World Cup Bidding

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

34 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Doing something on a “might” isn’t a good plan for anything. I don’t think we’re in a position to gamble. 

I'd take "might" over "definitely won't" any day!

[Sports Prophet]

I would welcome back GB&I for non WC events. I think it would give players of all nations high standard matches to aspire to and maybe more buy in for Aus and Kiwis to play regularly.

Secondly, it would allow Wales, Scotland, Ireland and France the opportunity to play a Knights team which would close the gap but also be a great opportunity to bring through the next best English.

For WC though, individual countries only.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

9 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Secondly, it would allow Wales, Scotland, Ireland and France the opportunity to play a Knights team which would close the gap but also be a great opportunity to bring through the next best English.

It won't close the gap. Without full-time pro teams providing a conveyor belt of international standard players, Wales, Scotland and Ireland are not going to make any progress in terms of being competitive on the international stage. And unfortunately, there is zero indication from anywhere that this is ever going to happen. As such, they're going to be completely reliant on heritage players, and the best heritage players aren't going to make themselves available for second tier tournaments. It's either got be high-profile, top level tournaments including a full England side (or other top teams such as Aus or NZ) in order to attract the best players, or accept that those nations are never going to be competitive and revert to GB&I. As depressing as it is, there hasn't been any desire/will/effort to create the former, so as far as I can see the more realistic option is unfortunately the latter.

[Jughead]

I loved the GB brand and much preferred that to England but I see little point in having England and Great Britain in a time where we have limited funds.

How many Irish, Scottish and Welsh born players are there in Super League? There probably isn’t even half a dozen these days and there’s next to no pathways in place within any of those countries to create anything that could potentially filter through to the top. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

14 minutes ago, Jughead said:

I loved the GB brand and much preferred that to England but I see little point in having England and Great Britain in a time where we have limited funds.

This is my point. There seems to be no will/desire/finance to create full-time professional teams in Scotland, Wales and Ireland, so therefore no production line of players. Plus no will or desire from the RFL to create any sort of meaningful high profile competition involving those teams which would encourage lots of heritage players to play. So I just can't see how they're ever going to become competitive. And if the WC reduces to an 8-team comp thus pulling up the drawbridge and cutting those teams off, then they won't ever have any high profile games again. In which case, I would revert to GB&I instead of England. At least that way we wouldn't be alienating any potential players or supporters from the other home nations. It's a pretty bleak outlook, I admit. But unfortunately it seems to be where things may be heading.

[Sports Prophet]

21 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

It won't close the gap. Without full-time pro teams providing a conveyor belt of international standard players, Wales, Scotland and Ireland are not going to make any progress in terms of being competitive on the international stage. And unfortunately, there is zero indication from anywhere that this is ever going to happen. As such, they're going to be completely reliant on heritage players, and the best heritage players aren't going to make themselves available for second tier tournaments. It's either got be high-profile, top level tournaments including a full England side (or other top teams such as Aus or NZ) in order to attract the best players, or accept that those nations are never going to be competitive and revert to GB&I. As depressing as it is, there hasn't been any desire/will/effort to create the former, so as far as I can see the more realistic option is unfortunately the latter.

I have long argued the way to improve performance is from participating in regular weekly high standard fixtures like SL or NRL. So agreed, it won’t be a huge improvement for those nations, but it does give France and the Knights an average opponent at the end of the year and hopefully more Welsh, Irish and Scots play SL and then improve those nations. Start now annually with a view it improves in the future.

Meanwhile the best get to represent for GB&I which would be a stronger brand for the Kangaroos to play against, even if for the next 20 years, they are all English.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

3 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

I have long argued the way to improve performance is from participating in regular weekly high standard fixtures like SL or NRL. So agreed, it won’t be a huge improvement for those nations, but it does give France and the Knights an average opponent at the end of the year and hopefully more Welsh, Irish and Scots play SL and then improve those nations. Start now annually with a view it improves in the future.

I just don't see how those games will help the home nations improve. Ultimately, their ability is going to be completely determined by whoever puts up their hands to play. When Scotland had the likes of Danny Brough and Peter Wallace, they were far more competitive. Likewise when Luke Keary turns out for Ireland, they are suddenly more competitive. But that's pure chance as to which class players put their hands up to play - there's no production line of players coming through who can be developed over time (plus the likes of Luke Keary aren't going to make themselves available for second tier Euro tournaments with no WC qualification at stake). Hopefully more Welsh, Irish and Scots will be recruited by SL clubs, but these are unlikely to ever be in sufficient quantities to provide the core of a competitive international team - they're more likely to be the odd one or two here and there like Regan Grace.

