Board index ‹ RLFANS MAIN ‹ The Virtual Terrace ‹ Our great game continues to grow

kobashi wrote:

I have questioned the no to NZ tour on many threads. Can't see any explanation on why the RFL turned the offer down.

Because like you and many others, they prefer to blame Australia for any lack of international fixtures and profile instead.

kobashi wrote:

My point was Australia are not interested in having GB/england coming down for a big tour like the old days. Them days are long gone and won't be coming back!

That's because it's impossible to schedule a big tour out of season. In the past, we would tour down under during our off season and during their season and vice versa. The blame lies with us when we decided to take Rupert's money, adopt Super League and switch to a summer season.

kobashi wrote:

It has been said loads of times before but state of origin is what matters in Australia.

State of Origin also mattered in 1988 and 1992 but it didn't prevent Australia welcoming GB to tour down under - note, the key ingredient there is those tours were scheduled during the Australian season and during our off-season and vice versa. That's how things used to work extremely well on the international front.

kobashi wrote:

Also why are people calling for mid-season tournaments like rugby union has?

Because it used to work extremely well that way for years?

kobashi wrote:

Its unrealistic and will never happen.

Correct. Not while Super League and summer rugby is around and screwing the game it won't.

So judging by most replies all that matters is super league and thats it???

And people wonder why our profile gets smaller and smaller each year.

If we cannot learn from other sports yes union,and learn how there game as grown on the back of international rugby then its all a lost cause my friends and into the abyss you all stare.

Global companies want to sponsor global sports and if we plod on with a handful teams stacked up with forign players played in the backwaters of darkest yorkshire then we are not going to get any one to sponsor apart from eat at joes cafe.

People are saying austrailia are not interested then fine invite them if they decline we carry on with the comps any way.

A tour of nz and papua with samoa thrown in perhaps even the cook islands.

Invite these people over on a tour the next year,were they will play club sides as well,who wouldn't want to see wigan/leeds/saints etc take on these teams on a tour over here???? why even reward the championship team a one off against samoa say??

But you would sooner see cas v salford instead or the magic weekends??

You complain of lack of media coverage well I'm sorry but being insolare in your super league bubble and agreeing that internationals are dead because you don't want see you team lose 4-5 players is the thing thats killing our game.

Come on rfl show some balls and start planning regular tours against regular nations and hold them at the same grounds each time so people get use to the idea, that in May such a body tours, august such a comp,oh and sell tickets and weekend accomadtion as a package....turn it into a event the same as them foolish union lot with the stupid daft tournaments which rakes in millions year on year,yep daft that union mob

Him wrote:

They could but I'm not sure fans would accept that. Union is based around internationals whereas League is based around the domestic scene. So when Union clubs lose a couple of players to GB tours they don't mind, also they have larger squads. I know I wouldn't be too happy if Leeds lost 4 or 5 of our best players to the squad for a tour down under that would probably take up around 6 weeks.
Plus the NRL wouldnt countenance anything like that, they barely agree to end of season internationals, never mind a mid-season tour.

Its a myth that RU is strong only because of the international competition. Really its the other way round. The Guiness Premireship and Magners leagues are both well attended and the Heineken cup is a huge competition. In the southern hemisphere, the S14, and Currie cup attracts big crowds and sponsors as well. The international game is successful because of the domestic game not inspite of it.

If every club in the league lost 3 or 4 players because of a mid-season tour I don't see there being a problem, it probably would make SL a bit more interesting.

Let me get this right.

People actually want to go back to winter rugby league?

Does anyone think the fans, clubs, players would support this?

Thoth wrote:

They provide a tougher opposition at home more than any international side bar Australia. France have often not been as motivated as the Exiles have been. Standard played by France at international is below mediocre at best, comapre that with the standard of play the Exiles have shown in three games.

But the point I was making is that the players play at a higher intensity each week so the fact that it is a higher standard doesn't really make a whole lot of difference, especially when it's not a genuine international and so the full team is not available. Unless it results in a higher standard than the players are involved in every week, then it's pointless to contrive a team. An analogy would be if a Super League side decided to play a pre-season friendly against a 'Yorkshire Championship select' team. Yes, the standard would probably be higher than playing against a Championship club, but it wouldn't really serve any more purpose in preparing the Super League side to play against other Super League teams because it would still be below the standard that they would be aspiring to play at.

