Dave T

Yeah, i think it's a case of just facing i to that and establishing it into the calendar. The US and France failures have allowed a bit of a cull on the tournament and it's damaged it, with some people taking advantage of that with some glee. It really isn't that difficult a concept to create a calendar that has two windows and delivers major internationals in the NH and SH and even leaves opportunity for a bit of and expansion push if desired.

Agreed. I think an actual plan needs some proper thought but needs to be working towards the proper outcomes. I think we might need to face into our World Cups look like based on the fact we don't really have a panel of nations that can host. We may be more like World Athletic events rather than Fifa World Cup for example. We may have to take it in turns between us/France/Wales and Aus/NZ/PNG/Pacific every 4 years and just crack on. I agree on bilateral series. I find them relatively boring and the sooner we can get back to proper series the better. I think it was Browny who touched on it recently around the old style World Cup. I wouldn't advocate that, but maybe that kind of series in between World cups. Play games over a couple of years and then host a finals series.

It's all a risk, playing RL games, but it's the business we're in. What were really talking about though is playing no more than what we've seen in some individual years anyway. Probably the biggest challenge is that it would need to be every year. In terms of the travel, I think you'd probably ty and manage that by using England/Fra as the travellers in say, June and them always playing at home in Autumn.

So that leads you to free weekends. Which is absolutely my preference. What would the numbers be here? Say 20 players per squad, 8 squads of 20 equals 160 players. Maybe 100 from the NRL first grade? Maybe 5 to 7 per club for that window? Naturally some clubs more, some less. But it isn't necessarily the showstopper it can be portrayed as.

Pah, been there done that.. https://www.saintsrlfc.com/2018/05/24/saints-and-wolves-go-arm-in-arm-with-jd/

I think sometimes we (as a sport) convince ourselves that things just can't be done - yet we make all sorts of changes all the time, and sports far bigger than ours are prepared to disrupt their season for internationals to make it work and grow the sport.

I don't think I agree with clashing Origin and international breaks, for a few reasons. Firstly, I just think this will just drive resentment and rivalry here. We should want the NRL to be successful, Origin to be successful and internationals to be successful. If we get events clashing with each other, the NRL will be less supportive of internationals, I think that's counter productive. Secondly, I'm not a fan of making players choose. We should be better than that and give the players the opportunities to play the biggest games. Thirdly. We have weeks to play with. We always hear all sorts of excuses on this one, but it absolutely can be done to free up a couple of weekends for standalone international slots. Ultimately, if the desire is there anything can be done. Whether we play internationals at the same time as club games as some sports do, or whether we create free weekends as others do, we can make either work.

I was being a little facetious with my Kiwi v Canada matchup to make the point, but there is a point there that just playing games at all costs isn't the answer - and I'll admit to being uncomfortable in making that point as I am somebody that believes we need to play more international RL, and as a principle I believe we should be playing France annually. And that does lead nicely into your second point - we do need to do it better. And maybe that means that a mid-season test just doesn't work. I have some sympathy for the two French teams in the UK pyramid who have to supply the vast majority of the players for the French team in-season. But this ultimately may mean that France can't commit to playing a Test mid-season - or may play a different nation where they can perhaps use a wider range of players. Where I think we should look to engage with France is through tournaments where possible and in the Autumn, whether that is a home international before we go on tour, or as part of a home tour. I'd like to see France included in playing both England and the team that is touring. I do think the model here is maybe more in line with the Aus/PNG Prime Ministers game - a regular event (but with a proper England team) that is fixed in the calendar. One other point I'd make on supporting the likes of France - I'm not a fan of nations like this being used as cannon fodder for the stonger nations. I think fans like to see their team winning games, they perhaps need a bit of hope, and just keep taking hammerings isn't the way to go.

Facts just aren't important any more. The reality is though that the amount of profit that can be delivered by a Test series as things stand is probably very modest. To the Aussies it is easy to just bin off, as maybe a million dollars profit from a series isn't changing anything for the NRL. And that is fine - that's just where we are - but the only way that's going to change is by playing regularly and building up the brand and competitiveness (if that's a genuine issue for people!). The value we have to drive up is commercial and media rights, and based on some of the numbers we see, it doesn't really make sense to suggest there is no value to be had there.

