Rugby League World Cup 2021 (Merged Threads)

[londonrlfan]

2 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I'm sure every person in every sport wants to face the best players. That doesn't mean we can or should facilitate it. Some isn't logistical, some isn't practical and some isn't safe.

In football, there are lots of teams you would consider up there for other teams to play. They can also play more games in a season due to the nature of the sport. Even so, football have tried to move in from the boring international friendlies as they were struggling to draw a crowd, and have since created the Nations League to avoid it.

We are not football.

I completely agree the opportunity needs to be there for them to play them. I don't agree that should just have games arranged for the sake of it as these wouldn't be meaningful. There needs to be more internationals at the level they are at, with the opportunity to play the best. They shouldn't just play the best because they want to, they need to earn it through qualifying for it to have more meaning.

I'm not saying we should play 3 test series v the USA for example, I'm just saying we can't we play the odd mid-season game against them every so often. The Eagles are playing the All Blacks. They know they have no chance of winning, but it's about the opportunity and event. 

A Four Nations tournament involving England, France, Wales and Jamaica would definitely gain sponsors and tv coverage. The BBC showed the half assed tri-nations in 2012 with England, France and Wales played at Hull KR and Leigh. When was the last time England weren't shown in a tournament on either BBC or Sky? 

[londonrlfan]

4 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

These were World Cup or 4N games. These were games that had meaning to them. They weren't just ad hoc friendlies or small time filler tournaments. 

England Vs several qualifying nations would have some meaning and some interest. England Vs France for the sake of having them play England doesn't. 

England RL fans want to see meaningful games. The key is making these other games have meaning.

Exactly why we need to create meaningful events. Stop playing hidden away on Thursday nights in Leigh, so we get no coverage. Show some ambition and it'll get rewarded. 

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, Jean de Bordeaux said:

The Sydney Morning Herald today:

Is this a good sign ?

IMO no.  Just a piece about BJ supporting the RLWC for votes only.

Beattie and Wayne Pearce (on IRL committee) voted for the WC, now Beattie has changed his mind.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/political-football-why-boris-johnson-is-hell-bent-on-rlwc-going-ahead-20210729-p58dyi.html

[Wellsy4HullFC]

41 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

The problem we have though is that if we can't rely on NZ, Aus and possibly any teams reliant on NRL players, then what 'top sides' do England actually have to play against? This is my fear going forward that the international game is so contracted that it massively reduces our ability to attract newbies to the sport, both in terms of spectators and inspiring youngsters to play.

This indeed is the problem. 

Just having England play these other nations isn't the answer though. They need to also be playing each other more often. They don't all need to post England.

It keeps being said that the other nations want to play the best. Don't the English players too? If we exclude the southern hemisphere sides, then the best for England to play are within England itself, hence the suggestion of a more competitive and higher quality Yorks v Lancs game AS WELL AS other nations.

Would I like to see England play a few tournament fixtures against the likes of France, Wales, etc? If there was meaning to it, absolutely.

I wouldn't like to see them play any of them mid-season though as they wouldn't be competitive, yet I'd like to see competitive rep rugby mid-season.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 minute ago, londonrlfan said:

Exactly why we need to create meaningful events. Stop playing hidden away on Thursday nights in Leigh, so we get no coverage. Show some ambition and it'll get rewarded. 

I agree.

How do we make them meaningful is the question.

I suggest through qualifying and earning a place in a bigger comp rather than cherry picking a few sides to play in a contrived tournament.

[DavidM]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

And the spin continues. Let's just completely ignore the fact that organisers offered to vaccinate all players:

 

Never knew Gus was also a bio security expert …. At times there are no words . No doubt this expert has seen World War Z 5 times . I’m surprised reading all the stuff from down there that there’s anyone still alive here. 

Edited July 30, 2021 by DavidM

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

So an annual tournament has more meaning than one off games. All the more reason to make a 4 nations an annual event then... 

And casual audiences don´t give a toss. Stop confusing us tragic here with the real market, the casual fan. 

Casual markets not giving a toss is clearly the problem, surely!

Neither of those tournaments mentioned are annual tournaments either.

[londonrlfan]

2 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I agree.

How do we make them meaningful is the question.

I suggest through qualifying and earning a place in a bigger comp rather than cherry picking a few sides to play in a contrived tournament.

