Sat 29th Jun: France Vs England. Stade Ernest-Wallon 17:00 BST (SL+)

[Dave T]

I quote this semi-regularly, but here is a table of how many fixtures each 2nd tier nation played in that period following the 2008 WC and Covid. (2009-2019 inclusive):

Fra	40
Ire	38
Wal	34
Sco	33
Fiji	30
Sam	26
PNG	26
Ton	23

 

People like to make out that there has been all sorts of effort with the likes of Tonga and co. and no effort with France, Wales, Scotland etc. when it isn't true at that highest level. For all the talk of the RFL failing here, this was the period when the RFL had decent sway internationally - the World Cups were growing and the 4N had become very good international events, plus regular Euros and qualifying tournaments. The big failing, as I said earlier in the thread was the lack of foundations in some of these nations. 

Much of this went South when the RFL dared to stage a game in Denver. That was the turning point here imo.

[David Shepherd]

On 30/06/2024 at 23:01, dealwithit said:

FFRXIII is amateur run compared to successful sporting bodies. If England wants a competitive and profitable mid year event, it’s not enough to just turn up. 
1) share marketing resources 

2) promote the game in community in the lead up

3) provide coaching and player development support. The depth of coaching is shallow in France.

 

 

 

4. Don't stage an international in a city where tens of thousands of potential spectators are reasonably likely to be in the city centre celebrating winning the Top 14.

[Tommygilf]

39 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I quote this semi-regularly, but here is a table of how many fixtures each 2nd tier nation played in that period following the 2008 WC and Covid. (2009-2019 inclusive):

Fra	40
Ire	38
Wal	34
Sco	33
Fiji	30
Sam	26
PNG	26
Ton	23

 

People like to make out that there has been all sorts of effort with the likes of Tonga and co. and no effort with France, Wales, Scotland etc. when it isn't true at that highest level. For all the talk of the RFL failing here, this was the period when the RFL had decent sway internationally - the World Cups were growing and the 4N had become very good international events, plus regular Euros and qualifying tournaments. The big failing, as I said earlier in the thread was the lack of foundations in some of these nations. 

Much of this went South when the RFL dared to stage a game in Denver. That was the turning point here imo.

Rather than a turning point, I see Denver as a watershed moment. 

The RFL gave up its major role when we stopped backing the 4 nations concept and went on a nostalgia-driven trip for tours and GB. We let go of the only consistent commitment the Australians, and indeed Kiwis under their control, had to regular international RL. The world cup whilst nice wasn't well established by then and indeed as we've seen since it has completely crumbled.

The structure that 4 nations tournament gave the game below in Europe was massive. A proper tournament, even talks of a nations league with a 6 team 2 group top tier, with qualification to play with the big boys. Wales, France and Scotland all showed that there was potential in the concept or even that it could grow.

We let that go, and we were more willing to do so because our leaders saw GB Lions and the classic kit and thought it would be good instead. It wasn't and now here we are.

[Dave T]

21 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Rather than a turning point, I see Denver as a watershed moment. 

The RFL gave up its major role when we stopped backing the 4 nations concept and went on a nostalgia-driven trip for tours and GB. We let go of the only consistent commitment the Australians, and indeed Kiwis under their control, had to regular international RL. The world cup whilst nice wasn't well established by then and indeed as we've seen since it has completely crumbled.

The structure that 4 nations tournament gave the game below in Europe was massive. A proper tournament, even talks of a nations league with a 6 team 2 group top tier, with qualification to play with the big boys. Wales, France and Scotland all showed that there was potential in the concept or even that it could grow.

We let that go, and we were more willing to do so because our leaders saw GB Lions and the classic kit and thought it would be good instead. It wasn't and now here we are.

Surely you don't believe the RFL just 'let the 4N go'. 

It was clear that the Aussies weren't committed to the 4N - they took two years off - 2012 and 2015 (and 2007 for Tri nations). That means that other internationals needed to be staged in those years. 

The RLIF plan was to stage two major events every 4 years, continental championships, Nines, plus bilateral test series. That sounds a perfectly reasonable plan, that isn't being delivered. 

Your final point is not logical, as the RFL could do this without the abandonment of the 4N.

Edited July 2, 2024 by Dave T

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Surely you don't believe the RFL just 'let the 4N go'. 

It was clear that the Aussies weren't committed to the 4N - they took two years off - 2012 and 2015. That means that other internationals needed to be staged in those years. 

The RLIF plan was to stage two major events every 4 years, continental championships, Nines, plus bilateral test series. That sounds a perfectly reasonable plan, that isn't being delivered. 

If they fought for it, they didn't appear to try very hard. Nor did they come up nd follow through with an alternative to suggest they had any idea other than (GB) tours which they liked anyway.

