Jump to content

The future of international Rugby League


Recommended Posts


I read this article in the print edition and my thought was - as you criticize the NRL, so could France (and other European nations) criticize English RL.

 

You mention the NRLs unwillingness to expand, but the RFL's recent expansion - Toulouse and Toronto - were only permitted as both entities funded themselves and agreed to begin at the bottom of the pyramid. That is not brave expansion, it's simply not turning away free money for no effort.

 

You say the NRL and SOO take up too much space - the SL season has far more fixtures than the NRL. Yes Australia "took a break" from international RL for a year but so would England have if the Kiwis hadn't agreed to travel. France were treated with complete disdain as an after thought warm-up to the real thing. The game was arranged at the last minute, played in a small regional stadium, not promoted and wasn't even granted test status.

 

The point about the Aussies lack of enthusiasm for the WCC is irrelevant as that is not international competition in the sense that you are arguing - as a means to promote the game to people who are not already fans. Neutrals don't care about Cronulla vs Wigan, that only happens when nations play each other.

 

My point is not to defend the NRL - they are an extremely insular organization - but they are one side of a coin and the RFL are the other. Two insular organizations that control all of the resources of RL and don't want to share. Blaming the NRL because they are richer let's the RFL off the hook when they treat France (and Serbia, Spain etc.) the same way the NRL treats the RFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Martin but there is no way I would be interested in watching a northern hemisphere six nations.

Unfortunate perhaps but the intensity and general skill level would not come close to Super League, even matches against France are not particularly entertaining.

 

I do not profess to have any alternate schemes but  the obvious problem is the RL playing nations are spread to thinly  around the world  and  now play at the same time of year.

Even a tournament involving secondary nations would leave a club V country struggle.

Garry Schofield regularly bemoans the lack of proper tours and I am begining to come round to that view but again is there any chance the NRL would allow it?

 

Perhaps the RLIF needs to be the whole games governing body ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read this article in the print edition and my thought was - as you criticize the NRL, so could France (and other European nations) criticize English RL.

 

You mention the NRLs unwillingness to expand, but the RFL's recent expansion - Toulouse and Toronto - were only permitted as both entities funded themselves and agreed to begin at the bottom of the pyramid. That is not brave expansion, it's simply not turning away free money for no effort.

 

You say the NRL and SOO take up too much space - the SL season has far more fixtures than the NRL. Yes Australia "took a break" from international RL for a year but so would England have if the Kiwis hadn't agreed to travel. France were treated with complete disdain as an after thought warm-up to the real thing. The game was arranged at the last minute, played in a small regional stadium, not promoted and wasn't even granted test status.

 

The point about the Aussies lack of enthusiasm for the WCC is irrelevant as that is not international competition in the sense that you are arguing - as a means to promote the game to people who are not already fans. Neutrals don't care about Cronulla vs Wigan, that only happens when nations play each other.

 

My point is not to defend the NRL - they are an extremely insular organization - but they are one side of a coin and the RFL are the other. Two insular organizations that control all of the resources of RL and don't want to share. Blaming the NRL because they are richer let's the RFL off the hook when they treat France (and Serbia, Spain etc.) the same way the NRL treats the RFL.

 

I don't disagree with most of your points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Martin but there is no way I would be interested in watching a northern hemisphere six nations.

Unfortunate perhaps but the intensity and general skill level would not come close to Super League, even matches against France are not particularly entertaining.

 

I suppose when the Northern Union were first challenged by New Zealand in 1907 and then Australia in 1908 they could have said the same thing.

 

If you don't plan for and invest in international development, then you won't achieve it.

 

Who would have ever believed, for example, that Japan would have beaten South Africa in the other code?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think starting with a Tri Nations involving England, Wales and France would be best to start with. The next tier could be Scotland, Ireland and USA with a couple more Tri Nations below that until they become more regionalised like the Nordic Cup and Med cup etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was an excellent piece Martyn and highlighted all the barriers to real development very well.

 

I think sports tend to have what I can only describe as internal gravity, agendas and reasoning that prevents real progress and always seem well reasoned arguments for doing nothing and hoping it all comes out in the wash.

