AB90

Australia play New Zealand every year and have won 6 of the last 7 games against them. I'm not sure where your getting this Aussie fear from.

I think your been a bit harsh on Bateman. Thought hes been great since hes come back from injury. But yes, maybe not one of the two best, form edge back rowers in the world. It's hard to rate the top level SL players in comparison to their nrl counterparts when the the majority of SL players would be reserve graders down under playing in either the NSW or QLD cup competitions.

John Bateman a shout (maybe on the bench). Mika Sivo

I'm a fan of going for the try. Especially at the back end of a game when fatigue has set in. I always go back to the question - what would the defensive team want the opposition to do? A quick tap and go with a full six at the line is generally the last thing defenses want in that scenario. They want the opposition to take the 2. So why would you do something that the opposition/defense wants you to do. Well that's my theory behind it.

Add Daniel Tupou (Tonga) and Joseph Manu (NZ). 30% of last years winning team were 'non Australian'

Lol Those dumbs wits that only watch NRL probably make up 80% of all rugby league fans on the planet.

Peacock, Sculthorpe, Fieldan, Roby may be British greats but unfortunately won't ever get the recognition of being all time rugby league greats due to never playing in the nrl.

I agree with you but I just don't think qualifying process needs to be that complicated. We don't even have 16 teams that are made up of full time professional players. I get some kind of qualifying process for the last few spots but for instance, I don't think anyone would argue that France and Wales are one of the top 16 rugby league playing nations in the world. Do they really need to 'qualify'?

Nope. I said I had mates that refer to it as a Micky mouse comp. Not me. Remember, I'm pro world cup. I want to see it more.

With all due respect John your alternatives don't feel me with much hope. While you and people on here may find Greece, Serbia, Canada games interesting and highlight of the WC, I would like to remind you that you, me and everyone else here take time out of days to read and post on a forum dedicated to rugby league. Which indicates that we are probably the top percentile of die hard rugby league fans in the UK and probably the planet. A lot of the time opinions shared here are not in line with the average rugby league fans (including my own). Majority of rugby league fans do not tune into the WC to watch these teams play. Some of may mates who are passionate rugby league fans almost get turned off by the fact there are teams whereby some of the players are part-time. Almost as if it's a bit of a joke, Micky Mouse competition. And I wasn't comparing league to football per say, I was comparing a average sports fans attention and interest in a event that reacures every 2 years. Which is the topic at hand.

Have qaulifiers then. I'm not to fussed. It's a hypothetical tournament. Re four nation - Scotland may of 'qualified' but it was a hand picked qualification to have a northern hemisphere team in it. Which goes against some opinions on here about must having a 'fair' qualification process. They were not the fourth best team in the world at that time. Aus, NZ, Eng didn't have to play qualifying matches. So we're happy to 'franchise' them.

Have qualifications. Or a one up down. Realistically fans are not that bothered if the 16th team is Greece, Serbia, Canada etc. It doesn't make or break a WC. I strongly disagree that interest will decline as you play different teams every tournament. Your comparison with to msny local derby's is not a like for like comparison. In football, when the euros come round people don't say - 'we just had a better version of this two years ago. Not watching'. But what are the alternatives? As it stands if your Wales, Ireland, Scotland you literally only play 3 proper, meaningful games (telivised on national tv) every four years (assuming they don't get out of the group stage).

Base qualification off the previous tournament. One up one down. Two up two down (whatever you want). Sorted. My point was, the success of the WC isn't determined if Greece or Serbia qualify. And lot of these nations that win there place will have considerably different teams when the world cup rolls round when all the English, Aussie and Kiwi players start checking their grandparents birth certificates. So what would you like in between WC's? A four nations? I can't recall any qualification matches for that.

Qualification lol. Come on. Just hand pick the best 16 teams.

I don't. 'Sort out an international calendar for the intervening years' - haven't we been trying to do this for the past 20 years? I unfortunately don't have much faith in the current system.