I agree a qualifying tournament to get into the 4 Nations would be good and create more meaningful matches for the rest of the NH. It also opens up the opportunity for freshening up the tournament, rather than having a closed shop with the same nations every year. We saw different nations every 4 Nations tournament. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

4 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

This indeed is the problem. 

Just having England play these other nations isn't the answer though. They need to also be playing each other more often. They don't all need to post England.

I think a point you made earlier about the fixtures being meaningful is very important. For instance, I could see a mid-season Euros attracting interest from players and spectators if they were doubling as world cup qualifiers, or an opportunity for players to put themselves in the shop window for World Cup selection or (puts on tin hat...) Lions series selection in the Autumn. But now I'm genuinely fearful that the international calendar is going to look so threadbare that there isn't going to be any sufficiently sized carrots to attract the best players to play.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

They do play eachother every year in the euro comp that gets zero publicity or views because England aren´t in it. So again, a 4 nations without England is meaningless and England RL need to suck it up instead of begging for Australia. 

Those tournaments get zero publicity because there is no progression at the end of them.

Saying that they need to play England because it's England and without it is meaningless is the exact same argument as saying we need to play Australia because it's Australia and without them it's meaningless. You're creating the same problem on a different scale.

[wiganermike]

1 minute ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I agree.

How do we make them meaningful is the question.

I suggest through qualifying and earning a place in a bigger comp rather than cherry picking a few sides to play in a contrived tournament.

The Nations League is a good blueprint to follow (I think there was a plan for a multi tiered European set up anyway). Start off with England in a top group of 4/5 with groups of equal size descending below. Play it every year with the top group being televised, bottom team drops down and is replaced by the top team from the group below. That way if for example Serbia prove more competitive than Scotland then they will find their way to the top tier and get more games vs England, France etc. whilst less competitive (with everyone) nations find a level where they can compete.

Yes, England can expect to win handsomely for the first few years at least but the majority of games should be more competitive than the England ones and with a regular set of fixtures laid out for players to see that may mean that players like Morgan Knowles, Joe Philbin and others that have gone before and after decide to stick with the other nations rather than switching to England (as England aren't likely to play Aus/NZ either, which is the big carrot that causes players to switch).

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Yes, that´s my point.  I meant casual markets don´t give a toss about the competitiveness, they are being asked to watch a 4 week fta tournament, not commit for a year. It´s only rugby league tragics who obsess about England being too good for Wales , Scotland France etc. 

Casual markets tune in to events with meaning.

They keep tuning in if they are entertained. 

Walkovers are not entertaining.

If the established markets aren't buying into it, the casuals aren't going to bother.

 

[londonrlfan]

Why not take England v France, Wales etc games to Coventry, London, Sheffield, Newcastle etc? The RFL don't show any ambition and use Leigh and Hull KR, which is what makes these matches seem small time. New audiences have shown appetite for International RL. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

10 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

No it´s because the biggest TV market and the team eveyone wants to play is not in it. And no it´s not the same as Australia because there is no tv data that suggests Australia are a bigger draw than Scotland. The only thing that is the same is the selfishness of English RL not to join a northern hemisphere tournament. 

Edit: Or stupidity, because if anyone after this week thinks relying on New Zealand or Australia is a smart move then they are braindead. 

There is no TV data to suggest that Australia are a bigger draw than Scotland?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 minute ago, londonrlfan said:

Why not take England v France, Wales etc games to Coventry, London, Sheffield, Newcastle etc? The RFL don't show any ambition and use Leigh and Hull KR, which is what makes these matches seem small time. New audiences have shown appetite for International RL. 

What crowds would you expect these games to draw in these locations?

[londonrlfan]

1 minute ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

What crowds would you expect these games to draw in these locations?

England v Scotland drew 20k in Coventry. Why wouldn't matches with France and Wales (who to a non RL fan would be considered 'better' than Scotland) do the same if not better?

England v France in London would sell very well imo. I'd try the Olympic Stadium and go for 30-35k. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

So create an annual event. 

People like watching England win.

See point two.

Four is wrong because most games are behind a paywall, 1.6 million watched England beat Scotland 38-12 in the four nations fta. That´s not a close game. 