 

And your example of the dark side's progress is a good comparison.

 

I'd love to talk about the two as you have but you'd only end up on cross code and that would be a real shame for such a good thread!

 

And obviously you got most of the ideas for the article from Gary Schoefield! :D

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all well and good quoting a union man's statistics but they (RU) are a huge (but not the only) reason for RL's small international footprint. Rugby League's administration incompetence is legendary and needs no explanation. Union deliberately went out of their way to strangle the #### child at birth. They failed to kill the new game but restricted it's growth hugely. I agree with bamfordsbeans. We need more professional leagues. The NRL and the RFL are either apathetic to the problem of the international game or aren't capable of doing anything about it so sit back and concentrate on their own competition. Your NH version of a 6N appears to be a closed shop. What about Canada?

rldfsignature.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, and i agree with tge principle if not all the suggestions.

Interesting that most of us were shot down for suggesting internationals as tge way to drive growth by a very prominent poster who puts a lot of weight on Martyn's articles.

Very interested to see his response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said previously that internationals are the only way to go for growth (I cited the fact the profile of club RU is no bigger than club RL in England, the difference is internationals...and specifically the six nations). Club RL has pretty much maxed out in terms of gates...no amount of advertising Wigan vs Castleford will shift the profile of the sport. I then advocated a six nations for RL (and Im pretty sure it was DaveT who said something along the lines of "don't copy RU"). RU and RL have much in common and in would be foolish not to follow some of their blueprint.

Concur with the international aspect of the article (and the promotion is a good idea), but as damp squib says I wouldn't be putting much blame on the NRL. The Aussies are not insular in the slightest, infact I cannot think of a less insular nation in sporting terms...they love nothing more than the world stage to showcase their sporting abilities. This issue is the lack of much of a game outside their shores. The owners of the Aussie clubs that have refused to come over for the meaningless 2nd and 3rd place games in the club series say there isn't enough of a financial incentive...if there was 70k at Old Trafford you can be sure those teams would be over in a heartbeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all well and good quoting a union man's statistics but they (RU) are a huge (but not the only) reason for RL's small international footprint. Rugby League's administration incompetence is legendary and needs no explanation. Union deliberately went out of their way to strangle the #### child at birth. They failed to kill the new game but restricted it's growth hugely. I agree with bamfordsbeans. We need more professional leagues. The NRL and the RFL are either apathetic to the problem of the international game or aren't capable of doing anything about it so sit back and concentrate on their own competition. Your NH version of a 6N appears to be a closed shop. What about Canada?

There you go the bum's rush to CCF! ;)

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, and i agree with tge principle if not all the suggestions.

Interesting that most of us were shot down for suggesting internationals as tge way to drive growth by a very prominent poster who puts a lot of weight on Martyn's articles.

Very interested to see his response.

I'd already responded Dave. See above. And rather well I thought!

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martyn, thought provoking stuff and well done for posting for feedback, but I do echo much of what has been said above.

Whilst the RFL have welcomed Toulouse and Toronto on a non-financial risk basis (but very much open to much criticism especially re latter), the Australians have welcomed the PNG Hunters, are considering a similar Fiji team, and have underwritten Pacific tests the last few years. They have also liberalized Origin selection to allow players to represent Pacific nations, which should be a huge boost to those countries. The move to a NRL free Origin weekend from 2018 will also allow for a potential England NZ game mid-season.

I would like to see more support of the WCS, but if we had been competitive the last few years I am sure they would. Aussies don't tolerate mediocre competition. Let's hope the England team can change perception over the next couple of years.

I don't agree with squib that the WCS is of little value although that is maybe an unfair chracterisation of his comment. The Champions League and Europeans Champiosn Cup has greatly boosted the profile of soccer and union and should be sustainably replicated in a league.