That was a reasonable plan, but the Aussies don't want it, the Kiwis do as they are told, and the RFL were tunnel visioned as ever.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

If they fought for it, they didn't appear to try very hard. Nor did they come up nd follow through with an alternative to suggest they had any idea other than (GB) tours which they liked anyway.

That was a reasonable plan, but the Aussies don't want it, the Kiwis do as they are told, and the RFL were tunnel visioned as ever.

Come on Tommy, have you been asleep for the last couple of years? 

There is no idea other than Tri Nations, Four Nations, Euro Championships, Pacific Championships, World Cups, Test series etc - all of which happened when the RFL held power. That power has been wrestled back by the Aussies and ost of the above has been scrapped. 

The Aussies don't want to travel here for 2/3 years out of every four - they are happy staging a couple of tests close to home and controlling it all. Keep their players wrapped up. That's what this is about. 

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Come on Tommy, have you been asleep for the last couple of years? 

There is no idea other than Tri Nations, Four Nations, Euro Championships, Pacific Championships, World Cups, Test series etc - all of which happened when the RFL held power. That power has been wrestled back by the Aussies and ost of the above has been scrapped. 

The Aussies don't want to travel here for 2/3 years out of every four - they are happy staging a couple of tests close to home and controlling it all. Keep their players wrapped up. That's what this is about. 

I'm not disagreeing with you on that, the Aussies have wrestled back control. 

My point is that they didn't have to try very hard, nor was there much to stop them, or any alternatives built up, and that is partly at least down to the RFL.

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I'm not disagreeing with you on that, the Aussies have wrestled back control. 

My point is that they didn't have to try very hard, nor was there much to stop them, or any alternatives built up, and that is partly at least down to the RFL.

Agree that they didn't try very hard, because there is no real power. 

I think I just disagree that the RFL haven't showed anything else - the World Cups, Tri and Four Nations and even Euro Nations and other tours were largely driven by them. And whilst they all needed lots of improvement, they actually represent a relatively successful period of international RL (as tragic as that is!). 

In reality, a good NRL here would have wrestled control and grew the 4N, World Cup and other tournaments. They have culled them in reality. 

Edited July 2, 2024 by Dave T

[Balmainboy]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Agree that they didn't try very hard, because there is no real power. 

I think I just disagree that the RFL haven't showed anything else - the World Cups, Tri and Four Nations and even Euro Nations and other tours were largely driven by them. And whilst they all needed lots of improvement, they actually represent a relatively successful period of international RL (as tragic as that is!). 

In reality, a good NRL here would have wrestled control and grew the 4N, World Cup and other tournaments. They have culled them in reality. 

TBH I think a 6 nations pacific tournament each year is a positive for the international game. Leaves England in a tough spot, no doubt. 

[Balmainboy]

Just now, Balmainboy said:

TBH I think a 6 nations pacific tournament each year is a positive for the international game. Leaves England in a tough spot, no doubt. 

Or two three team comps etc etc (would much rather a stand alone 6 nations pacific comp with two pools but whatever, close enough for the time being). 

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, Balmainboy said:

TBH I think a 6 nations pacific tournament each year is a positive for the international game. Leaves England in a tough spot, no doubt. 

There is literally no reason to cut off the 2nd largest RL nation on the planet. Just because. 

It is a massive act of self-harm. 

Edited July 2, 2024 by Dave T

[eal]

11 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

What do you reckon the score on Saturday would have been had England had a full strength team to put out?

Full strength England would surely put 60 or 70 on France if they didn't ease up. If one were to enter last weekends French lineup into SL, where would they finish?

[Balmainboy]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

There is literally no reason to cut off the 2nd largest RL nation on the planet. Just because. 

It is a massive act of self-harm. 

It's not just because though? And I don't think they're being cut off? There's a top team travelling to England every single year, whether it be Tonga, Samoa, NZ or Aus. 

Edited July 2, 2024 by Balmainboy

[ATLANTISMAN]

28 minutes ago, eal said:

Full strength England would surely put 60 or 70 on France if they didn't ease up. If one were to enter last weekends French lineup into SL, where would they finish?

10th

[Balmainboy]

1 minute ago, Balmainboy said:

It's not just because though? And I don't think they're being cut off? There's a top team travelling to England every single year, whether it be Tonga, Samoa, NZ or Aus. 

Apologies, reading back my initial comment it reads like I don't think anyoe should travel to England. Just saying the current arrangement where there's a yearly 6 nations - or something similiar - in the pacific, where the overwhelming majority of top tier rugby league teams are based - is good. A team travels each year to England. England every so often travels to Aus/NZ. There's a world cup every four years. I really don't think sending even more southern hemisphere teams each year to England is a positive. 