The Aussies used to play more games against the Kiwis too. Get good crowds in mid-season, but not so bothered now. The attendances suggest there is interest. None of this is the reason the Aussies didn't play in 2019. A cynical person would suggest it was all part of the undermining and weakening of the RFL and International Rugby League.

That all sounds lovely Harry. Until you look at which governing body has scrapped highly successful mid-season internationals and reduced the amount of games that their own test team plays rather substantially. There is zero evidence that the Aussies will ever push internationals mid-season. Quite the opposite. I would also argue that there is absolutely no reason to cede control of the international game to a commercial entity representing one country. The way to run an international sport is to support a strong international governing body. There is a reason the Aussies don't want to do that.

If you think it is deranged to provide factual evidence that your claim is wrong, then I'm afraid that's on you.. Over the last couple of years, the 7 Pacific Teams that you said now play "at least 3 tests per year" have played: Aus: 3, 3 NZ: 3, 3 Tonga: 3, 3 PNG: 3, 3 Fiji: 3, 2 Samoa: 2, 2 Cooks: 2, 2 This new structure will never see a team exceed 3 tests, with some of them each year only playing 2.

I actually like it.

Jonty wasn't being serious. But despite the fact that that the Aussies have been dominant, we still have tens of thousands of people prepared to pay good money to watch the Aussies beat England. We'll have sponsors too and a tv deal. Don't believe people when they try and tell you there is no interest in international RL.

This is not true. Why are you repeating things that have been pointed out as incorrect. When you say these teams get 3 games at least, what you really mean is 2 or 3 games. Three of the five you named only played 2 games this year, that's very different to 'at least 3'. But I can understand why you are so positive about the international game now, because there are loads of imaginary games being staged that you are counting.

Again, far too simplistic a view. We don't just match the Kiwis up with Canada and say this will help the international game. The France game this year was harmful to the sport.

A major challenge with France is that it won't be fixed by just playing games against them. Having competitive, commercially attractive games is the outcome really, not the groundwork. Same when people talk about us playing regular games against Scotland, Wales and Ireland as a solution. Sure, it may provide some attention and could be useful tactically, but we're not addressing the root causes of why these teams are weak by just staging games. It's what we have done for the last few decades really. France really does need a developed plan. If it's that the pinnacle of their club game is in the UK pyramid then it needs some proper thought - how many teams, which divisions etc? We also then need to look at player quotas and development pathways and the like. Funding also needs looking at, as well as governance (the RFL or RLComm are not the French governing body). Getting these right are going to add far more value than staging terrible events in the middle of the year. I think its a bit of a disgrace that Samoa and England only played two Tests this autumn and they didn't play France. This is where France should be getting the big games.

Yes, the Aussies 1st, Kiwis 2nd. That's what they walked away from - referring to the Anzac Tests.

The Aussies have walked away from test matches that get up to 30k people with a game between 1st and 2nd in the world. If the English have walked away, it's from a match that the French staged as a Fev pre-match entertainment event.

The France mid-season match clearly isn't working, off the field or on it tbh. Last year was an absolute car crash. An embarrassment to the sport. It did more harm than good, and plenty of that was on the French. I'm not seeing the French as an interested partner in this at all.

I think you're right. I think it was pointed out a couple of years back that this game lost money and was an investment to give England a game, and I expect we've reached the point that they have decided to pull it. Particularly when you look at how the French treated it as an anniversary event last year and staged it as a Featherstone pre season game. My personal preference is to try and do things as well s you can before deciding they don't work, but they seem a bit incapable of that. It is always a challenging game with Catalans and has been for years. I expect RLCom and the French Federation have decided they haven't the funds to make this work.

That seems to be quite a simplistic reading of events. Do you honestly think Wane has chosen zero instead of playing France? He has stated he would prefer Roses, something I disagree with him on, but I expect as a coach he would prefer something to nothing. I expect the decision has been taken above him that they aren't staging this, and I expect France have something to do with this too.

Source? Did France want to play a match? Because it didn't look like it this year.

Who wanted to play England?

I think this is where focusing on getting lower ranked teams into tournaments is important. Whether that's Four Nations, 6N, World Cup's whatever. France are clearly better in these tournaments, and they are more commercially attractive too. I find it a shame that we have reduced the World Cup, which gave a cha ce for more lower ranked teams to play at the top table, which is how WC's should be. Personally I'd play France mid-season only in France, reduce the travel for their Catalans players who travel every week, and work together to sell it well - we've seen plenty of positive signs in France.