18 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Meanwhile the best get to represent for GB&I which would be a stronger brand for the Kangaroos to play against, even if for the next 20 years, they are all English.

Agreed. I think it would be much better for that occasional star player who happens to be Welsh, Scots or Irish to be able to represent GB&I, than forcing them to have to pick England over their country of birth in order to play at the highest level.

[Damien]

The England v GB topic has been done to death and is a complete diversion to the topic. Barely anyone under the age of 35 has any awareness of GB and the majority of fans don't want to see GB back. I remember a poll on this very forum that was quite clear on that, that poll among an older demographic who are more familiar and nostalgic for GB too than many younger RL fans. It would be a retrograde step and achieves pretty much nothing as there isn't a single player from any of the other home nations that would get in the England team anyway.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

The England v GB topic has been done to death and is a complete diversion to the topic.

I disagree - the 2 are completely inter-linked. If the European international teams were in a strong, healthy state, playing competitive games in front of decent crowds, then there wouldn't be this talk of retracting the WC to an 8-team competition.

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

It would be a retrograde step

It would be a massively retrograde step. But the reality is that since GB split in 2007, those other home nations have made no noticeable progress (and arguably have gone backwards in some respects), and the RFL has seemingly shown very limited will or desire to help them, despite it being part of their constitution. The only time these nations get to play any meaningful games are either in the WC or WC qualifiers, so if that WC drawbridge is pulled up, what meaningful competitions do you expect them to play in? And which sorts of players do you envisage putting their hands up to play?

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

there isn't a single player from any of the other home nations that would get in the England team anyway.

Probably not at the moment, but I think most on here were in agreement that Regan Grace should've been picked for that last GB tour. So if a future Regan Grace emerges in our game, he's either got the option of representing his country in whatever second-rate competition they're consigned to, or opting to play for England in order to maximise his playing career. So, given that Wales, Scotland and Ireland will be unlikely to be playing any meaningful international competitions in this retracted international landscape, why risk alienating potential players and supporters from those countries by playing as England instead of GB&I?

My preference would be to have a vibrant international game, with regular high-profile matches involving all the home nations. But depressingly, there doesn't appear to be any will or desire from the powers-that-be to ever make that happen. 

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I disagree - the 2 are completely inter-linked. If the European international teams were in a strong, healthy state, playing competitive games in front of decent crowds, then there wouldn't be this talk of retracting the WC to an 8-team competition.

That isn't true at all. You are framing a narrative to fit your viewpoint.

The only talk about an 8 team world cup has come from the Aussies, no one else.

[Jughead]

5 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I disagree - the 2 are completely inter-linked. If the European international teams were in a strong, healthy state, playing competitive games in front of decent crowds, then there wouldn't be this talk of retracting the WC to an 8-team competition.

It would be a massively retrograde step. But the reality is that since GB split in 2007, those other home nations have made no noticeable progress (and arguably have gone backwards in some respects), and the RFL has seemingly shown very limited will or desire to help them, despite it being part of their constitution. The only time these nations get to play any meaningful games are either in the WC or WC qualifiers, so if that WC drawbridge is pulled up, what meaningful competitions do you expect them to play in? And which sorts of players do you envisage putting their hands up to play?

Probably not at the moment, but I think most on here were in agreement that Regan Grace should've been picked for that last GB tour. So if a future Regan Grace emerges in our game, he's either got the option of representing his country in whatever second-rate competition they're consigned to, or opting to play for England in order to maximise his playing career. So, given that Wales, Scotland and Ireland will be unlikely to be playing any meaningful international competitions in this retracted international landscape, why risk alienating potential players and supporters from those countries by playing as England instead of GB&I?

My preference would be to have a vibrant international game, with regular high-profile matches involving all the home nations. But depressingly, there doesn't appear to be any will or desire from the powers-that-be to ever make that happen. 

I liked Regan Grace a lot. For me, he was one of Saints’ biggest assets with his work early in the tackle count bringing the ball out for yardage and for his ability to finish tries and I thought he should have been considered for that Great Britain tour over Blake Austin (I’d have selected 80% of this forum ahead of Austin) but bringing back Great Britain just in case we get another Regan Grace (I genuinely couldn’t name more than maybe two players born in Scotland, Wales and Ireland currently playing in Super League) seems incredibly flimsy as an argument for its return. 