Why do you consistently insist on describing people is stupid and lack of poor judgement? You have criticised gthe commitment and motivation of the Exiles without even watching the games then criticisng a person (who for some reason you assume to be male) for having a lack of reasoning.

As far as I'm aware, Steve McNamara is male.

When was the last time France or Wales beat England? When they have played in the SL era the games France and Wales have been sub standard and lacked the intensity tyo compete. Getting hammered in a meaningless year fixtured will not help France or Wales. THe Welsh National side has very little traduition or meaning to the Welsh the same is true to a lesser extent of the French team.

So what does that make the Welsh and French alternative you are suggesting?

I wasn't suggesting a match against Wales or France was a particularly good option either, just preferable to the Exiles match. Up until the last couple of years, the France and Wales sides have been almost exclusively part-time, so is it any surprise that they were beaten so convincingly? The Wales side that lost 74-0 in 2008 had Conference players, FFS. The issue with playing France is that virtually all the players who are available mid-season belong to a single club, so it effectively becomes England vs Catalans-lite. But that doesn't mean that the idea should be abandoned forever. Once a second French team is introduced, then it could and should be a much more rewarding match for England to play. The same applies to Wales once they are able to put out a team of full-time players, which at the current rate of development isn't too far away at all. Either way, these matches are always going to be preferable to the Exiles because they are genuine internationals, rather than contrived wastes of time. And to say that the Wales and France national teams have no tradition is an insult and shows your complete ignorance to the international game.

Charlie Sheen wrote:

Its a myth that RU is strong only because of the international competition. Really its the other way round. The Guiness Premireship and Magners leagues are both well attended and the Heineken cup is a huge competition. In the southern hemisphere, the S14, and Currie cup attracts big crowds and sponsors as well. The international game is successful because of the domestic game not inspite of it.

If every club in the league lost 3 or 4 players because of a mid-season tour I don't see there being a problem, it probably would make SL a bit more interesting.

The difference is casual fans buy into Rugby Union internationals. I know plenty of people who watch England but they never watch club rugby union.

liger05 wrote:

The difference is casual fans buy into Rugby Union internationals. I know plenty of people who watch England but they never watch club rugby union.

Very true.
I have relatives who never attend a club RU game and rarely watch on TV, but attend internationals.
Its a fashion statement, cool to be at Twickers etc

Charlie Sheen wrote:

Its a myth that RU is strong only because of the international competition. Really its the other way round. The Guiness Premireship and Magners leagues are both well attended and the Heineken cup is a huge competition. In the southern hemisphere, the S14, and Currie cup attracts big crowds and sponsors as well. The international game is successful because of the domestic game not inspite of it.

If every club in the league lost 3 or 4 players because of a mid-season tour I don't see there being a problem, it probably would make SL a bit more interesting.

Rugby league in this country will be dead within 20 years. Sky arent bothered about it, its just a drain on their resources and no else really cares about it around the country except all us diehards.

Talent wise, the state of rugby in England is absolutely abysmal

[Horatio Yed]

No atmosphere
As we know partisan crowds create little atmosphere, look at when the small supported teams come to Wire, London and Catalans the atmosphere is dreadful.

Too contrived
Team mates become enemies...really, do they? They're all smiling and just going through the motions, i understand personal pride and the competitive spirit, winners always want to win even if it's crazy golf or air hockey but this game is shhhiiite and lacklustre.

Not enough quality
Both teams and one coach

--------------------------------
Plus i don't subscribe to the England v England Knights

Straight away that's the first team v the second so the result is almost decided before it even kicks off.
Which team do you support?
If the b team beats the a team what does that tell us?
If these are the back up players who coaches the sides, does Banana coach them both? If not they have the potential to show up the 1st team coach (just putting aside that it's Banana at the moment).

The only concept that'll work is one that draws a rivalry, doesn't exclude people (so forget Yorks/Lancs) and is also a way of seeing who can step up.

Dreadful game, i switched it off and i love this game [RL] but good god it was just soulless, and compare that to SOO? 'kin hell i rather watch Wakey v Cas than this pap.