I ask don't want to see a RL 6 Nations based on European teams, but I do welcome the RLIFs proposed Inter-Continental Cup. That will provide 5 tier 2 nations the chance to play the big guns every 4 years, but assuming 2 4 team groups, only means 2-3 less demanding games for the big teams. The World Cup every other 2 years will allow 13 smaller nations to dine at the top table in a 16 team World Cup after next years tournament.

The great thing about this proposed structure is that it deliberately allows the big national federations the chance to reserect the tours that Schofield and Super Major demands. So a nice mix of more games at the top level for small nations, and intense rivalry for the Top 3.

Super Major, the World Cup QF against France was prettt competitive. With big tournaments every 2 years, should result in a full squad turning out. Samoa were also extremely competitive in the last 4 Nations.

So plenty of reasons to be positive. Whilst a comparison with unions growth is a useful benchmark, I'm not sure why the article should be so negative (a perennial problem in our game) and seems to ignore what the RLIF is proposing. Whilst the NRL and RFL are always going to have significant say, their willingness to establish the RLIF should not go unnoticed. Maybe it's a reflection of prior sustained delivery but maybe a new regime should be given a chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should look at this in a different way. For the first time in our history we will shortly have a properly independent RLIF with money and some authority. We already have a blueprint for the next few years in the form of the RLIF strategy. Let's see how we go - I happen to think that we have made astonishing progress as an international game in raising the standard of teams outside the big 3 and having a wonderful World cups. Of course the RFL and NRL are rubbish at organising a coherent international structure. That isn't what they are there for. We need to do exactly what we are about to do.

Incidentally, I picked up a copy of the other weekly league paper today - which I had always considered more insular in its outlook - and there were 2 prices about the very real prospect of the 2021 World Cup being in the US. Much of that initiative and ambition comes from David Ciollier who knows a thing or 2 about growing an international sport from his ICC days and knows the US from when he ran united airlines. He was an appointee strongly supported by the Australians (the ones responsible for New Zealand being propped up, the Hunters and Fiji next).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should look at this in a different way. For the first time in our history we will shortly have a properly independent RLIF with money and some authority. We already have a blueprint for the next few years in the form of the RLIF strategy. Let's see how we go - I happen to think that we have made astonishing progress as an international game in raising the standard of teams outside the big 3 and having a wonderful World cups. Of course the RFL and NRL are rubbish at organising a coherent international structure. That isn't what they are there for. We need to do exactly what we are about to do.

Incidentally, I picked up a copy of the other weekly league paper today - which I had always considered more insular in its outlook - and there were 2 prices about the very real prospect of the 2021 World Cup being in the US. Much of that initiative and ambition comes from David Ciollier who knows a thing or 2 about growing an international sport from his ICC days and knows the US from when he ran united airlines. He was an appointee strongly supported by the Australians (the ones responsible for New Zealand being propped up, the Hunters and Fiji next).

Yes the times they are a changing and we all hope it bears fruit.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The future of international RL is quite clear if the eligibility rules are not changed. Due to the demographics and projected demographics of the game in Aus and NZ, Samoa will be the number 2 or 3 team in the world and Tonga number 5 but challenging Eng and NZ occasionally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent thought out responses from JoneslessBishop and damp squib, I agree with all the points raised.

 

As I have said on these boards a few times, the international aspect of our sport is massively important.  It may not directly lead to growth but the first step in any increase in popularity is getting the product to the forefront of the public's attention.  Only one thing raises the consciousness of the general public to sport more than international  competition and that is successful international competition... let's hope the English team do their part in the 4 Nations.

 

As for the international structure.  I think we get too hung up in the fact that the top three nations are ahead of the rest in terms of quality.  Matches between Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands, Fiji and France will be hugely competitive and new viewers will enjoy the skills and athleticism on show without worrying that that the Kangaroos or Kiwis would beat them 99 times out 100.

 

Then we have the emerging nations (Serbia, Canada, Russia, Jamaica, Italy etc.) who would also deliver competitive matches.  The key is finding the correct international structure to allow these teams to play each other in meaningful international games.

