Aussies & Kiwis not coming in 2023...

[Jughead]

3 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

But your solutions are no different to what's led England to this point. We've adopted this approach for years. Isn't doing the same thing and expecting different results the definition of insanity?

Not following past mistakes would be a positive, that’s not doing the same thing and hoping for the best. 

England didn’t play a home game for 23 months after the 2013 World Cup. Whether the timing or the venue is correct is another debate but England play a home game five months after their last game this time around. 

England have dropped playing a made-up side, a side they’ve played as many times since the 2013 tournament as they’ve played France in England outside of World Cup’s. That’s unequivocally a positive that England are actually playing international rugby league, instead of playing made up teams. 

Rather than doubling down on England and the brand, a year out from an Ashes series and two out from a World Cup, Great Britain were brought back from the dead like how soaps desperately bring back a character from the dead when ratings have tanked. It was lunacy and staying away from this kind of mistakes and amateurish decisions is vital. 

We’ve gone from playing 27 games in 2013 and 2014 to 30 in 2015 and now playing 27 games. IMG have proposed, and the clubs unanimously agreed to drop the number of games down to a 22 game season. Now, there’s still proposals to come with the format for the Challenge Cup but I firmly believe it’s a good thing that we’re not subjecting our top players to 30+ games a season before they even chuck an England shirt on. 

There’s also a history of SH nations coming to the UK, we now have more stronger SH nations than ever before. Gone are the days where Australia and New Zealand are the only sides worth playing. Tonga and Samoa are definitely worth playing and I wouldn’t be averse to a Fiji or PNG coming over (though not as the main attraction) too. We have more options for fixtures now and that does also mean more risk in terms of results but that’s not a bad thing. It’s over to France to get their house in order, we can’t aide them like some sort of development officer. I won’t even bother discussing Scotland or Ireland and don’t see much short-term hope in Wales, either.

[MatthewWoody]

47 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Did I not say lock a welsh team in SL so they are full time? 

The crowds at World Cup and tv show that people are happy to watch England batter teams.

A full time Wales vs an NRL less England would only need the RFL to stick with it and it would do enough for casuals to bring cash in for the sport. Then you have a month of internationals (England vs Wales, Wales France, England France and a final if you wish)

Are there the money, interest, grassroots and appetite in Wales for a SL team? 

[MatthewWoody]

The "made up" team has been chosen because it could give England a challenging game better than a game v France. 

The 2012 Autumn International Series hadn't been useful and challenging. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by MatthewWoody

[MatthewWoody]

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

They could play France and Wales as well.

And I don't think England should have a whole year without playing top teams.

We always talk about high intensity games! 

[Jughead]

12 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

The "made up" team has been chosen because it could give England a challenging game better than a game v France. 

The 2012 Autumn International Series hadn't been useful and challenging. 

And what benefit has there been from playing a representative side for England in that time? 

[MatthewWoody]

40 minutes ago, Jughead said:

And what benefit has there been from playing a representative side for England in that time? 

It's possible it misfired.

But the reason they made that team up is that European teams hadn't just been good enough. 

You being able to call it a test match doesn't mean it's challenging and intense.

[Jughead]

14 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

It's possible it misfired.

But the reason they made that team up is that European teams hadn't just been good enough. 

You being able to call it a test match doesn't mean it's challenging and intense.

It’s a commitment to international rugby league, something which many here accuse the Australians of a lack of commitment. 

The Australians have a commitment to play PNG annually, under the PM XIII guise. PNG haven’t beaten the PM XIII since it’s inception. Whether France can/will win in a game or two a year against England is, largely, immaterial, as long as it’s part of a wider international program. 

[Guest]

Just now, Jughead said:

It’s a commitment to international rugby league, something which many here accuse the Australians of a lack of commitment. 

The Australians have a commitment to play PNG annually, under the PM XIII guise. PNG haven’t beaten the PM XIII since it’s inception. Whether France can/will win in a game or two a year against England is, largely, immaterial, as long as it’s part of a wider international program. 

Cutting the games to 22 per season will probably do as much to up the average intensity levels in NH RL as playing any of the other home nations. 

[MatthewWoody]

20 minutes ago, Jughead said:

It’s a commitment to international rugby league, something which many here accuse the Australians of a lack of commitment. 

The Australians have a commitment to play PNG annually, under the PM XIII guise. PNG haven’t beaten the PM XIII since it’s inception. Whether France can/will win in a game or two a year against England is, largely, immaterial, as long as it’s part of a wider international program. 

Every time we mention the Knights (who we can compare to the PMXIII) people here scream we shouldn't have test teams playing England "B" team.

I'm with you about the need of involving France and Wales but:

- Eng should find the proper balance between helping them develop and getting tested at the highest level (which is not gonna happen with France and Wales)

- Games vs lower ranked nations shouldn't be the only Int RL England play in a year. Test v Fra midseason is ok, but England must play bettet teams, too.  

