UTK

Until England gets a win over Australia there is very little utility in Australia hosting an Ashes series. England/GB have not been a drawcard in Australia for many years while Tonga/Samoa are now opponents with much greater support/interest in Oceania at an equal level of competition. In a limited International calendar the choice for Australia to host an Ashes series effectively postpones Kangaroos matches against NZ/Tonga/Samoa and limits England/GB building consistency in matches against those same nations. England coming to Oceania should be as part of a tour to match up against as many nations as possible, not for three moderate-to-poorly supported Tests against the Kangaroos. The same logic is not attributable to an Ashes series in England which would likely be well-supported, give England a competitive advantage and is necessary to give England meaningful home fixtures against top-tier opposition. For this reason the decision to swap hemispheres for the 2025 Ashes is very fortunate as I suspect such a series played in Australia would have killed the possibility of future Ashes altogether.

Attempting to scrub over the lack of competitiveness in International RL is disingenuous to say the least. During that decade of peak competitiveness that you have identified from 2005-2014 Australia won 75% of their matches against the Kiwis with a record of 21-1-6, the cumulative for and against during that period was 716-443, 14 of those 21 wins were by 12 points or more (ie 2 complete scores). Australia's second most competitive opponent during this period was of course England/GB. Australia won 92% of their matches against England/GB during this time (11-1 record), the cumulative F/A was 365-163, 8 of the 11 wins were by 12 points or more. Tournament wins by the Kiwis were great for the game and saw an acute spike in interest subsequently, unfortunately these wins were never backed up with any degree of consistency by the Kiwis. Test football will always be compared to Origin in the Australian context, even with the absolute lowest competitiveness of Origin during QLD's 8-in-a-row (which conveniently aligns mostly with this period of Test football) QLD only won 71% of games. There are simply no rational grounds for reaching a conclusion that the competitiveness of International RL is a 'nonsense' factor in the standing of Test football. I also believe a quadruple header Final is absolutely ridiculous and should not be applauded, that the Pacific Cup is way too small, and of course that cutting the mid-season tests is the worst decision the NRL has made in this space that has had untold negative impacts on the International game. None of these aforementioned failures can whitewash the quintessential problem that nobody has been consistently competitive with the Kangaroos in several decades.

The game gets far more out of an Ashes series in England than it does in Australia, so this would be a good move. England/GB haven't been a drawcard in Australia for years and a Pacific Championship top tier of NZ/Tonga/Samoa no longer needs Australia to give credibility/crowds to that competition. Breaking a 22 year hiatus will certainly be a drawcard in England, while the Kangaroos playing away from home assists England on their search for the elusive win that would be necessary before an Ashes series could be considered relevant in Australia again. A sensible decision in a poorly constructed calendar at least.

Despite turning up every few years with stacked sides Samoa has never really built the culture of consistency that Tonga has. Rather disappointing that this problem has come up again. Admittedly it doesn't help that they have a strong Penrith contingent who have played as many high-level Club/Origin/International games as possible over the last 4 years. Credit to the players who do choose to play in the post-season, every single player would have an injury at this point of the season that they could use to be ruled out medically so all players taking the field have made an active decision to do so.

Yeah this doesn't really add up at all. Lebanon is not a typical NRL heritage side - the vast vast majority of their players are not affiliated with NRL top 30s but rather with 2nd or 3rd tier clubs. There are a few notable exceptions in the likes of Jacob Kiraz, Alex Twal, Adam Doueihi and Mitchell Moses but outside that the rest of their potential squad are either with NSW Cup sides, RMC/Sydney Shield sides (3rd/4th tier) or SL sides. Absolutely I could see for example the Dogs trying to rule out Jacob Kiraz which is rubbish and is where the NRL should step in but I would also be shocked if the NRL was aware of this series even being in the works (not that I think they would step in if they were aware anyway). Moses would not be in calculations with a season-ending injury so that leaves Kiraz/Doueihi/Twal - of which Doueihi has played like 4 games in 2 years so would not be putting his hand up given his career currently hangs on by a thread. Unless the funding was solely predicated on Jacob Kiraz and Alex Twal getting on a plane there simply has to be something else going on, nothing would stop them from fielding a side full of RMC/Shield/SL players of which they have done several times before.

As a sidenote the podcast release was timed nicely with Herbie's performance on the weekend against the Warriors. 2 tries, 1 linebreak, 11 tackle breaks, 20 runs for 284 metres, 4 offloads, and 10 tackles with no misses.

