Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

@sam4731I disagree- we had two broken legs ten years ago in international league. 

Reasonably weve got 5 competative nations (albeit with Aus still sttong favourites) and 3 developing nations who should be able to limit the score to under 50 points or better (PNG, Fiji, france) 

That's much better than 3 Nations we had. 

  • Like 1

Posted
6 hours ago, JohnM said:

How to grow international rugby league in 3 easy steps.

1. Have a plan.

2. Stick to it.

3. Win the Euromillions lottery three years in a row.

You need a calendar too, preferably a new one every other year. 

  • Haha 3
Posted
15 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

@sam4731I disagree- we had two broken legs ten years ago in international league. 

Reasonably weve got 5 competative nations (albeit with Aus still sttong favourites) and 3 developing nations who should be able to limit the score to under 50 points or better (PNG, Fiji, france) 

That's much better than 3 Nations we had. 

It's not really all that different to ten years ago - take a look at the 2014 four nations.

Fiji gave Samoa a reasonable game, despite losing and failing to qualify as the 4th participant and then in the competition we had:

- England 32-26 Samoa

- Australia 12-30 New Zealand

- New Zealand 14-12 Samoa

- Australia 16-12 England

- New Zealand 16-14 England

- New Zealand 22-18 Australia in the final

The only game that wasn't close was Australia v Samoa

We had more than three competitive nations then. Not all that much has changed.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

I hope the NRL and SL realise that big International events are the best way to keep their big stars. NRL can pay good wages now but the prestige of playing in big matches for their countries is tempting players to switch codes.

Now the NRL seem to have almost conquered the Pacific Islands is there anywhere else they could use their influence and money to bring a couple of more countries up to being competitive. 
 

A combination of heritage players and investment into domestic competitions could work if they can target certain countries. Other than the big Pasifika influence in the NRL are there many other communities that are producing NRL players? Lebanon, Greece and Italy seem to be the three that stand out.

What about Malaysia, Philippines, Japan etc?

In the NH there’s obviously France, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. There’s also a lot of potential for countries like Jamaica and Nigeria to put out competitive sides in the future as there are quite a few heritage players already. A bit of investment in these countries domestic set ups alongside heritage players could produce results 

Edited by JM2010
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, JM2010 said:

I hope the NRL and SL realise that big International events are the best way to keep their big stars. NRL can pay good wages now but the prestige of playing in big matches for their countries is tempting players to switch codes.

Now the NRL seem to have almost conquered the Pacific Islands is there anywhere else they could use their influence and money to bring a couple of more countries up to being competitive. 
 

A combination of heritage players and investment into domestic competitions could work if they can target certain countries. Other than the big Pasifika influence in the NRL are there many other communities that are producing NRL players? Lebanon, Greece and Italy seem to be the three that stand out.

What about Malaysia, Philippines, Japan etc?

In the NH there’s obviously France, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. There’s also a lot of potential for countries like Jamaica and Nigeria to put out competitive sides in the future as there are quite a few heritage players already. A bit of investment in these countries domestic set ups alongside heritage players could produce results 

Heritage  players  may help to bring  success in short term. However  if there  is no structures and funding in countries  the success gives no lasting  benefits. 

Ireland  had a competitive  team in start of century with wins over teams like Samoa.  I was at a match versus  France  in Dublin in which Ireland  ran them close.

On the ground  things have barely  changed in Ireland.  

 

Edited by corkonian77
  • Like 3
Posted
On 11/11/2024 at 10:06, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Definitely not. Why does it matter though? We are a different sport. Is international Gaelic Football catching up with Rugby Union? Is international Lawn Bowls catching up with Rugby Union? They are basically the same questions. Just cos the name of our sport has a word the same as RU, we are comparing all the time. It doesn't matter!

Agreed, though it annoys me that many Union fans go straight to the international game whenever I mention League, conveniently ignoring how dull their game is to watch. They do have a point though tbf.  

