New Zealand not coming in 2023

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Looking back I have to agree.

The 4 Nations was ideal for us. It allowed us to package in a less attractive European fixture with the Aussies and Kiwis, and gave that European side fixtures against the Aussies and Kiwis. It both lessened the pressure on us whilst increasing the exposure. 

It even had the agility to enable the 4th team to qualify for it, alternating between Northern and Southern Hemispheres (with a local 2nd tier comp in the alternate years acting as a qualifier for the next years tier 1 Four Nations)

In many ways it could have been perfect. So we binned it. 

[JM2010]

I think we have to accept that the NRL and SH countries are doing their own thing outside of WCs. It leaves England out in the cold a bit but we've done it to ourselves.

A plan is now needed to make  SL a bigger and better competition as well as growing and improving the game in Europe and N. America 

Unfortunately I can't see that happening 

[Eddie]

1 minute ago, JM2010 said:

I think we have to accept that the NRL and SH countries are doing their own thing outside of WCs. It leaves England out in the cold a bit but we've done it to ourselves.

A plan is now needed to make  SL a bigger and better competition as well as growing and improving the game in Europe and N. America 

Unfortunately I can't see that happening 

We had our chance to export the game to Canada, and blew it big time. 

[Niels]

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Crazy that people on this forum have seen that not building up Wales or France has led the game to the point, so their solution is to do nothing to build them or whinge about playing them, whilst being so deceitful to pretend there is any serious alternative. Or complain that it’s hard work.

RFL slogan for NHrl: We’ve tried nothing and we are all out of ideas 

I understand your point. But I don't think anyone is to blame.

I thought France would do well at the world cup. But having seen them, I just don't think they have the players. Maybe the best ones play union?

Wales exceeded expectations but again don't have the players. 

I think they do fine within these constraints and maybe it is us that are being over expectant about their prospects.

 

[Big Picture]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I don't disagree with the principle, however we have brought both Catalans and Toulouse into the UK pyramid and we've regularly played France. 

Of course, in British RL style we haven't done any of it brilliantly, but that isn't exclusive to the French challenge. 

Doing it brilliantly would have cost serious money though, and British RL has never had that sort of money to work with so it's always taken the easy, cheap option.

[Big Picture]

16 minutes ago, Niels said:

I understand your point. But I don't think anyone is to blame.

I thought France would do well at the world cup. But having seen them, I just don't think they have the players. Maybe the best ones play union?

Wales exceeded expectations but again don't have the players. 

I think they do fine within these constraints and maybe it is us that are being over expectant about their prospects.

Yes the best French players do play Union.  They can make a lot more money there, play on a bigger International stage and have a longer career because Union isn't as hard on their bodies.

Over expectant about France and Wales or not, it appears that they're the only options England has between World Cups now.

Edited December 1, 2022 by Big Picture

[Iceberg Slim]

As a kiwi supporter I’ve always envisioned a 3 test series against aussie as the pinnacle for us. I see it as the potential to counter origin anzac tests were hitting close to 2 million on a Friday night where if they were played on a Wednesday I wouldn’t be afraid to say it could draw 2.5-3 mill if built correctly. 
 

in saying that the landscape has changed significantly and with the success of Samoa that may never happen again unfortunately. The kiwis have always been bolstered by the dual eligible pacific players but it’s unlikely to be the case moving forward. In saying that the nz talent mainly Māori that we do have is high class right now.
 

but to even get 2 tests out of the Aussies home and away is huge to be fair so I wouldn’t be against it. We’ve built a decent rivalry with them over the last 20+ years and I don’t think it should be thrown away with the rise of the pacific nations.
 

in saying that I really enjoyed the tests series against England. They had some classic matches and the crowds were great. I thought 2015 was particularly good 2018 not so much from a kiwi perspective but still a good series. Would have loved to have seen it for 2023 and I know you all would love to play the kangaroos and it’s a shame with so much history you have against them I truly hope 2024 they tour England and France.  
 

don’t be too hard on yourselves you have won 2 Baskerville tests series against us when we were so called favourites. I think you guys would win again if it happened in 2023 you guys seem to lift against the kiwis.
 

honestly I don’t think it’s all doom and gloom. It’s just a matter of convincing the sh to play ball. But yes build your own backyard. If they do play euro cup this year make the French game a 2 test series that has a cup to it like the Paul barrier trophy or something. At least televise those 2 tests. 
 

the problem with rugby league as soon as they build a brand they seem to dismantle it just as they are about to break through. Four nations should’ve expanded to 5-6 nations. 