 

[Damien]

16 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Probably not at the moment, but I think most on here were in agreement that Regan Grace should've been picked for that last GB tour. So if a future Regan Grace emerges in our game, he's either got the option of representing his country in whatever second-rate competition they're consigned to, or opting to play for England in order to maximise his playing career. So, given that Wales, Scotland and Ireland will be unlikely to be playing any meaningful international competitions in this retracted international landscape, why risk alienating potential players and supporters from those countries by playing as England instead of GB&I?

No, that is your opinion about Grace. Many thought Grace shouldn't have been picked and that people were just championing him as a token Welsh pick.

Wales have had meaningful competition. going back the decade before Covid struck they played in a 4 Nations, World Cups, European Championships and World Cup qualifiers. Its false to make out otherwise. If that isn't good enough for Grace then that's tough really and the same in all sports.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

16 minutes ago, Damien said:

That isn't true at all. You are framing a narrative to fit your viewpoint.

In your opinion. I disagree and think the 2 are inter-related

17 minutes ago, Damien said:

The only talk about an 8 team world cup has come from the Aussies, no one else.

There's been a lot of talk about scaling down the next WC from multiple areas, ever since the French bid fell through.

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

No, that is your opinion about Grace. Many thought Grace shouldn't have been picked and that people were just championing him as a token Welsh pick.

Fair enough - there were some people who didn't think he should be in there. But there was a lot of support on here for him being called up when injuries had resulted in Blake Austin playing on the wing.

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

Wales have had meaningful competition. going back the decade before Covid struck they played in a 4 Nations, World Cups, European Championships and World Cup qualifiers. Its false to make out otherwise. If that isn't good enough for Grace then that's tough really and the same in all sports.

Where have I said otherwise? My argument is about the future, and if the WC retracts to an 8-team comp, then what meaningful international games will Wales have to play? And what sort of players do you envisage putting their hands up to play in them? I asked these questions in my last post but you didn't respond to them.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

21 minutes ago, Jughead said:

but bringing back Great Britain just in case we get another Regan Grace (I genuinely couldn’t name more than maybe two players born in Scotland, Wales and Ireland currently playing in Super League) seems incredibly flimsy as an argument for its return. 

 

As I've stated in previous posts, it's only part of the argument.

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

In your opinion. I disagree and think the 2 are inter-related

There's been a lot of talk about scaling down the next WC from multiple areas, ever since the French bid fell through.

Fair enough - there were some people who didn't think he should be in there. But there was a lot of support on here for him being called up when injuries had resulted in Blake Austin playing on the wing.

Where have I said otherwise? My argument is about the future, and if the WC retracts to an 8-team comp, then what meaningful international games will Wales have to play? And what sort of players do you envisage putting their hands up to play in them? I asked these questions in my last post but you didn't respond to them.

I have never seen any talk about scaling back the World Cup to 8 teams until this proposal. Have you any links to all this talk? This has come from Australia and a competition that has long wanted to limit and run the international game to its own benefit. A NRL World Cup for NRL players.

No one from the Welsh team would get in a GB team. You know that. Therefore your last paragraph is just daft and your entire line of argument is just irrelevant. Wales and Welsh players are far better off as a standalone entity than having no games because we introduce a dead concept in GB.

If you are so bothered about GB and its merits then start a thread, or reignite one of the many we have already had. Here's one for you, one where only a third of people actually want GB:

 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

I have never seen any talk about scaling back the World Cup to 8 teams until this proposal. Have you any links to all this talk? This has come from Australia and a competition that has long wanted to limit and run the international game to its own benefit. A NRL World Cup for NRL players.

No one from the Welsh team would get in a GB team. You know that. Therefore your last paragraph is just daft and your entire line of argument is just irrelevant. Wales and Welsh players are far better off as a standalone entity than having no games because we introduce a dead concept in GB.

If you are so bothered about GB and its merits then start a thread, or reignite one of the many we have already had. Here's one for you, one where only a third of people actually want GB:

 

My argument is about how the prospect of an 8-team WC might impact the home nations. If you don't want to engage with that, that's fine - just ignore my posts. Plus I'm not sure that citing a poll of just over 100 Total RL forum posters is an overly scientific and robust form of evidence and the mic drop that you think it is - it's fine to agree to disagree on things.