Posted
14 hours ago, JM2010 said:

Now the NRL seem to have almost conquered the Pacific Islands is there anywhere else they could use their influence and money to bring a couple of more countries up to being competitive. 
 

In what way have the NRL almost conquered the PIs? I’m not saying they haven’t btw, am interested in why you think they have. A quick google suggests that for example there are 560 Union clubs and 30 League clubs in Fiji. In Samoa there are 140 Union clubs and I can’t actually find anything about a domestic comp. 

  • Like 1
Posted
19 hours ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

@sam4731I disagree- we had two broken legs ten years ago in international league. 

Reasonably weve got 5 competative nations (albeit with Aus still sttong favourites) and 3 developing nations who should be able to limit the score to under 50 points or better (PNG, Fiji, france) 

That's much better than 3 Nations we had. 

I’d put Fiji in a category well ahead of France. In their WC QF against NZ, which I was fortunate enough to be at, they were absolutely tremendous and could have won. 

Posted

In terms of Gaelic  it is the All Ireland  championships at county  and club level which are it's height. 

Teams from outside  Ireland  have won championships.  Warwickshire  recently  won a lower tier competition. 

Participation  is the sole interest  of Gaa outside  Ireland.  They don't care if the players are good or bad players.  They will support them regardless  of their ability.  

  • Like 3
Posted
2 hours ago, corkonian77 said:

Heritage  players  may help to bring  success in short term. However  if there  is no structures and funding in countries  the success gives no lasting  benefits. 

Ireland  had a competitive  team in start of century with wins over teams like Samoa.  I was at a match versus  France  in Dublin in which Ireland  ran them close.

On the ground  things have barely  changed in Ireland.  

 

I did say a combination of heritage players and domestic investment should be done. If regular competitions and tests can be arranged for these nations then some bigger names might be tempted to commit to make them competitive. This can then be used alongside investing in the domestic structures to hopefully build in the long term 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Eddie said:

In what way have the NRL almost conquered the PIs? I’m not saying they haven’t btw, am interested in why you think they have. A quick google suggests that for example there are 560 Union clubs and 30 League clubs in Fiji. In Samoa there are 140 Union clubs and I can’t actually find anything about a domestic comp. 

I say almost because I think the way things are going it won’t be long until the RL becomes the main sport in these countries. It already seems to be the main sport in the Pasifika communities in Australia 

Posted
32 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

I did say a combination of heritage players and domestic investment should be done. If regular competitions and tests can be arranged for these nations then some bigger names might be tempted to commit to make them competitive. This can then be used alongside investing in the domestic structures to hopefully build in the long term 

The funding  rarely  is provided  in sufficient  amount to make much a difference. 

Posted
3 hours ago, corkonian77 said:

The funding  rarely  is provided  in sufficient  amount to make much a difference. 

Unfortunately that’s true but the NRL do have the money now so they can invest in the Pacific and a bit further afield if they wanted to.

The SL however, is in a bit of a different position to the NRL. If the SL could start to generate some income then maybe they could do it. 
 

I know this is unlikely but I can hope 

Posted

I wonder if Internationals really are the best way to spread the game ?

Even soccer national team isn't the draw it was..... An increasing number of people care a lot more about their club than England 

USA sport manages without it etc 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I wonder if Internationals really are the best way to spread the game ?

Even soccer national team isn't the draw it was..... An increasing number of people care a lot more about their club than England 

USA sport manages without it etc 

 

Sport in America is a whole different ball game (pardon the pun). The American mindset is that they're the best at everything and they don't need to prove it to anyone else. The reason why international sport isn't important to them is the same reason they don't have P&R. Why change what's already perfect?

  • Like 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

Sport in America is a whole different ball game (pardon the pun). The American mindset is that they're the best at everything and they don't need to prove it to anyone else. The reason why international sport isn't important to them is the same reason they don't have P&R. Why change what's already perfect?

I think whether we like it or not RL does have to compete with RU. RL players switch codes mainly because of the opportunities in International RU.