Very interesting podcast that may be of interest to some here. Herbie has such a unique story and I hadn't really heard him speak at length about his journey before (states that this is his first podcast at the beginning). Some fascinating insights into his upbringing, mentality, and challenges he faced on that unique path he took to professional RL. Speaks very well and openly/honestly about his experiences after making his NRL debut as well, really a player that should be held up as one of the faces of the game IMO.

Pryce was meant to be 18th man but concerns over the fitness of Bradman Best resulted in a late change in plans with Tom Cant becoming 18th to better cover that potential loss.

Pryce was "rested" this week from NSW Cup - all but insinuating that he will make his NRL debut in Round 17. Has really struggled for consistency in NSW Cup but his last three are as close as he has gone to stringing 3 decent games together. Jack Cogger had an irredeemably bad game last week to the extent that we're in the situation of 'how much worse could Pryce really be?'. Really struggles defending in the front line at NSW Cup level so the step up to NRL will be tough but hopefully he'll be protected by stronger defenders either side of him. Offensively he's very much brought the rocks and diamonds that we routinely saw in England, sometimes he can have sublime touches all day, other times he just overplays his hand way too much and ends up in the way - often you get both versions in the same game. Suspect O'Brien is at the end of his tether with Cogger so we might see Pryce in the 6 jersey until Tyson Gamble returns from injury sometime around round 22-23, good opportunity for him and I suspect he's the type of person that will really give his all once at the top level as opposed to bringing week-to-week consistency as reserve-grade level.

Except those 4N have been replaced by competitions that now give Tonga or Samoa (now both in 2024) games against AUS/NZ every single year, as opposed to the once every cycle if you're lucky enough to qualify of the 4N. I certainly wouldn't claim that AUS/NZ has been a supporter of the International game as a whole but there is a persistent myth that England isn't cut from the same cloth. Lack of accessibility to AUS/NZ is the ultimate reason for that tier 2 nation number with France making up the majority of those tests, and even that fixture hasn't been a permanent fixture despite the proximity of France. I wasn't intending to be derogatory to the North but I accept such a reference is often utilised as such so should've framed it better - readjusting the statement to address with what I intended to get at: A full house for Tonga v Samoa in front of Tongan/Samoan fans does far more for the International game (and for those nations) than 3 poorly attended matches that are played within 100km of each other - the scope within which that could be seen as 'growing the game by playing International matches across the world' is extremely limited. As is consistent with that top 20 crowds statistic, the only place that test matches involving tier 2 nations have received any sort of support outside WCs is AUS/NZ, that is not controversial statement that purports to rewrite history. This tour was the opportunity to break that stat and it failed rather miserably, on the opposite side of the world Samoa averaged 20k across their matches in front of their own fans across both AUS/NZ. Why would Samoa opt to forego playing in front of their own fans, to play in front of much smaller crowds, halfway across the world? How would that provide the International game more value than Samoa participating in the Pacific 4N - a competition that takes place across multiple competing nations? Theoretically it gives England closer competition - which is a genuine benefit for the game, but it's not as if such a move precludes England from playing altogether and it prevents Samoa from continuing to build upon their own support for zero additional benefit.

The International game gets far more out a full house for Tonga v Samoa in front of Tongan and Samoan fans than it does for 3x 11-15k in the North of England. If England cared about growing the game they would've engaged with the European Championships at some point over the last 20 years and perhaps promoted some actual growth that would've helped in the precarious situation they find themselves in. Instead they're spent years inventing pretend teams to avoid playing actual tests against developing nations, England care solely about what's best for England and are reaping the rewards of that stance right now.

There's no reason that England couldn't join the top tier of a Euro A competition next year, there are structures that could be utilised allowing a Euro A comp to double as the WCQ they are currently intended to be. What is likely to preclude it from happening is that England believe the European Championships are beneath them, hence why they have ignored the competition for 2 decades. Unfortunately a golden opportunity had been handed to secure future SH post-season competition and it has subsequently been bottled. Everybody knew this situation was only a matter of time post-2017, there are no surprises that teams prefer to play in front of their home fans rather than halfway across the World in entirely incompatible timezones, this is an unfortunate geographic reality of our sport. The notion that Samoa should regret this decision is quite hilarious, the onus was on England to establish an appealing opportunity with the Tonga series - both financially and otherwise, this did not occur as has been well-discussed on this forum. The notion of England being positioned as some form of altruistic body offering potential independence from the NRL is a very fanciful interpretation of the circumstances, as if Samoa or Tonga won't be treated as the distant 3rd option after AUS/NZ every year.

