.) in the Pacific Cup in the SH and European tournament in the NH might go a long way. The USA, Canada and Jamaica seem to be enjoying some success in playing each other.


Edited by Futtocks, 26 April 2014 - 02:44 PM.

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


#9 londonrlfan

londonrlfan
  • Coach
  • 842 posts

Posted 26 April 2014 - 04:25 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We need regional tournaments every four years, to give us a major tournament every two years. European Championship, Oceania Championship, Atlantic Championship etc. 



#10 Southern Tiger

Southern Tiger
  • Coach
  • 457 posts

Posted 26 April 2014 - 04:50 PM

Trouble is, we already have regional tournaments but they arn't going to suddenly get media interest. The organisation counter argument doesn't seem relevant as each hemisphere still has a four year period to utilise.
If you don't like Rugby League, you don't like Rugby

Posted Image

#11 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 20,381 posts

Posted 26 April 2014 - 06:32 PM

Trouble is, we already have regional tournaments but they arn't going to suddenly get media interest. The organisation counter argument doesn't seem relevant as each hemisphere still has a four year period to utilise.

Regionals don't get media interest, no, and won't for many many years to come, but if they are supported and improved, they can help strengthen the teams outside the Big Three. 

 

Then the RWC will get better and better, and people will take notice of that.


A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


#12 londonrlfan

londonrlfan
  • Coach
  • 842 posts

Posted 26 April 2014 - 06:40 PM

Trouble is, we already have regional tournaments but they arn't going to suddenly get media interest. The organisation counter argument doesn't seem relevant as each hemisphere still has a four year period to utilise.

 

But when have we ever given these tournaments a proper build up? I'm not talking about some half arsed tri nations we have if the Aussies don't want to play, but actually having a host and having the big boys compete in the tournaments. 



#13 redjonn

redjonn
  • Coach
  • 872 posts

Posted 26 April 2014 - 06:48 PM

Athletics switched from a 4-year to a 2-year interval for their World Championships, and that has worked okay, but that's a week of competition in one place, not several weeks of matches spread around a host country. Oh, and a sports media that is, on the whole, on that sport's side.

 

The amount of organisation needed to make the last RWC such a success would be tough to replicate with a 2-year turnaround. But I agree, there must be more opportunities for the nations outside the big three to compete against each other in between the RWC.

 

Some modest investment (travelling costs etc.) in the Pacific Cup in the SH and European tournament in the NH might go a long way. The USA, Canada and Jamaica seem to be enjoying some success in playing each other.

 

 

But thats because the Olympics is the pinnacle in Athletics. The world championships don't get the attention anywhere near the 4 yearly pinnacle.   The pinnacle for us is the world cup... not that many opportunities for players to partake in that many and hence keeps it so massive for the players.   

 

Of course have a international calender.



#14 Southern Tiger

Southern Tiger
  • Coach
  • 457 posts

Posted 26 April 2014 - 10:05 PM

I think the main worry against this idea seems to be the prestige issue of going from a 4 year cycle to a 2 year cycle. I can understand that but surely the alternating hemispheres hosting the tournament would compensate. For instance the last 2 WC's have been a success in the host countries but the Aussie one 4 years ago didn't capture the British media attention at all and similarly apparently neither did last years particularly down under, so I don't see that it has any real relationship to the interest and success of the tournament myself.
If you don't like Rugby League, you don't like Rugby

Posted Image

#15 Southern Tiger

Southern Tiger
  • Coach
  • 457 posts

Posted 27 April 2014 - 10:02 PM

The tournament is a success at 4 year intervals but RL is in a unique position where the media coverage being what it is means that the major success is only really apparent in the hemisphere in which it takes place, apparently last years WC was not a major success in Aus beyond RL fans and the Aus RL WC in 2009 did not have major media success here either, it's just that they were major successes in their own hemispheres so the 4 year interval is to all intensive purposes in tact particularly on the terraces, it's new fans we want to attract to the game after all.

Can RL utilise this to its own advantage which might help to prevent players switching to the code with the next WC i.e Sonny Bill Williams and Sam Burgess. The only counter argument seems to be - careful now. If you believe the sport is the best in the World, why can't it break with tradition in order to suit it's own circumstances.

Surely this proposition is worth a more sturdy.rejection than to merely say we're worried about it not being good enough to keep us interested, you never know we might even win one.
If you don't like Rugby League, you don't like Rugby

Posted Image

#16 jlawton21

jlawton21
  • Players
  • 55 posts

Posted 28 April 2014 - 12:15 AM

This seems a reasonable idea to me. I think part of the problem the RFL have is that they don't know how to fill the international calendar. Hence the talk of GB tours coming back.
At the moment we don't have much else planned out so why not?

#17 BenGilesRL

BenGilesRL
  • Twitter
  • 34 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 08:29 AM

I don't believe this 'careful now' label is just.

if the RL World Cup was every 2 years, it would immediately lose significance and become a poor comparism to it's counterparts.

Another great way to undersell the tournament and the sport to players, fans and the media.

If there was twice as much gold in the world it would be worth half as much.

if there were twice as many RLWC's the same woukd apply.

#18 Exiled Wiganer

Exiled Wiganer
  • Coach
  • 5,995 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 04:31 PM

Have we ever had a proper Northern or Southern hemisphere tournament though? I like the idea of an expanded Pacific Nations with perhaps a Presidents' 13 for Oz and Emerging Kiwis team for NZ every 4 years. If sold properly that could both wash its face and be a really appealing development tool (plus it gives the star NRLers a winter off).

In the Northern hemisphere, it is a harder sell, but have we tried hard enough in the past? How about seeing what France could come up with, hosting a tournament for the European big 6, again with an England Knights team (giving the star NRLers a winter off). Alongside it, run a developing nations comp. If we took it seriously we could surely do better than we have in the past. In a different context, the Treize Tournoi had some excellent crowds for games including, iirc, Chorley et al. There seems to me more appetite for international events below the top level in France than we have in England.

If the World Cup taught us anything it was how successful we can be at marketing games when we put the right people on the job.

On that basis, we could have 2017 - World Cup (Oz/NZ) - 2018 - 4 Nations (UK) - 2019 Northern/Southern hemisphere tournaments - 2020 - Kangaroo/Lions Tours - 2021 - World Cup (Europe). Only one of those tournaments would be a hard sell - the Northern hemisphere one - but if we don't try we won't ever succeed.



#19 londonrlfan

londonrlfan
  • Coach
  • 842 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 06:05 PM

The only way these NH and SH tournaments would work, is if you had the actual England, Australia and New Zealand teams competing, not made up teams. We're always saying we want players to stick with the smaller nations, so if we keep excluding the likes of England and Australia from playing the likes of Scotland and PNG, why would they stay?



#20 Exiled Wiganer

Exiled Wiganer
  • Coach
  • 5,995 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 08:08 PM

In that case, play the full teams in the NH and SH. We are then faced with the perennial problem that a better will always beat a worse team at that level, and there is this no prospect of anyone beating Oz or NZ in the SH or England in the NH. I take your point though.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users