I don’t think we should build international RL to the detriment of the club game but a decent International programme at the end of the season plus couple of mid season tests is definitely doable 

  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I wonder if Internationals really are the best way to spread the game ?

Even soccer national team isn't the draw it was..... An increasing number of people care a lot more about their club than England 

USA sport manages without it etc 

 

If you're English and surrounded by the Premier League, you could come to the conclusion that club football is the pinnacle of the game, especially as it's a weekly offering compared to international football's sporadic schedule. Step outside those borders, as well as those of the other major leagues, and the national football team is often the most important sporting entity. 

Frankly I'm not sure that point is true even in England. How often does a PL game--albeit airing on pay TV--get more than 2 million people watching? Meanwhile England can get 10 times that on free to air in major tournaments. England also regularly draw more than 80,000 at Wembley, higher than any club in the country. 

You bring up the US and managing it without internationals, but you're referring to traditional sports that are rooted in their communities nationwide. When introducing a new sport there, like football, I'd argue their hosting of the World Cup in 1994, and their runs at the 2006 and 2014 World Cups, have done more for growing the game there than anything else. 

Internationals are the best way to grow a sport because their reach is wider than any club-based competition. And because the aim should always be to increase participation, what's better than something that anyone in the country can get behind?

  • Like 2
Posted
10 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

An increasing number of people care a lot more about their club than England

 

Back when I were a lad, it was considered by 'real' football fans, to be something of an oddity if you ever prioritised the national side over your club. It was just a weird thing to do. But then, maybe, the 80s were a bit strange.

Football, though, as ever, operates in a completely different world to every other sport in England.

 

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Posted
23 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Back when I were a lad, it was considered by 'real' football fans, to be something of an oddity if you ever prioritised the national side over your club. It was just a weird thing to do. But then, maybe, the 80s were a bit strange.

Football, though, as ever, operates in a completely different world to every other sport in England.

 

I'm not so sure that was the same thing down our way in the 80s/90s...

The England side/games seemed much more important nationally and in the general culture than they are now (not saying more than peoples clubs sides but just in general) 

Agree football is probably an unhelpful outlier though 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I'm not so sure that was the same thing down our way in the 80s/90s...

The England side/games seemed much more important nationally and in the general culture than they are now (not saying more than peoples clubs sides but just in general) 

Agree football is probably an unhelpful outlier though 

I also think that international RL isn’t just for existing fans. It could be used to attract fans and viewers who aren’t normally fans of RL. 
One thing it will do is get more media coverage for RL which is beneficial to the game 

  • Like 2
Posted
On 11/11/2024 at 09:38, Dave W said:

It's interesting to note that RU manages to play internationals yet still have club cup fixtures on the same day.

Clubs seem happy to have weakened teams and lower crowds because the game exists for the internationals because that's where the money flows fromIn RL that doesn't happen because parochial self-interest reigns: The NRL and SL club chairmen call the shots and internationals during the season are too often seen as an inconvenience. 

They still manage to lose an average of £3million a season per club! 

 

Posted

It seems to me, unsubstantiated of course, that Internationals appeal to the general sports fan, plus the unattached fans of the specific sport, plus fans with club attachment in the specific sport, in that order, whist that order is reversed for club games.

Thus, in my view, we really should be, evidentially, giving the International game the highest priority in the drive to recruit new followers. 

Thus, having a well-publicised, long term, reliable plan, programme etc of International series on free to air and YouTube etc is vital. 

.,and then I woke up. 🥱🥱🥱

  • Like 3
Posted

I'd like to add that I beleive that members of the general sports fan category is fairly evenly spread across the UK and whilst in a sense, we need to reward and involve fans in the "heartlands" that won't necessarity grow the fan or follower base.  Hence, in my view, the necessity of playing a substantial number of international in a major London stadium....regularly and frequently. If the NRL clubs won't release players, so be it. That's not a reason to give up, its a reason to persevere.

In my view, that means Spurs, Arsenal or Wember-leeee.  (or Las Vegas) 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.