 

I am genuinely excited for the future of international Rugby League... probably because it is international League is that I look forward to more than anything.  I enjoy the NRL, SOO, the SL, the Championship and the Challenge Cup (and any other League for that matter) but it is only the weeks that involve England playing at the weekend that seem to go into slow motion as I can't wait for the game day to arrive.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the new end of season structure is a big step in the right direction. Instead of tours in the inbetween years I'd play a Tri Nations but with GB instead of England. Could even make it a Four Nations by including a Combined Pacific Islands team.

The WCs and Continental cups give the 2nd tier nations regular games against the bigger nations and the Tri/Four Nations would encourage players to commit to these 2nd tier nations as they would still get the chance to play in this as part of GB or Pacific Islands team

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game will continue to expand at a snail's pace until both the RFL and the NRL hold their hands up, make a pact and say 1st International RL, 2nd The rest. That means the International calendar is set first each year, with non-negotiable windows, and the club game built around it.

 

Sadly, the whole game is skewed the other way around (e.g. decide you want Origin on a weekend and punt the Anzac test). Things are moving on but I fear we will never get the momentum that many of us crave.

 

This time of year is very exciting, but it feels like the international game is in hibernation for most of the year.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let''s be honest - TV drives the revenue, and reacts to what the public see as top drawer.

 

So unless fans turn out in force and watch in great numbers, TV will continue to see club level as a bigger sell and put their money there.

 

However if fans do back international rl (which they have in steadily growing numbers), then this would see tournaments, starting with the World Cup overtake club level in appeal and revenue, thus providing more money and leverage for the international game.

 

I appreciate its a chicken and egg situation currently, but a few more hugely successful World Cups could transform these elements in international rl's favour, over the next decade or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game IMHO has to become driven by the international game. My proposal would provide for an international game across both hemispheres and be based on 3 team leagues as thus;

I.e. Northern Hemispher League 1 - England, France, Scotland,

League 2 - Wales, Ireland, USA

League 3 - Italy, Serbia, Russia

League 4 - Canada, Jamaica, Lebanon and so on.

Similar groupings in the Southern Hemisphere

All games in NH and SH to be played over 3 consecutive weekends in June. Teams promoted and relegated so each game means something.

With potentially 7/8 international games each weekend their is a great promotional window of opportunity for the RLIF.

My concept can fit in with existing tournaments.

Year 1 - end of year 4 Nations in NH - top 2 from each NH and SH League 1 play in it.

Year 2 - end of year Confederation Cup - have the 3 teams from each SH and NH League 1 plus the winners of the the respective League 2's.

Year 3 - end of year 4 Nations in SH - top 2 from each NH and SH League 1 to play in it.

Year 4 - end of year World Cup. All teams from each hemisphere Leagues 1 and 2 to take part.

I would get rid of the WCC game(s) and the Magic Weekend to free up weekends. I would replace the Magic weekend by using existing league games to promote expansion in both the UK and France. So each SL team would play 1 'home game' on the road.

This would give 12 on the road games. If 6 cities/areas were targetted then each location would get 2 games a year and help develop the local game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be a fantasy, but here is my view of how Rugby League could develop a viable international future.

 

Looking ahead.

Good stuff and I wonder if thoughts and ideas like these are bouncing around in other circles. I certainly hope so.

Obviously, our season would have to shorten. The current SL format places huge burdens on international players which may manifest itself in the 4N. I hope not! However, of the major considerations for it was bringing more money into clubs who were still in debt. Im not privy to why they were still in debt, but less league games over more Internationals may mean clubs go to the wall or at best drop down the leagues. If that's the price for growing the game then sobeit.

I can't understand why your focus is on casting the blame at the NRL. Doesn't the RFL have responsibilities and if not, why not?

Whatever benefits our game needs a bullish approach. Why are we sitting back to wait to see what the NRL does next? Maybe the NRL should take over the RFL.

A step change is needed in eligibility and international competition formats. I like your ideas for competition, especially the P&R option as that would stimulate emerging nations who, IMO, could provide the competition stimulus and popularity the game needs.

We can discuss eligibility forever. Any rules, right now, are better than none. Choosing a country to play for, against your birthright just doesn't seem right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.