Wellsy4HullFC

You forget the difference between Samoa and England too. Both have the exact same opponents, but Samoa play the hardest one last, keeping their destiny in their hands; we played them first, with no preparation after a long travel, meaning we now have to hope on other results. We've definitely had it worst.

The format is objectively unfair to England when it comes to progressing against other big 5 teams. Australia and NZ don't even have to beat a big 5 side. They can just beat the other 2 in their group. They have the easiest group. Tonga get 2 shots at their own destiny. They just need to win one. They have it 3rd easiest. England and Samoa are in a similar boat, but the difference is that Samoa have destiny in their own hands until the end, whereas England now have to hope for other results after just one week. England v Tonga should have at least been week 2. But this glosses over the fact that a format that makes the other team hope for other results after 1 week with 2 weeks still to go is deeply flawed.

The World Cup should be a 16 team festival held in Europe every 4 years. There should be a 6 team World Premiership round robin held in the Pacific 4 years. We get a version of international rugby league that we like over here (variety) and they get what they want over there (intensity).

17 was such a step down from 13 though that I don't think most hold it up as the standard to beat.

I thought that too. A small group of clubs join the NRL and play in batches. I mean, the NRL season is 24 games long. 12 games away from home, and some of them would be back over hear what. Might need 2x one month blocks in Aus. Would it improve the quality of our players? Definitely. Would it be affordable? Would it be profitable? Would it be damaging to the rest of the game here? In many ways, yes; in many ways, no. I remember once suggesting Yorkshire and Lancashire join the NRL, with SL as their feeder. Didn't get well received

Yeah, not opposed to that either. I do like the idea of just having a round robin though. It's easier to organise and you know exactly what you're getting then.

Aye, it needs to be a legitimate format otherwise we might as well not bother. We need to decide whether the World Cup is a showcase of a variety of nations, or an intense pinnacle of the sport. I don't see why we can't have both, but separate competitions. We host a 16-team World Cup every 4 years. They host a 6-team World League every 4 years. Could even have divisions. World of Rugby League Division 1 (or WORLD1 ): Aus, NZ, Samoa, Tonga, England, PNG. WORLD2: Fiji, Cooks, Lebanon, France, USA, Wales WORLD3: Jamaica, Canada, Ireland, Scotland, Greece, Italy

Heritage players, yes. Union players? Not in 2008-2017. The Welsh player that genuinely came through the system have pretty much dried up at fully pro level once the last of the original Celtic players retired/s. Fact is though, they were competitive. There were player (like Tonga and Samoa) willing to put their hand up and play for them. There was opportunity to do so. We offer them nothing and wonder why nothing happens. I was all for moving to England and the home nations in mid-00s because of the perceived trajectory of development at the time. We might as well be GB again if we're gonna do nothing with them.

Yup. I was really looking forward to the Confederations Cup when it was announced. It would now essentially just be the Pacific Cup + England though, as all the other European nations have fallen that far behind. We had a real chance 15 years ago to push the other nations. Wales, Scotland and France had fairly decent sides. That's all gone now. We've barely got club rugby in Wales at all anymore and Scotland have completely fallen off the face of the RL world.

I'd like to see a system that integrate us more with the NRL. "Cross division" games Vs NRL clubs for points. We'll only catch up to them when we've had more exposure.

I get that, but there's still far better ways they could have achieved that without this nonsense format. And if they couldn't have worked one out, should have looked to have changed the number of teams to a sensible number. It honestly feels like the Aussies aren't interested in hosting large tournaments like this. They should just host an annual World Premier League featuring the top 6 Nations if they're only interested in 5 weeks max. We'll host the proper World Cup with 16 nations and a team festival atmosphere.

I do wonder if the format has had some impact. It's dreadful on so many ways. Fans don't get it immediately and find it confusing. The ones that do get it think it's stupid. And the ones that didn't think it was that stupid initially have just realised now how stupid it is that England are essentially out already and have 2 games to go. We'd have been better off in the group with Australia and New Zealand.

USA pulled out in 2018. France pulled out in mid-2023. Australia were announced in mid-2024. They've had over 2 years to organise. It's hardly makeshift.

Yeah I'm not gonna lie, I was expecting more attendance-wise for a WC that has been stripped down to only 10 nations to be more focused. Aus v NZ you'd expect to be held in a far bigger ground given they're the 2 best nations in the world at the home of where the game is the biggest in the opener of a tournament. It's the lack of ambition here that annoys people. England v Tonga was okay, but again 2 of the bigger nations getting less than 20k in the WC isn't much to write home about. It's about acceptable. Looked okay on TV. PNG didn't sell out a small ground at home in their WC opener. That's concerning. The other 2 games were played in largely empty stadia that looked awful on TV, not gonna sugar-coat it.

Just came to say the same. Didn't realise it went on head to head. This structure is awful. The group games are essentially meaningless after round 1.