Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
roughyedspud

2016 Four Nations (Merged threads)

Recommended Posts

I guess it is provided as a reward/incentive for performing well in the 2nd tier comp... win the Euro competition and next year you play with the 'big boys'. It probably helps to keep the players who would just hold their hands up to play at World Cup time interested in representing these countries more often.

Again though that seems to be a system designed to accommodate heritage teams who need to offer a shop window to English/Australian players to convince them to play. There's no reason to think that French players would be any less committed to playing for France than English players for England. So why don't we demand that England qualify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ridiculous semantics Squib. We know how strong the top 3 are. 4th place in 4 Nations provides tier 2 teams in both hemispheres something big to play for. Tier 3 Nations can be supported via potential expansion of the World Cup, or asking the place of a tier 2 nation when they are playing 4 Nations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the reality of it though isn't it Bull. We have to make the best of it. But Samoa came minutes from beating England and NZ from tier 2 last season, really trivia orating the 4 Nations. They would have been nowhere near without heritage players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ridiculous semantics Squib. We know how strong the top 3 are. 4th place in 4 Nations provides tier 2 teams in both hemispheres something big to play for. Tier 3 Nations can be supported via potential expansion of the World Cup, or asking the place of a tier 2 nation when they are playing 4 Nations

 

It's really not semantics when we're talking about entry into one of the few major international tournaments in the sport. What is the rationale behind having one qualifier and three automatic entries? Australia, New Zealand and England are the best teams? Ok, based on what? If it's "we know how strong the top 3 are", well I don't think that's how a professional sport should determine these things and in any case when England can lose to Italy the veracity of the statement comes into question.  If it's RLIF ranking then why do we stop at 3rd place for a 4 team competition? Surely Samoa and France should qualify automatically? It's completely arbitrary.

 

My view is that these restricted entry international tournaments should prioritize those countries with a significant grassroots presence, domestic competition, player production and fanbase. This means England, France and Wales in the NH and Australia, NZ, PNG and Fiji in the SH. The game has to grow from the bottom up, Irish and Scottish people will barely notice if their countries qualify for these tournaments and even if they do they have no RL to engage with until the next one so all momentum is lost. In France, a four nations game held in Toulouse could get new fans to look into attending TO matches or joining their local club. We're too small a sport to waste these opportunities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, reinvigorating the 4 Nations

I loved the original apple spelling.

20 years ago, we couldn't have dreamt of having this problem, so we are further on. Having seen the game in survival mode for decades it is wonderful to be in expansion mode.

Like Parky, I simply cannot see how anyone in their right mind wouldn't put Toulouse in SL tomorrow. The potential upside for everyone in the game is so huge it is madness not to. But there we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither did England, NZ or Australia. Why do we arbitrarily make one of the teams qualify?

Because they own the 4N. If France or anyone else would like to stump up the cash required to help stage the tournament and take their share of any losses it might make I'm sure the other three would be ecstatic. They don't have to allow a fourth team to enter. They could have quite easily carried on with the Tri Nations concept.


rldfsignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have Toulouse in SL as well, but the game over here just won't tolerate that liscencingbstule approach. If the French player pool is as good smas stated here, they will get there in merit, just like France should for the 4 Nations.

It's good that we have these pyramids in place, and like Exiled says, good that we have these development versus heritage conflicts as it shows development, but success of heritage teams can stimulate domestic development like in Lebanon. Les hope that happens in Scotland, Ireland, Samoa, Tonga, etc.

Lots of reasons to be positive so I suggest people stop bashing international RL, and just enjoy it, starting this weekend. Enjoy, and have a good weekend!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved the original apple spelling.

20 years ago, we couldn't have dreamt of having this problem, so we are further on. Having seen the game in survival mode for decades it is wonderful to be in expansion mode.

Like Parky, I simply cannot see how anyone in their right mind wouldn't put Toulouse in SL tomorrow. The potential upside for everyone in the game is so huge it is madness not to. But there we are.

