17 stone giant

Yes, I remember him switching to union. Maybe he'll one day return to league and manage a SL or NRL club. Perhaps England too. Would you have him at Leigh?

Ok. Sorry, I still don't fully understand what you're getting at regarding Farrell regarding his loyalties. Can you please explain?

Showing my player knowledge there.

Queensland should have done better there. The long haired guy made a poor pass.

Not sure why you think money would have any relevance. I'm sure Andy Farrell understands that sometimes major sporting events clash.

Stadium looking fantastic. Can't beat a night game for creating an atmosphere. No preference who wins, just hope for a good game.

From what I read, the tv audience in Australia will significantly favour watching State of Origin. So if Sky operate in Australia, I would recommend they put S o O on their main event channel.

It almost sounds too good to be true. I wonder what the reasons are for this increase, and whether it will continue in future years.

Sacked again. That's twice in two days.

The main event is the British and Irish Lions match against the Brumbies. I'd say that's probably fair, given that it's a UK audience.

The problem with shows like that is that there isn't anyone to challenge the opinions given. They all just agreed when some of the stuff being said was utter garbage. The discussion on Great Britain being one example. I love the Aussies trying to claim that the switch from GB is what made them less interested in internationals. I now realise that the reason they didn't play us in 2019 is because it would have been impossible to safely control the millions who would have been storming the stadiums wanting to see this amazing brand.

They have earned the luxury of taking their time. And it's no great hardship to continue batting. Most of the team will have their feet up relaxing, and the much criticised lower order gets a chance to have some pressure free time at the crease. Plus it makes the defeat all the more comprehensive. I would have done the same if I was India. As I said previously, there is an air of cockiness about Bazball, so I don't blame Gill for dragging it out and basically humiliating us.

Yeah, good one.

RU Lions win 3-0 England RL lose 2-1 England cricket win 3-1

191 behind now. Smith still in. Need Tongue and Bashir to stay with him and reduce the deficit as much as possible. So much better than I thought we'd be when Root and Stokes went cheaply this morning.

In Manchester and Liverpool?

Why? I was making observations about the general situation. I'm looking at RL in London for 45 years, that has had involvement from the likes of Richard Branson, link ups with Harlequins and Brisbane Broncos, various rebrands, numerous venue changes, many years in Super League etc. Is it really necessary for me to have coached the Dagenham and Redbridge Under 8's RL team in order to look at the above and say that I have doubts about how much interest there is in London for RL? I specifically said in my post that sport is a strange beast. It's hard to put your finger on why things work in some places and not in others. In my opinion, without any horse in the race, it really hasn't worked that well in London. Hopefully that can be changed going forwards. But I'll say again, if it's so obvious that all you need to do is follow a certain blue print to make the sport a success in London, why can't that blue print be followed in Liverpool and Manchester?

I don't have actual experience of rugby league anywhere. But I don't see how that precludes me from making observations.

Yeah we know you're the biggest cheerleader for London and telling everyone how much London loves RL. It just doesn't seem to translate to what I observe in reality.

I know you've upset some of the pro-London crew with that statement, but I think based on how things are right now after 45 years of RL in London, it's quite hard to disagree. The key point being "enough". It doesn't mean that there isn't SOME interest. Of course there's always some interest for everything, in every area, but is it enough to sustain things at the level required? I think it's irrelevant for certain posters to say that there's some boys in London who like playing rugby league. Big deal. There are boys playing rugby union at my local park, but in no way could Southampton currently hope to support a Premiership RU team. Likewise there is an ice rink in Gosport where a few passionate people play ice hockey, but again it's not enough to enter the UK Elite League (or whatever it's called nowadays). If it's a no brainer that London can support top level RL, why can't Manchester or Liverpool? Both are cities on the doorstep of the RL heartlands, so surely it should be easier to make a success of them than in London, which is a bit of an island in RL terms. I would love RL to be successful in London and elsewhere, but there are only so many excuses you can make for it not doing so. When you think about it, sport is a very strange beast when it comes to locations. I doubt anyone can really fully explain why certain places have things and others don't. Why does Leicester have a top RU team, but Derby and Nottingham don't? Why can't you transfer those same ingredients and make Derby and Nottingham have a team? Are people that different just a few miles apart? Why does Salford have a RL team (for now) but Manchester doesn't? Why doesn't London (I think I'm correct) have a top level ice hockey team, but nearby Guildford does? It's one of those mysteries that's clearly not as simple as just replicating what happens in one place, in another. Otherwise every area would have high level teams from all sports.

