Dave T

Dignity is overrated mate.

Yeah, my brother sent me a pic with him wearing them and the home one in particular is one of those kits that does seem to look better as a fan fit instead of the tight player shirt which is unusual! I really like some of the training t shirts, they may be decent buys for holiday.

1. I'm not sure what you mean by the five years. 2. I hope you're right, but if I'm honest, they get zero benefit of the doubt right now. Let's look at 10 years ago. They hosted the Four Nations. The biggest one on record. Far bigger than this Pacific Nations tournament with 140k fans. The Kiwis even won it! They've never hosted another since. I've said my piece on this now, so happy to agree to disagree. I'll enjoy the on field stuff, which has always been great, and despite the fact that the Ausies are massive favourites to win, people appear to be interested.

I don't think that at all. I'm pointing out (probably too subtly) that those who parrot the lack of competitiveness point have in fact gone down a rabbit hole as there is zero evidence of this being an issue (see my last lengthy post). If people are claiming that the Aussies aren't bothered because they always win, the logic doesn't follow that we would shift to fewer games now they have a far greater chance of losing tournaments. Of course youd want more winners (particularly as an England fan!!!!), but the competitiveness point is a red herring. We have grown world cups, four nations etc during this period. The number of matches has zero to.do with who is winning.

There are two key points points here. Firstly. For almost 25 years the Aussies won literally every single series and tournament they played in. Every single one without fail. For the last 20 years they have lost 5 series. It is a relatively common thing for the Aussies to lose a series now. Nobody is saying that the Aussies are not dominant and the best team in the world, but to ignore the massive shift in levels of competitiveness is the disingenuous act Secondly. Even if we accept that it isn't competitive, the evidence doesn't support the claims that this is a major issue for people. The only time this is used as any kind of issue is to try and justify the Aussie attitude to the international game. I've presented the facts a few times, some of the crowds have been excellent, here, in NZ, Australia, PNG, even France. If crowds were bumbling along at 10k every time we arra get a game, there would be a point, but there isn't. The Anzac test regularly attracted 25k+, the Four Nations has had 47k in Brisbane, over 30k when playing Eng/GB - it doesn't appear to be a problem. The sporadic organisation and lack of.commitment is the problem. The facts just don't support the claims about competitiveness.

No. Over a decade, the Kiwis won a World Cup, a Tri-Nations and 2 Four Nations. Why on earth would you ignore two Kiwi tournament victories if you view competitiveness as an important issue? If it's been covered a million times I'd expect you to know this. It's almost as though it ain't really important. We've also seen the Aussies win a World Cup Final 6 nil, a Semi Final by 2, lose to Tonga and get hammered in last years Pacific Final. This competitive nonsense is just that. In 2005 (the first time the Aussies lost a series for years) they played 7 tests. This year they played 3 tests.

We started reducing games when the Aussies started losing tournaments. The logic isn't following.

It's where I call BS on the whole point that the Aussies need to look after their club game ruthlessly above everything else and that means that it's fine to ignore or do bare minimum in the international space. The problem is that will never change. For all the nonsense about focusing on expansion of the NRL now to reduce games and then we can do more internationals - it won't happen. It will always make more sense to focus on the club game if you have that ruthless attitude because it is so far ahead of the international game. A hugely successful international game will never be as commercially beneficial to the NRL as the NRL club game will be - so that means they can always justify negative actions towards Test rugby. It's a drug and they will never come off it. Buying into international RL has to be part of your philosophy, you have to want to do it, you have to want to raise money to develop the sport in developing nations. This is the end game. 3 games a year maximum for nations, a smaller world cup every now and then, culling of anyone weak, no material funding routed to develop the sport outside of what we have. It works for the NRL. This is it.

I'm not sure it's follow the article. It says they may have got a six again and maybe not gone for the dg. Where's the reference to a penalty?

I can't see that being anything other than true then.

When we look at history, really the European nations have had the same approach as the Pacific Nations, u til these last couple of years. In fact the Euro Nations always played more matches than most of the Pacific Nations. The big differences are that the quality of heritage player is far superior, and they have fanbases in Oz and NZ because of the way those populations are made up, and the popularity of RL in Oz versus Unon for example. The fact that RL is actually a thing in these nations too is a factor.