I think Toulouse is a special case, I didn't always. But I've come round to the long term implications. But it can't be at the expense of a present SL club. They'd just need to up the Super League to 13 clubs.


 
 
 
​​ 
 
​THE NORTH OF ENGLAND WITH A POPULATION OF NEARLY 17 MILLION PEOPLE IS THE TRUE EXPANSION AREA FOR RUGBY LEAGUE........IF IT CAN'T EXPAND HERE, WHERE CAN IT EXPAND?
 
 
 
 
 
 
                       ​                       
    
 
                          ​                        
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Toulouse is a special case, I didn't always. But I've come round to the long term implications. But it can't be at the expense of a present SL club. They'd just need to up the Super League to 13 clubs.

 

Clubs either provide new resources to the game or they compete for the same resources.

 

Les Catalans have delivered big time and most everyone agree their entry will create:-

 

1. Increased french player pool of quality talent

2. Good sized crowds

3. heavy investment from local industry and local government.

 

Take a close look at how scant the resources are in the Wakefield district area. The loss of one of those clubs will make the other stronger.

 

Take a look at the struggle of Widnes with Wigan, Saints and Warrington around them. Look at how two SL clubs in Hull has panned out.....

 

It HAS to be at the expense of a present SL club, replace a stagnant weak club with a growing club?

 

No brainer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After australia & england...france has tbe best domestic setup!!! Even better that the kiwi domestic comp!!

Their poor performance is down to them and no one else!

 

No it isn't.

 

It's down to Les Catalans having to buy in overseas stars to compete at league level

 

It's down to Toulouse being stalled from entering for 20 years

 

It's down to using the contrivance of ancestors to qualify to play when currently playing for a French club could have been used.

 

Anyway this is admittedly OFF TOPIC, but all the posts falling over themselvesto advocate Scottish venues because they think it will develop the scottish game are also off topic.

 

And again my "on topic" answer is France should be a venue, especially Toulouse regardless of wether they are in the tournament or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parky - we get your point and it is a very valid one, but it's off topic

 

Hmmmm

 

Like Parky, I simply cannot see how anyone in their right mind wouldn't put Toulouse in SL tomorrow. 

 

OFF TOPIC!!

 

Seriously someone in the RFL journo fraternity should ask the RFL why Scotland are even in this competition.

 

On topic lets play the whole tournament in France if we think venues (on topic) should be a vehicle for expansion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RFL would probably say "they won the qualifiers" and the journo would probably say "fair enough".

Also, I suggested Scotland host a game because Scotland are playing in the tournament. Wales and France have both hosted games when they've been in it...

Oh and in response to the above question, I think it's about providing the elite players with the elite stage, promoting the game to a wider audience, making money and with the fourth nation spot, opening the big stage up to other smaller league nations and encouraging the game's growth.

Edited by ghost crayfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both. And for both reasons having Scotland instead of France is a disaster.

You are under the illusion that France are a big draw and fans will flock to see them get whacked by the big three. There is no strategy to develop the international game to any great extent. If there were I might agree with you but there isn't so we will be where we will be.


rldfsignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My choices wud be

NZ v Aus - Wigan

Eng v Scot - Newcastle (Kingston Park)

Eng v Aus + Scot v NZ - Wembley

Aus v Scotland - Edinburgh (sumwhere)

Eng v NZ - Sheffield (Bramall Lane)

Final - Manchester (Etihad Stadium)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's looking like we've got two options really.

One is to go down the route of Scotland being too weak to stage games alone and having them in a couple of double headers.

The other is we keep them separate and promote the hell out of the games in Scotland.

I can't see the latter happening to a degree where you'd get an acceptable international crowd in Scotland. Whilst I think double headers aren't great, the culture of 2-3k crowds for major internationals being the norm is far worse.

