Jump to content

Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres 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



Member Since 14 Apr 2004
Offline Last Active Today, 01:08 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: 12-Year International Schedule?

Today, 12:09 PM

why can't we have a European cup every year? We are allowed to play more than 4 tests in a year. Part of the problem is we play so few games. Think of how many footballers and ru players have 100+ caps. An RL player would need to be virtually ever present for 25 years to get to 100 caps. We can play 10 tests in year. We could have a European cup and a 4/5/10 nations series I'd we want.

You are living the other side of fantasy land in the democratic Republic of nonsense and wishful thinking if you think sponsors or fans and as we see players give the tiniest care in the world about qualifying comps.

Your problem is you can't see past England NZ and oz. As if only they matter. That they are major internationals. But what you don't realise is that by quantifying some internationals as major, you dismiss everything as less than major. For no benefit whatsoever you class the vast majority of international playing countries as unimportant and then use the lack of interest in them as proof.

You are wrong. Every nation is important, every game is important. Every game is worthwhile in its own right. Until the prize on offer is an international win or progress in an international tournament rather than a game against Australia only games against Australia will matter.

We can have every nation play every other nation. That isn't some huge insurmountable problem for us and it is crazy for you to on one hand hold up a game against the bigger teams as a prize that will make "every game mean something"(the inference there being the only thing important in a match is the chance to play a big side. That game in and of itself is meaningless, this is the same problem which will become apparent in next season moronic SL structure) and on the other hand claim it would cause teams to pull out.

International RL just needs nations playing each other.

Who'd be in this European Cup? When would it be played? What nations would be excluded? Why? How would they get involved? Why aren't they playing the big nations?

It's all idealistic what you're saying. You can't include everyone all the time. There has to be qualifying at some point and there is too big a gap in the quality of international rugby league to just have everyone play everyone. Fans don't come to walkovers.

It's beautiful to think that every international should matter. In reality, it doesn't. And not just in rugby league. England football can't even fill Wembley for many of their internationals these days and they're the biggest sporting brand in this country.

Every game is important in its own right. But we're trying to sell events to generate money for a cash strapped sport in a competitive market. England smashing a load of teams nowhere near their level every year won't attract anyone and will most likely do more damage to the image of the game than good.

In Topic: New Kits 2015

Yesterday, 09:22 AM

Is that not just a steward's jacket?

In Topic: 12-Year International Schedule?

Yesterday, 09:19 AM

I put 5 groups down because if I only had put 2 groups down I would have got posts saying what about this country or that country that should be included. Canada being a prime example of a country that is moving forwards but currently ranked at a low level.

My idea is that the role of any structure put forward at international level must be to encourage nations that are amatuer to evolve to a level whereby the sport becomes professional, be it 5, 10 or 20 years. If this isn't the case then we might as well not bother in the first place.

Yes, but by making them run before they can crawl, you'll never develop them. All you'll do is get teams pulling out.

At that level, you'd be far better just grouping nations together geographically.

In Topic: 31/10/14 - Scotland v France KO 7.30pm (Galashiels)

Yesterday, 09:12 AM

What profit is made by last Saturdays game in Brisbane been played as a warm up?
The crowd would have been the same anyway as the people were there to watch Australia v New Zealand?

So the thousands of people that came to see Samoa and England would have gone to the game anyway?

I think it's a bit naïve to think that the crowd would have been the same. There were also trends of thousands there to see that game at the start, and pretty much a full stadium by half time. It was a great advert for Samoa.

Playing in front of 6-10k in a tiny Samoan stadium would have gotten them zero publicity.

In Topic: New Kits 2015

Yesterday, 01:20 AM

Scotland will have an all fluro shirt for the up and coming test with Scotland www.loverugbyleague.com

People say there aren't many players up in Scotland, and here they are playing a game against themselves...!