Now in a perfect world would the SUper League and NRL be shorter so there's more time for internationals? 100%. But until the international game can generate the money that NRL can - it simply is never going to happen. The only way to get there is to build the international game gradually, which I think means a strong 8 teams, not just three like we once had before the rise of pacific teams due to changes in heritage rules and more players from pacifka background entering the NRL. To get a strong 8 teams, we need a pacific tournament. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Balmainboy said:

It's not just because though? And I don't think they're being cut off? There's a top team travelling to England every single year, whether it be Tonga, Samoa, NZ or Aus. 

Have these changes led to bigger events? No. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Balmainboy said:

Apologies, reading back my initial comment it reads like I don't think anyoe should travel to England. Just saying the current arrangement where there's a yearly 6 nations - or something similiar - in the pacific, where the overwhelming majority of top tier rugby league teams are based - is good. A team travels each year to England. England every so often travels to Aus/NZ. There's a world cup every four years. I really don't think sending even more southern hemisphere teams each year to England is a positive. 

Now in a perfect world would the SUper League and NRL be shorter so there's more time for internationals? 100%. But until the international game can generate the money that NRL can - it simply is never going to happen. The only way to get there is to build the international game gradually, which I think means a strong 8 teams, not just three like we once had before the rise of pacific teams due to changes in heritage rules and more players from pacifka background entering the NRL. To get a strong 8 teams, we need a pacific tournament. 

Let's not mistake what is happening as some kind of international growth. 

There is strength in working together, and that isn't what is happening here. 

The last 4N held Down Under attracted 144k fans, with 7bgames, including a double header with 47k in Brisbane. 

The replacement major tournament saw 4 games staged, with a peak of 23k and a pathetic 13k at the Final between Oz and NZ. These teams got over 30k in Leeds 12m earlier. 

Even if we add in the three England v Tonga tests, we don't get anywhere near that last 4N attendance number. 

[17 stone giant]

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

The Aussies don't want to travel here for 2/3 years out of every four

How often would you want them to come over?

And how often do you think England should go 'down under'?

 

 

[Hopie]

3 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

How often would you want them to come over?

And how often do you think England should go 'down under'?

 

 

Ideally there should be 2 international windows a year, one in the "middle" and one at the end of the season. England should play one series here and one down under each year.  That could include three matches against the same team or a set of matches against different teams/a tournament in each window. Each tournament/series should be announced at or before the equivalent window the previous year so there is always an opportunity for people at the games to buy tickets for the next set of internationals in their country if they are motivated to do so. 
This would still be less of an offering than other sports provide, it just appears a big step as we are so terrible at showing off the peak of our game. At the moment the compromise may have to include the mid season window being for Origin too, and Australia sitting things out, but the game is in a position to support that, and profit from it. England/Samoa/NZ/Tonga are all top tier teams that can be marketed and built up in the public consciousness here and no longer be held back by the NRL over there.

[Archie Gordon]

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

...

The replacement major tournament saw 4 games staged, with a peak of 23k and a pathetic 13k at the Final between Oz and NZ. These teams got over 30k in Leeds 12m earlier. 

Even if we add in the three England v Tonga tests, we don't get anywhere near that last 4N attendance number. 

But that's not a bad offering on paper. The problem was the awful presentation and promotion of these comps/series. And here we go again in 2024.

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

But that's not a bad offering on paper. The problem was the awful presentation and promotion of these comps/series. And here we go again in 2024.

Again, if we look back at what we had in 2014:

Four Nations with Aus, NZ, Samoa, England - 7 matches, including a final.

We had the Anzac Test in front of 25k, Samoa played Fiji in a qualifier for the 4N.

We had a few other internationals in the Autumn (PNG v Tonga etc).

The gap we had was any formality around the 2nd tier Southern hemisphere teams. 

What we have now is absolute bare minimum - a Tri-nations that has one game against each other - that isn't a good comp that allows for any real momentum or narrative to be built. We also never really know who is playing in which comp - some years even the Aussies won't bother with it. 

None of this is progress (apart from the likes of Tonga, Samoa, PNG etc being given more regular games which is very welcome).

 

 

[Dave T]

8 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

How often would you want them to come over?

And how often do you think England should go 'down under'?

 

4 hours ago, Hopie said:

Ideally there should be 2 international windows a year, one in the "middle" and one at the end of the season. England should play one series here and one down under each year. 

This.

If we want to be a serious international sport, we really do need to look at what serious international sports do. Those sports don't just play at it for a month a year, doing absolute bare minimum.

 

[Jinking Jimmy]

Apart from being badly organised and a total embarrassment for our sport it has sadly resulted in a season ending injury for Castleford centre Sam Wood. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 hour ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Apart from being badly organised and a total embarrassment for our sport it has sadly resulted in a season ending injury for Castleford centre Sam Wood. 

On the bright side, he did get paid £250 quid though...

[Jinking Jimmy]

2 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

On the bright side, he did get paid £250 quid though...

The generosity of the RFL sometimes leaves you speechless