[Adelaide Tiger]

8 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

It even had the agility to enable the 4th team to qualify for it, alternating between Northern and Southern Hemispheres (with a local 2nd tier comp in the alternate years acting as a qualifier for the next years tier 1 Four Nations)

In many ways it could have been perfect. So we binned it. 

As pointed out the 4N was building itself into a strong, quality marketable event.  What I find especially galling is that the emergence over the last 5 years of Tonga, Samoa, PNG and Fiji as genuine international teams and gradual improvement of France could ….. no make that SHOULD …  have led to two divisions of four teams with P and R between them.

Imagine that ……

[MatthewWoody]

13 hours ago, Davo5 said:

One was a big enough draw for 24k fans just a few weeks ago.

In a World Cup...

[Iceberg Slim]

I think it should have always been 5 nations with France as the cemented 4th spot. Based on history this should have always been the case. Four nations started in 2009 

if they had invested in France since 2009 to now that’s 12 years of experience playing high quality nations. I think you could’ve had a quality French team by now to build a euro 4 nations around. 

[Dave T]

10 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

We offer no protections to let them develop French players and games against France were arranged last minute in small time venues. 

Doing something as half arsed as possible then saying “we’ve tried” is why I am glad the reckoning is here. Try harder, do it properly or die as a sport. There is now no alternative 

UK RL doesn't have the funds and resources to grow French RL. 

It can be a helpful partner, and should absolutely be better at what it does - but people thinking SLE or the RFL will drag France up to England levels are deluded. 

 

[Dave T]

10 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

But it hasn't been good enough Dave, and now we're not even able to fall back on Kangaroos or Kiwis automatically. Its hard to see where the positives come from.

But how many millions would do it? Where is that coming from? 

[Dave T]

8 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Doing it brilliantly would have cost serious money though, and British RL has never had that sort of money to work with so it's always taken the easy, cheap option.

I think there are some modest costing initiatives that would help, some mentioned, like ringfencing, Toulouse could have been in for a while, for example. Regular games and events in France to try and push it. 

But yes, I agree, it would cost millions, and it would be scratching the surface. 

We are not the governing body for French RL, nor are we cash rich, so it's difficult to see how we improve things materially there. 

The English game has had tens of millions a year pumped into it, is far, far bigger than French RL and has challenges, French RL. Is so far behind that. They need tens of millions of euro investment a year too. 

[Dave T]

It's clear we aren't going to get NRL players touring her annually. And that has generally been the case forever. There is no reason that Aus and NZ should be coming here in consecutive years. 

It is also true that England should be travelling to the Southern Hemisphere for internationals, so why aren't we going there in 2023?

The main issue here is that we need a broad understanding of who travels where and when. If England are touring Down Under, we need to ensure we have a couple of tests mid-season, and at least one before we get on the plane so we always have presence. 

We have just staged 31 mens tests here, I'm not surprised that NRL players are not coming next year. 

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We have just staged 31 mens tests here, I'm not surprised that NRL players are not coming next year. 

I totally agree, but it seems the RFL hierarchy are surprised by this.

As you said clarity over where the bulk of post season internationals are played is needed. However it seems the RFL are in a position where they aren't on the same page as the SH, particularly over their demand to play England either up here or down there. That is an unquestionably worrying delusion.

Once again, the 4 nations was an ideal vehicle for this, but the RFL leadership of the past decade decided against.