Only 414 behind now. Smith and Brook on the charge. Nervous times for India.

India 412 for 5. Are we in danger of being just a bit too cocky and complacent with this 'have a bowl and chase anything' tactic? Or is it fine margins and a couple more wickets yesterday and the decision would have been vindicated.

Another 45 years?

OK, here's my suggested format for the county stuff. 3 regional groups north: yorkshire, lancashire, durham, nottinghamshire, leicestershire, derbyshire midlands: warwickshire, worcestershire, glamorgan, somerset, gloucestershire, northamptonshire south: kent, essex, middlesex, surrey, hampshire, sussex play everyone once so 5 games each. 2 home 3 away OR 3 home 2 away (changing each year) After those 5 games, top two from each region go into div 1, middle two into div 2, bottom two to div 3 So, if I assume the teams above finished in the order I've written them, it would mean the following 2nd phase groups: Div 1 yorkshire, lancashire, warwickshire, worcestershire, kent, essex Div 2 durham, nottinghamshire, glamorgan, somerset, middlesex, surrey Div 3 leicestershire, derbyshire, gloucestershire, northamptonshire, hampshire, sussex Play everyone in your Division once. Winner of Div 1 is county champions, which in my example is Yorkshire. That should please some on here. lancashire 2nd, all the way down to sussex in 18th, if you're making an overall table. Everyone has played 10 games, although it might be some have played 4 home, 6 away - unless there's a way to fiddle that. The problem I have with the above is that while Div 1 is competing for the championship, what do Div 2 and Div 3 have to play for, except positions 7th to 18th - not very exciting. Step forward the new knockout county cup! To create some jeopardy in Div 1, only top 4 of the 6 will qualify for the cup. To create some interest in Div 2 and Div 3, the top two from each group will qualify for the cup. That's 8 teams, so it would be a simple knockout comp of QF, SF, Final. Based on my phase 2 group positions, the cup would be: yorkshire, lancashire, warwickshire, worcestershire from Div 1 durham, nottinghamshire from Div 2 leicestershire, derbyshire, from Div 3 Yes, the qualification for the cup is a bit of a fudge, but how else do you make Div 2 and Div 3 interesting and meaningful? As a Hampshire fan, if we were in Div 3 (which we are in my above example), I wouldn't be very interested in those 5 games (to determine whether we finished 13th to 18th)....but I might be if I knew that finishing in the top 2 put us into the knockout cup, because then we'd have something to play for. There's probably a million flaws in my suggestion, but it's the sort of thing that would make me more interested than I currently am. Playing the first group regionally keeps the travelling down - plus you don't play the same team more than once. It also means each game is meaningful, because you need to finish in the top two or your county championship hopes are gone already. Then in phase 2 you only have 1 team in your group that you've already played, so that's 4 new opponents. To me that adds some variety. Having 2 home and 3 away is a bit unfair, but that's what happens in the RU Six Nations, and nobody seems to complain much there. Especially as it swaps each year. The cup is mainly an attempt to keep div 2 and 3 interesting, while also creating a competition that produces a final. I didn't want to shoehorn a final into the championship, because it felt clunky to do so.

Do we? My point is that I'm not going to be interested in a final, if I have no interest in what goes before that. If it was as simple as have a final to make everything ok, why not do it with the current format? Top two play-off to determine the champion. Which as things stand would mean Nottinghamshire vs Surrey.