Nah, it really hasn't. Let's be honest, the asks haven't been onerous. I understand your view, they had to focus on themselves at all costs. I just don't agree that the international game would be harmful. In the same way Origin isn't harmful to the NRL. These things can co-exist, and more.

I often argue for moving away from Wembley for the Cup, but I like it for internationals. I'd always wanted to go to Arsenal, but I don't think I'd choose it over Wembley having now been to both. I think Wembley lends itself well in the way you can close off tiers and sections that still looks great on TV and retains the atmosphere in the ground. When we played the Aussies with 42k in it worked nicely, and obviously that game with 67k was great.

It seems that UK RL's approach is more in line with major comps like the Premier League, NBA and NFL. But we seem to be small-time.

You appear to have gone down a strange route of people disagreeing you being unfriendly as you are an 'outsider'. Your point about naming a team on Wednesday being more inviting of new faces makes literally no sense. That's what I'm questioning. How on earth does naming a team on Weds do this?

The Aussie club game wouldn't have been harmed through playing internationals each year and not taking years off. The Aussies haven't even fulfilled ongoing promises. That is harmful to the international game.

Hmm. This is an extremely rosy view. It is still the absolute bare minimum of a tournament, with some average events and crowds - stuff that the RFL gets criticised for.

The RFL deserves criticism for plenty, and they get it. I'll start with that as i always feel obliged to when I somewhat defend them. In reality, the club game and international game really can be treated as relatively separate things. Obviously they need to co-exist and not conflict with each other, but I don't buy that the NRL gets a free pass because they have a strong club game. I dont see the logic. These things can run alongside each other, and we do have instances of the Aussies actively harming the international game. That can't be justified. The PN tournament has been great, I've watched a fair bit and enjoyed it. But let's not get too carried away just now. The Kiwi vs Kangaroo game got a similar crowd to the England v Samoa matches that have a very different tone. There are still only two events staged in Oz. Last years final was an embarrassment. Next year won't have the Kangaroos. We shouldn't be backslapping and counting the dollars just yet. We can see potential limitations - its great to see games in Fiji, but it's costly with small crowds. Tonga and Samoa will probably never host. It's a reason that whilst it is great while it lasts, it's a very quick tournament. I just don't buy that this, and more can't have been delivered with a more positive partnership..

It absolutely is a bonus rather than an out and out plan. We know this really because a) it's never been that important to them to do that before, b) they are looking to fly the Kangaroos abroad next year instead of building them up on home shores in advance of the World Cup, and c) the World Cup was meant to be in France. But, a things stand, we have to take whatever scraps we can, irrespective of whether they are accidental or strategic.

I'm not sure I see any difference in how this is organised. Where I do share some of your optimism for 2026 (and indeed this year's tournament despite my frustration with the ARL/NRL) is that irrespective of the motivation, this one has been far better than previous versions. Appropriate ground selections seem to be the biggest improvement here and the fans have responded accordingly.

I don't understand what you mean? What has been incorporated with 2026 in mind?

If there's one thing this sport has learnt from TWP...

I'm afraid there just isn't a logic I can follow here. Non-fans are not interested in whether Toby King or Stefan Ratchford is named at Centre for Wire on a weekend. This is 100% a preference piece, some like it to be named early, some are happy with it being left to the last minute when the actual team is confirmed and won't be changed. Watching major football tournaments, the discussion all week is around what the team may be, what combinations may be used etc. You could argue that adds to the excitement, talking points, suspense. To call it small-minded is weird. It's nothing of the sort and there is no logic to that claim.

I don't think Wane was a particularly impressive speaker a couple of times during the series. I thought he was disrespectful to Samoa by talking about the Aussies after Test 1, and was pretty disparaging calling the France games a waste of time. I'm not sure I've heard another England manager in another sport be so disrespectful.

I get that, but we can't look at one income stream and let that override everything else. Playing an Ashes test in a regular SL 20k stadium would be a big no-no.