Perhaps so Barry. Perhaps so.



I still would like to see our International game put on a better footing, and Im just not convinced that making an imitation of an RU tournament does that. I also think that more internationals should be played against NZ and Aus. Also, I would like to see more effort put into bringing South Africa back into the fold.

Despite what you may think of RU you have to admire the crowds they pull in for internationals. I've been to Wallabies games and I've struggled to get tickets. I've gone to Kangaroos matches and just been a 'walk up' on the day... and got tickets without any problems at all.



A lot of people don't like the Super 14 Rugby union tournament. I quite enjoy it personally.



If there were more countries playing League COMPETITIVELY I'd like to see a similar concept brought in. Some of you may remember the extended WCC of 1997 (that lost a fortune)



Good concept though... I think if it was brought back now the Gulf between NRL Clubs and SL clubs is not as wide it would be far more competitive.

So, England aren't good enough to play Australia, but Wigan/Saints/Leeds etc are?

The Four Nations helps bring a small RL nation (such as France or PNG) the chance to test themselves against the "big 3" nations. However, for once, I agree with Baz... in that no team outside Aus, Nz or Eng have any chance of winning the tournament.



The Ashes were good in that I like the touring side of it where Aus or NZ would play SL teams in a warm up and it all hinged towards a 3 match series. the 4 Nations doesn't really allow that kind of build up or set of matches.



However, if you removed the 4 nations and replaced it with the tours, either NZ or Aus would miss a season of internationals....other nations wouldn't have the chance to develop their standards. Its a necessary building tool for the next few years in order to build a greater international game.

so 75% of the teams involved have a chance of winning it......sounds like a very competitive comp to me..

I reckon so.



All 3 of those sides have got some good Aussies playing for them.



Any of those sides would give the Kangaroos a good game... especially Wigan

Barrie McKenzie struggling to get something?



I though you was a legend and everything just falls into the palm of your hands at a canter..

I don't think it's actually possible to fall at a canter …

Only 50%







Sounds impressive to say to someone who is unfamilar of the concept of 4 nations RL 'Oh half of the teams involved in the tournament could end up winning'



Until you tell them there are only 4 nations involved.

So, we shouldn't play the 4N because only 2 teams have a chance of winning (in your opinion), but your "logical" replacement is to have an Ashes tour instead involving one of the teams that you have given no chance of winning the 4N (because GB is essentially the same as England) and one of the teams you think will easily win it most years?



I'm sorry, I see no sense in this at all. The logic is lost on me here...

Absolutely.



A Kangaroo tour is about so much more than a simple one off game against England.



A Kangaroo tour is all about arguably the greatest collection of Rugby league players on the planet flying half way round the world to take on the best club sides in England plus the international fixtures against GB or England.



Australia would be confident of winning every game on the tour just like the 'Invincibles' of 1982 did.



Big Club sides over here such as Wigan, St Helens, Hull and Leeds would be determined to make sure that didnt happen... it wouldnt just be the English players in these club sides that would want to beat Australia.. it would be the so called 'past it journeymen' in these clubs who would still believe they had a point to make against their fellow countrymen.



I'm pretty sure Hull v Australia would sell the KC out... as would the other fixtures.





You know it makes sense.

Could that not easily just be said as this:



"Australia flying half way around the world to take on the best international sides"? I don't see why playing a SL side in a friendly is better for the international game than playing an international side in a competitive game?





Well what's the point then? Aren't Australia confident of winning every game all the time anyway?





So a game with "past it players" and English players not good enough for England yet would be better than an international game?





I don't think it would.





It really doesn't.



Look at it this way, a 3-test series is only one game longer than the current 4N tournament anyway (assuming you play in the final). So where is all the extra room in the calendar to play all of these tour games?



I don't like the idea of clubs vs international sides. If a club from SL wants to take on an Aussie side, it should be an NRL side in an extended WCC, not a friendly.



You're talking about how the union lot have a better international recognition, yet you want to reduce the number of international games our rep sides play in?



You know it doesn't make sense.