A lot of this would also be much simpler if annual NH test matches against France, Wales, Ireland, Lebanon etc were already locked in before we have to consider the Kangaroos, Kiwis or Pacific Island nations.

[Tommygilf]

22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But how many millions would do it? Where is that coming from? 

Lots, I'm not denying that, and it might not work.

The analogy of fixing the roof whilst the sun is shining comes to mind, and we're now firmly heading towards a downpour.

[Dave T]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

I totally agree, but it seems the RFL hierarchy are surprised by this.

As you said clarity over where the bulk of post season internationals are played is needed. However it seems the RFL are in a position where they aren't on the same page as the SH, particularly over their demand to play England either up here or down there. That is an unquestionably worrying delusion.

Once again, the 4 nations was an ideal vehicle for this, but the RFL leadership of the past decade decided against.

A lot of this would also be much simpler if annual NH test matches against France, Wales, Ireland, Lebanon etc were already locked in before we have to consider the Kangaroos, Kiwis or Pacific Island nations.

I think a 4/6/8 nations annual tournament, plus a few other Tests to guarantee home tests should be the model. 

Part of my issue with the 'other' Tests is that in reality they feel like low-key friendlies, like a poor SL game. Low crowds, poor organisation, boring. Every time England play a game, it should be an event. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Lots, I'm not denying that, and it might not work.

The analogy of fixing the roof whilst the sun is shining comes to mind, and we're now firmly heading towards a downpour.

Like I say, I acknowledge that there are some reasonably cheap improvements, but I think ring fencing two teams, being better on scheduling, incentivising French players in squads, playing more tests etc are all good, but I just don't see that it is going to improve France to a material level.

We should of course push to do these things, but in reality the French game needs millions of investment from there to underpin the whole game development. 

I suppose it goes back to what we talked about with IRL funds, maybe France becomes a big investment opportunity. 

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think a 4/6/8 nations annual tournament, plus a few other Tests to guarantee home tests should be the model. 

Part of my issue with the 'other' Tests is that in reality they feel like low-key friendlies, like a poor SL game. Low crowds, poor organisation, boring. Every time England play a game, it should be an event. 

I agree completely, the plans for the French test this April is indicative of just how poorly the RFL actually are managing the England brand. Doesn't feel like a major event at all, and people will vote with their feet and wallets. Cheap and not even cheerful.

The problem seems to be that, just as the SH was realising it could have a fairly popular, cheap to run 4/6 nations of their own, the RFL hierarchy (who included the RLIF top dog too) were pushing for the 4 nations to go to be replaced by nostalgia trips of old bilateral tours and GB Lions. We shot ourselves completely in the foot. Instead of making ourselves and the Tri/Four Nations indispensable, we gave the Aussies a reason not to play some years and binned off the inclusion of tier 2 nations.

[Guest]

At least some people will now get the dream of a full strength England side vs Greece, Spain and Serbia for 20 years.

They might get the losing margins under 80 in that period.

[RP London]

17 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

We don't appear to have a choice.

Shame this situation wasn't entirely predictable and we couldn't have done anything more to mitigate the problems or improve our non Oz or Kiwi prospects...

You wonder what the powers that be do.. even this board predicted this umpteen times over the past 10 years! 

The split from GB gave the perfect opportunity to make this all work.. You could still have used GB (and i thought that was the plan) but the split of nations gave the chance to build something in the NH and they bottled it all the way back then... this is the reaping of what we sowed all those years ago.

[Tommygilf]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Like I say, I acknowledge that there are some reasonably cheap improvements, but I think ring fencing two teams, being better on scheduling, incentivising French players in squads, playing more tests etc are all good, but I just don't see that it is going to improve France to a material level.

We should of course push to do these things, but in reality the French game needs millions of investment from there to underpin the whole game development. 

I suppose it goes back to what we talked about with IRL funds, maybe France becomes a big investment opportunity. 

I think the clear way to improve France, and indeed any nation, is to expand their pool of full professionals to call on. Then you improve the quality of those players. That is essentially all that has happened with Tonga, Samoa, Fiji and PNG.