 

 

 

 

 

[MatthewWoody]

24 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Cutting the games to 22 per season will probably do as much to up the average intensity levels in NH RL as playing any of the other home nations. 

But clubs rely on money from gates revenues.

Edited November 20, 2022 by MatthewWoody

[Tommygilf]

42 minutes ago, Jughead said:

It’s a commitment to international rugby league, something which many here accuse the Australians of a lack of commitment. 

The Australians have a commitment to play PNG annually, under the PM XIII guise. PNG haven’t beaten the PM XIII since it’s inception. Whether France can/will win in a game or two a year against England is, largely, immaterial, as long as it’s part of a wider international program. 

PNG play their PMXIII against the Aussies version.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 hours ago, MatthewWoody said:

And I don't think England should have a whole year without playing top teams.

In an ideal world, we should have both - some games against our near European neighbours, and some games against some higher quality southern hemisphere opposition. One of those elements is within our control, and one isn't. I'm in favour of controlling the controllables.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 hour ago, MatthewWoody said:

Every time we mention the Knights (who we can compare to the PMXIII) people here scream we shouldn't have test teams playing England "B" team.

We shouldn't. It instantly devalues the games and makes them commercially unviable. BBC will show England play France, but they won't show England Knights playing anybody. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MatthewWoody said:

But clubs rely on money from gates revenues.

You might well get higher gates in total. Are you just spreading the same jam more thinly with more games?

Arguably the World Cup group stage was a test point for that.

[Big Picture]

18 minutes ago, Leonard said:

You might well get higher gates in total. Are you just spreading the same jam more thinly with more games?

Arguably the World Cup group stage was a test point for that.

The TV rights might be affected by a shorter season, there'd be fewer matches for Sky or whoever to broadcast.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

The TV rights might be affected by a shorter season, there'd be fewer matches for Sky or whoever to broadcast.

They can show more games per round and they are already paying naff all anyway.

Ideally 14 teams and 26 games would be work (I'd probably boot magic).

I'm not sold that just having more games, with loop fixtures, improves crowds, quality or TV income.

[Gomersall]

2 hours ago, MatthewWoody said:

But clubs rely on money from gates revenues.

The clubs are generally lazy Woody. They think simply putting on a game is all they have to do. Few in my experience actually try and increase their fan base other than promoting the odd game here and there as Wigan used to do with their Big One push. 

[MatthewWoody]

I'd be more than happy with Wales growing. I just don't believe it'll happen. 

One sided test matches won't get much money from tv imho. 

Do Wales have a local championship as France has? 

[Gomersall]

9 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

I'd be more than happy with Wales growing. I just don't believe it'll happen. 

One sided test matches won't get much money from tv imho. 

Do Wales have a local championship as France has? 

Nothing anywhere near what France has. It’s very much an amateur game in Wales barring NWC and WWR (and even their paying power is questionable). It’s nowhere near the numbers France has either.

[MatthewWoody]

3 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

Nothing anywhere near what France has. It’s very much an amateur game in Wales barring NWC and WWR (and even their paying power is questionable). It’s nowhere near the numbers France has either.

And that's why I find it very very hard them playing SL. With all due respect.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

And that's why I find it very very hard them playing SL. With all due respect.

Tbf what is the difference between that and anywhere else? If you want fully professional players you need a pathway there.

[Big Picture]

25 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

It seems people on here think this is about making Wales and France competitive over night when really this is about making money for the sport to reinvest. 

I don’t give a toss if several million people watch England batter Wales in C4 every year for five years and nor will the tv company that pays to have several million eyeballs. 

C4 won't be able to pay a lot though.  Their revenue comes from ads and RL matches don't have enough ad minutes for them to generate the revenue to pay much in rights fees.

[Mojo]

They need to bring back the mid year tests back. The Samoa vs Tonga games in the past was awesome but now it's on another level. I get that it will clash with with origin but the Samoan and Tongan teams have so much depth now they can cover the origin players and basically use it as a trial. Any Samoa vs Tonga games will be a sellout and it'll be a huge exposure for the international game

[GeordieSaint]

17 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

And that's why I find it very very hard them playing SL. With all due respect.

You don’t need a SL team in Wales to grow Wales internationally. You need pathways for kids to progress to the professional ranks. 

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Mojo said:

They need to bring back the mid year tests back. The Samoa vs Tonga games in the past was awesome but now it's on another level. I get that it will clash with with origin but the Samoan and Tongan teams have so much depth now they can cover the origin players and basically use it as a trial. Any Samoa vs Tonga games will be a sellout and it'll be a huge exposure for the international game

Why won't said players be playing for Samoa or Tonga?