Friendly for Scotland in France. England vs Wales in Hull at KC.

Double header opener in Scotland at Murrayfield (vs England, with NZ vs Aus). Big promotion could see a 25-30k crowd, which is better than 12k in Warrington and 10k in Leigh and promotes the game in Scotland.

Double header at Olympic Park (against the Aussies, with NZ vs Scotland). Should be able to sell it out.

England vs NZ in Manchester. Should again get a major crowd with it being in the north. Scotland vs Australia either as a double header or take the risk and promote it stand alone in Scotland (perhaps Aberdeen if that's where the base of the club game is presently).

Final at Elland Road.


Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clubs either provide new resources to the game or they compete for the same resources.

Les Catalans have delivered big time and most everyone agree their entry will create:-

1. Increased french player pool of quality talent

2. Good sized crowds

3. heavy investment from local industry and local government.

Take a close look at how scant the

resources are in the Wakefield district area. The loss of one of those clubs will make the other stronger.

.

Take a look at the struggle of Widnes with Wigan, Saints and Warrington around them. Look at how two SL clubs in Hull has panned out.....

It HAS to be at the expense of a present SL club, replace a stagnant weak club with a growing club?

No brainer

I suppose losing a present SL club. It would benefit the Championship. Making this very important league stronger.


 
 
 
​​ 
 
​THE NORTH OF ENGLAND WITH A POPULATION OF NEARLY 17 MILLION PEOPLE IS THE TRUE EXPANSION AREA FOR RUGBY LEAGUE........IF IT CAN'T EXPAND HERE, WHERE CAN IT EXPAND?
 
 
 
 
 
 
                       ​                       
    
 
                          ​                        
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back onto the topic of venues for the four nations, would the growth of our game not be benefited more with 'expansionary' venues being taken to the cities or towns of newer fledgling rugby league clubs.

 

Taking some fixtures to the likes of Newcastle (St. James' Park/Kingston Park), Coventry (Ricoh Arena) and in London (Take your pick!) would surely benefit the respective club sides of these cities (Thunder, Bears, Broncos and Skolars) in terms of attendance, increased involvement in the local game etc. etc. SHOULD THEY EXPLOIT THE EVENTS well or even at all.

 

The idea behind the tournament, or any international tour for that matter, should ultimately be to build a legacy in the host nation and host cities/towns as well as to showcase the international game in high class venues as well as to broadcast it as widely as possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's looking like we've got two options really.

One is to go down the route of Scotland being too weak to stage games alone and having them in a couple of double headers.

The other is we keep them separate and promote the hell out of the games in Scotland.

I can't see the latter happening to a degree where you'd get an acceptable international crowd in Scotland. Whilst I think double headers aren't great, the culture of 2-3k crowds for major internationals being the norm is far worse.

Friendly for Scotland in France. England vs Wales in Hull at KC.

Double header opener in Scotland at Murrayfield (vs England, with NZ vs Aus). Big promotion could see a 25-30k crowd, which is better than 12k in Warrington and 10k in Leigh and promotes the game in Scotland.

Double header at Olympic Park (against the Aussies, with NZ vs Scotland). Should be able to sell it out.

England vs NZ in Manchester. Should again get a major crowd with it being in the north. Scotland vs Australia either as a double header or take the risk and promote it stand alone in Scotland (perhaps Aberdeen if that's where the base of the club game is presently).

Final at Elland Road.

 

I'd do almost the same as this, but I'd have England vs NZ at Elland Road and the final at the Etihad. Seems a bit strange to me to have the final at a smaller venue than all 3 of England's group games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd do almost the same as this, but I'd have England vs NZ at Elland Road and the final at the Etihad. Seems a bit strange to me to have the final at a smaller venue than all 3 of England's group games.

I think it's the risk of it being a NZ vs Aus final. If that happens in Leeds, I'm pretty confident we can get a decent crowd. In Manchester, I'm not so sure.

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...