Biggest Kangaroos loss in history, first time held scoreless since 2005, first international tournament lost since the 2014 4N. Was very deflated after last week as I really thought this NZ side should've beaten us in the WC Semi so to back that up with the Melbourne performance was disappointing. So glad they turned it around and proved how good they really are.

Hesitant to comment before the end of the game but thank **** for the Kiwis performance here, exactly what International RL needed after Samoa's poor performances.

Capacity is something like 25K I'm pretty sure, will have to see how it fills out and it looks worse because there's more empty spots on camera side. Would take scraping 10k at this point.

Crowd is even worse than worst-case scenario, unfortunately shows how far the Kiwis brand has fallen and the work that needs to be done in International RL.

Fiji are already locked in to the Pacific Comp post-season in 2024 and are indeed hosting games in Suva. Looking beyond 2024 though Fiji should definitely be considered as another touring option, especially as their strength will continue to increase with the Silktails delivering more professional players.

Very difficult to see the gap from the last game closing with Haas, Fa'asuamaleaui, and Martin all returning to the starting side. Kiwis remain unchanged. The loss last week has really killed momentum heading into what looks like is now going to be an underwhelming crowd in Hamilton for the Final. Kiwis notoriously love a winner but when the national side has underperformed crowds tend to suffer, Tonga and Samoa are ironically the only seemingly guaranteed draws in NZ. The result last week was especially deflating in the context of the WC semi last year. The Kiwis squad lacks some depth but outside dummy-half and a backrower/bench forward this is basically the full-strength 17, not overly convinced Michael Maguire is the man to be running the show but I don't know who else would turn things around. On the note of competitiveness vs the Kangaroos it really is disappointing because you really felt this side could give then a run given the strength of players across the board. The Kangaroos have lost consecutive test matches once since 1978 (Kiwis 2014-2015, interestingly enough the French did it in 1978), and haven't lost 3 consecutive test matches since 1961-62 against NZ and GB. I'll admit I really thought this NZ side had the potential to etch its name into one of those records but that seems far fetched now. Nonetheless, hoping for an improved performance at home and a late surge in crowd numbers.

If the Mole isn't just throwing out baseless speculation (can never be ruled out with him) I'd say the third non-Sydney club is very short odds to be the Raiders. Their fullback position is up for grabs as they used both Sebastian Kris and Jordan Rapana throughout the season but didn't really settle on one or the other. Additionally, they've just lost their big money marquee in Jack Wighton and haven't found a replacement that uses that cap space yet.

To be honest I agree wholeheartedly with all of this and you've probably spelled out the best-case scenario. Having an 8-team comp once a cycle leaves sides away from home twice every 8 years during a post-season window. Pacific Champs would also 100% ideally be a 6 Nations comp as a format that is shown to work extremely well in the other code. The only thing preventing either from being a perfect idea is the lack of mid-season internationals, which as we both agree should have been occurring over 3 rep rounds mid-season. Unfortunately I don't see them coming back so that means even with us having no internationals at home during those 2/8 years, which while better than the previous 4N structure is still far from ideal. Additionally, holding a 6-nations post-season leaves England with nobody to play so unless we're willing to leave them without SH opponents for 2/4 years per cycle the Pacific Champs are should be effectively limited to 4/5N in the current structure. Crux is that while all that is probably the best-case scenario, the lack of mid-season internationals creates additional problems and unfortunately I can't see a realistic scenario where they return anytime soon.

Only added the Oceanic Cup to compare to the present Pacific Championships as a sidenote, we would've had the Pacific 4N equivalent this year to compare if the NRL didn't bottle their CBA negotiations but not to be. Do you really not agree that we've outgrown the 4N format? The competitiveness of the Pacific Nations has been the only bright spark in the International game for nearly 2 decades now. Rugby League Internationals have finally begun to shake the foregone conclusion tag and this structure now allows a Tonga/Samoa/etc to play AUS/NZ every single year as opposed to once a cycle if they're lucky enough to qualify as the 4th Nation. We expose such nations much more consistently to tier 1 nations in this structure Those NRL comments on Pacific Internationals have always been contained to underwriting the former mid-season tests that didn't involve AUS/NZ so have no relevance to these tournaments, those matches were very poorly attended double-headers in Western Sydney - not that this justifies cutting them from the schedule. I don't disagree that previous 4N were profitable tournaments - asserting that they were "easily" more profitable than these current tournaments feels like a massive stretch considering the significant financial support received and comparatively strong attendances observed. With all this considered, the consistency afforded by these tournaments in allowing each team to play in front of their own fans against top tier nations every single year provides far superior value to international rugby league than the alternating nature of the 4N did. Such consistency both develops these nations on the field and allows the international game to build towards consistently strong revenue streams available through broadcasting support - something that simply isn't possible in a cross-hemisphere arrangement due to time zones. So long as the England opposition problem is solved by 1 of these 6 Nations travelling north each year I feel the current structure is much more beneficial to international RL as a whole than the 4N, hence my proposition that we have outgrown that format. Note that this stance on an alternating hemisphere tournament would be altered if mid-season Internationals weren't off the table, but in the present reality of our international landscape I don't this opinion as overly egregious at all.