There is a debate to be had around the quality of Super League, and how effective that is as an environment to develop top quality players. I said on another thread not long ago but if I was the FFRXIII hierarchy, I'd be looking to get as many French players as possible in and around the NRL clubs and their wider networks going to France 2025.

[RP London]

11 hours ago, UTK said:

The writing has been on the wall for this since 2017 but it appears the RFL has been pretending it wasn't going to happen. It was very telling that immediately after Tonga's emergence in the 2017 WC the 4N was ditched and Tonga were consequentially guaranteed matches against NZ and Australia, the 2019 Oceanic Cup result was just the final nail in the coffin.

Now we're left with an expansion if the European Championship that was obviously developed with the Knights in mind and a full England side needing games at home. Would've been the perfect time for England to re-enter the the old Euro A structure alongside France/Wales/Ireland but now we've got Serbia/Spain et al in the Euro A picture and that creates problems for the competition.

Even the slightest bit of foresight of a hint of commitment to the wider European RL scene over the last 20 years by England would've prevented this from happening but nonetheless this is the mess we're left with now.

In the bit I've put in bold, there is a bit of me that just wonders if they have been relatively smart with this possibility in mind.. ie they haven't actually announced how Euro A will be structured and therefore once they know which England they will get they may change the structure slightly to make it work for everyone a bit better.. could you have an Euro A 1 and a Euro A 2.. it over complicates things and makes the qualifying aspect a little more complicated but are those things worth doing to make a better structured comp that could help nations and bring NRL players over?? 

Really dont know and maybe giving someone a bit too much credit when actually they just havent been too bothered to get too much organised just yet, but know they need to get an announcement out. 

[RP London]

11 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

We offer no protections to let them develop French players and games against France were arranged last minute in small time venues. 

Doing something as half arsed as possible then saying “we’ve tried” is why I am glad the reckoning is here. Try harder, do it properly or die as a sport. There is now no alternative 

I mean how hard is it really to organise a game v France in the south of France on Bastille day... surely its not that tough and surely we could get a nice crowd in for it, people would holiday to watch it and (as we wouldnt have the NRL stars) it wouldnt necessarily be a walkover... do that for 5-10 years..

plus a match in England on Trafalgar day weekend (the week after the GF) find another "fun day" to put one on mid season and you have an interesting 3 test series across the season that you can build up to in nice stadiums with a "story" behind it on days with a bit of zip... 

Then you can head off on tour, or get a touring team in after this because we always had a warm up match pre those sort of things anyway (and as we have a series afterwards the post GF match you dont have to play the full team and no one would bat an eyelid.. so its not a walk over).

None of this is that difficult.. its something that could have been built.. (i know its very simplistic and there is more to this sort of stuff but seriously its a plan put together in 2 minutes at work and its still better than we have seen from anyone at the RFL since the 4 nations went pop!)

[Jughead]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

I mean how hard is it really to organise a game v France in the south of France on Bastille day... surely its not that tough and surely we could get a nice crowd in for it, people would holiday to watch it and (as we wouldnt have the NRL stars) it wouldnt necessarily be a walkover... do that for 5-10 years..

plus a match in England on Trafalgar day weekend (the week after the GF) find another "fun day" to put one on mid season and you have an interesting 3 test series across the season that you can build up to in nice stadiums with a "story" behind it on days with a bit of zip... 

Then you can head off on tour, or get a touring team in after this because we always had a warm up match pre those sort of things anyway (and as we have a series afterwards the post GF match you dont have to play the full team and no one would bat an eyelid.. so its not a walk over).

None of this is that difficult.. its something that could have been built.. (i know its very simplistic and there is more to this sort of stuff but seriously its a plan put together in 2 minutes at work and its still better than we have seen from anyone at the RFL since the 4 nations went pop!)

If Catalans v Toulouse was attended poorly because of a French national holiday, why do some persist with the obsession of France v England on Bastille Day?