[Damien]

7 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

My argument is about how the prospect of an 8-team WC might impact the home nations. If you don't want to engage with that, that's fine - just ignore my posts. Plus I'm not sure that citing a poll of just over 100 Total RL forum posters is an overly scientific and robust form of evidence and the mic drop that you think it is - it's fine to agree to disagree on things.

It's quite obvious I never said it was a mic drop. However it is reflective of the views of even the older RL fanbase who at least have some knowledge of GB and is representative of every poll I have seen on the matter.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Damien

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

4 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Interestingly Football which like it or not, they know about marketing, making money from world cups etc, have got 32 teams in the upcoming WC in Australia. There is NO WAY there are 32 competitive teams, expect blow outs ie 8- 0 and the like, yet FIFA have done it, and the ticket sales have hit 1 million, so it'll make money. Remember this is women's football, a sport FIFA want to expand,  and they see the value in as many teams as they think they can get away with  bolstering the tournament.

I think women's sport is different though 

Football (and union /cricket) have huge appeal already.....women's versions are an extension rather than a new sport. The women's game is piggy backing off that before launching 

 

[Damien]

Anyhow back to the thread, even if the World Cup was reduced in numbers those teams should be representative of the World, as happens in other sports. World Cups aren't just a case of a host nation cherry picking 7 teams that are made up of players from your own competition and then adding the second biggest RL nation. That is just a glorified 4 nations.

[17 stone giant]

I'm looking forward to watching the GB tour down under in 2024.

[Anita Bath]

3 hours ago, Damien said:

The England v GB topic has been done to death and is a complete diversion to the topic. Barely anyone under the age of 35 has any awareness of GB and the majority of fans don't want to see GB back. I remember a poll on this very forum that was quite clear on that, that poll among an older demographic who are more familiar and nostalgic for GB too than many younger RL fans. It would be a retrograde step and achieves pretty much nothing as there isn't a single player from any of the other home nations that would get in the England team anyway.

This discussion is presented as an ‘either or’ ‘ GB v England’.  Up until 1970s the two existed simultaneously, GB played as tourists down under, at home against incoming tourists and Home and away against France every season. In addition there was a European championship consisting of England, Wales, France (and for some periods, other Nationalities) that were played as midweek games in the first half of the season and unofficially served as GB trial games. 

Full time professionals dont play midweek games or more than one game per week so we are talking about a different era.

[Veridical]

2 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I think women's sport is different though 

Football (and union /cricket) have huge appeal already.....women's versions are an extension rather than a new sport. The women's game is piggy backing off that before launching 

 

There’s that as a starting point. Additionally, women’s football is coming off a commercially very successful previous WC and is guaranteed an avalanche of press coverage that will exist on a spectrum between positive and fawning.

RL has neither of those advantages…

Edited June 30, 2023 by Veridical

[Pulga]

On 29/06/2023 at 23:37, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I guess there are two points to ponder though Pulga 

1. The benefit to weaker nations (the one you are making)

2. The benefit to RL in countries where it has a presence but the presence needs growth /strengthening 

For me the latter matters more 

Having say 5 good competetive games for England is better 'in totality for RL' than 1 or 2 competetive games and 3 blow outs 

This goes for Australia .....maybe the Aussie public will take more of an interest if they play 5 more competetive games in the comp rather beating Scotland 82-0 etc

We know what works. Look at Japan in RU. This fear of blow-outs isn't shared by the outside world. 

Australia is as likely put 50 on England as they are 80 in Greece. It really doesn't matter.

Again, consistency is key. It has been proven.

[Jparrish]

Going left field for the sake of debate. But Papua new guinea got government funding to host a group in 2017. Surely their government would be willing to fund a 8 team world cup ? 

If it was to be scaled back to 8 let's take a stronger look at the South Africa and pacific bid too. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Jparrish

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, Damien said:

Anyhow back to the thread, even if the World Cup was reduced in numbers those teams should be representative of the World, as happens in other sports. World Cups aren't just a case of a host nation cherry picking 7 teams that are made up of players from your own competition and then adding the second biggest RL nation. That is just a glorified 4 nations.

Unfortunately the RL World Cups before 1995 were all glorified 4 nations tournaments too so there's precedent for such a tournament.