Again, casuals are not being asked to watch every week. They are being asked to watch 80 minutes for four weeks a year... 

It is evident that people don't just like watching England win. In fact, I've spoken to many many fans the wanted the Combined Nations to beat England because it featured players from their clubs in.

That TV rating had more to do with what the tournament was and who was involved in it rather than the team that was in it. It all contributed towards a bigger goal.

The reasons you are saying people won't be interested in games because they don't involve England are the same as the reasons people don't be interested in games because they don't involve Australia.

[Devon Ram]

5 minutes ago, londonrlfan said:

England v Scotland drew 20k in Coventry. Why wouldn't matches with France and Wales (who to a non RL fan would be considered 'better' than Scotland) do the same if not better?

England v France in London would sell very well imo. I'd try the Olympic Stadium and go for 30-35k. 

Forget the Olympic Stadium went when we played the Kiwis bloody rubbish atmosphere even had stewards telling fans to take down the flags would never go there again for a RL game. 

[londonrlfan]

Hmm this article is also calling for a Four Nations with England, France, Wales and Jamaica! https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/world-cup-the-show-must-go-on/

[Wellsy4HullFC]

5 minutes ago, londonrlfan said:

England v Scotland drew 20k in Coventry. Why wouldn't matches with France and Wales (who to a non RL fan would be considered 'better' than Scotland) do the same if not better?

England v France in London would sell very well imo. I'd try the Olympic Stadium and go for 30-35k. 

England v Scotland was part of a double header with Australia v New Zealand. Let's not pretend it was 20k purely for it being England v Scotland.

They wouldn't do better because the tournament involving them wouldn't have as much meaning as a 4N tournament featuring the best nations in the world.

I think the idea of tricking casual fans into thinking they're going to be watching a top class contest because it involves national teams is pretty insulting to the casual sports fan.

If you think England v France at the Olympic Stadium could draw 30-35k, you are dillusional. England struggle to draw that against Australia and New Zealand in London.

 

[wiganermike]

2 minutes ago, londonrlfan said:

England v Scotland drew 20k in Coventry. Why wouldn't matches with France and Wales (who to a non RL fan would be considered 'better' than Scotland) do the same if not better?

England v France in London would sell very well imo. I'd try the Olympic Stadium and go for 30-35k. 

The game at Coventry was a double header so Aus v NZ would have been a draw for some of the crowd too so no guarantee of similar for a standalone England v Scotland game. I was at that double header and was looking forward to both games (my mum is a Scot so I was glad to see them in the Four Nations). As it turned out England v Scotland was easily the better of the two games IMO as Scotland gave it a real go but ran out of steam whilst NZ just didn't turn up and Australia won without breaking sweat. Scotland continued to do themselves proud when they later drew with NZ in that tournament.

[londonrlfan]

2 minutes ago, Devon Ram said:

Forget the Olympic Stadium went when we played the Kiwis bloody rubbish atmosphere even had stewards telling fans to take down the flags would never go there again for a RL game. 

Oh I agree, the Olympic Stadium is awful. Unfortunately, there aren't any 30-35k stadiums in London, unless you opt for somewhere like Crystal Palace, which is a complete dump. 

[londonrlfan]

1 minute ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

If you think England v France at the Olympic Stadium could draw 30-35k, you are dillusional. England struggle to draw that against Australia and New Zealand in London.

 

England v Australia at Wembley 2011 42k, England v NZ Wembley 2013 67k, England v NZ Olympic 2015 44k. How did any of them struggle to get 30k?

You underestimate Londoners. We turn up to watch sport, regardless if we're 'experts' in the sport on not. France are a big name in sporting terms. It's not like playing the Cook Islands, is it? 

[Devon Ram]

1 minute ago, londonrlfan said:

Oh I agree, the Olympic Stadium is awful. Unfortunately, there aren't any 30-35k stadiums in London, unless you opt for somewhere like Crystal Palace, which is a complete dump. 

Was looking forward to going to Spurs & have ticket booked for the Emirates, living in Devon ideal having games in London but not stupid KO times like Schofield has come out with 5pm for Cup Final idiot leave it alone 3pm.

[Scubby]

If the World Cup is cancelled, you can come up with all the permutations you like - there will be no appetite for International RL to be staged or watched in the UK in 2021. It's hard for me to type but it is true.