Outgrown in the sense that we now have Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, and PNG who can beat/compete with AUS/NZ/ENG while France/Wales/Scotland have gone backwards comparatively during the same timeframe. Given the crowds and money put into the Pacific Championships by the respective QLD/Victorian/Australian/NZ governments into hosting these matches so far I would be quite shocked if previous 4N were more profitable on a per-game basis. Perhaps over an entire tournament having more games between the top nations may push previous 4N above the Pacific Championships and Bowl combined. Average crowds leading into the finals this weekend: Championship (AUS/NZ/SAM): 20,665 Bowl (PNG/FIJI/CI): 9,500 Championship + Bowl: 15,000 Average crowds for previous 4N/Tri Nations/Oceanic Cup (trusting wikipedia here so I don't have to go through every match): 2019 OC (AUS/NZ): 22,328 **** Average for Pool A (AUS/NZ/TONGA) but double-header between pools included in average. Total avg between Pool A + B = 14,045 2016 4N (England): 18,951 2014 4N (AUS/NZ): 20,675 2011 4N (England/Wales): 18,295 2010 4N (AUS/NZ): 19,644 2009 4N (England/France): 16,584 2006 3N (AUS/NZ): 25,825 2005 3N: (AUS/ENG/NZ): 22,163 2004 3N (NZ/ENG): 26,041 1999 3N (AUS/NZ): 17,574 So the Championship 3N average is on track to eclipse every iteration of the 4N but will fall short of the 2006 and 2004 3N equivalents. Overall average including the games in PNG Bowl tournament will probably end up a total average of 15.5 - 16k, but that number is supplemented by the $3.5 Million paid by the government to host games in PNG this year.

The code has well and truly outgrown the 4N concept. Now that mid-season International windows have unfortunately been thrown in the bin it would be a disastrous decision to bring the 4N back. There's a reason why hemisphere alternating tournaments (outside of a WC) are not utilised in any other major sport - they are fairly worthless to broadcasters due to time zone differences, as we've even seen with the Tonga tour not being shown by Sky NZ. If we ran on the old 4N schedule with no mid-season internationals you would have AUS/NZ not playing matches in their home region for 2/4 years in a WC cycle where England was the host (and vice versa for England outside of a France/Combined Nations test), even when we did have mid-season internationals in this structure AUS/NZ would play maybe 1-2 games in the region on those "away" years. All the while wondering why we haven't been able to build year-on-year consistent attendance and broadcasting results for Internationals! Unfortunately for England the lack of local competition leaves them in limbo outside of World Cups, the Tonga tour has provided a golden opportunity to establish viability for touring nations outside of AUS/NZ and to therefore guarantee regular internationals against SH opponents at home. Expansion of the Pacific Championships needs to occur but even in their current state the top tier of this tournament has been as well attended as previous 4N iterations, and both tiers have attracted significant support from local governments interested in hosting events.

Crowd-filmed highlights of the Souths game here: The Tigers livestreamed their game on Facebook, the game is still there to watch on the link below - you don't need an account/to be signed in to watch the game. Would assume they might chop this one into highlights and post on the Tigers site/socials this week. https://www.facebook.com/events/304711052497052/?acontext={"ref"%3A"52"%2C"action_history"%3A"[{\"surface\"%3A\"share_link\"%2C\"mechanism\"%3A\"share_link\"%2C\"extra_data\"%3A{\"invite_link_id\"%3A1040214027404206}}]"}

If that's the amount we're at now it's literally expansion without risk, you gain an extra game of content plus millions more cash than any other expansion bid could get anywhere near. Absolute worst case if it dies in the long-term we've created a player pool to sustain further expansion indefinitely and the NRL will have the next bids ready to go/replace them at the drop of a hat.