Talking Footy

Well we had the two codes go up against each other for comparision today in the motherland of both codes.

Firstly, lets get this straight, the Tri-Nations concept in Rugby League is nothing but poor imitation of the concept first developed by Rugby Union.

Secondly, double the crowd that attended the Rugby League test attended the rugby union test. Clearly as is the case here in Australia, rugby league is a minority sport in England too.

Thirdly, as for competitive nature of the the two codes, well, need I say more:

RU: Australia 21 v Great Britian 19

RL: Australia 44 v Great Britain 4 damnfunny

Me thinks the recent upset in the Rugby League Tri-Nations where Great Britian defeated Australia was in fact staged to ensure somewhat decent crowd support for the Tri-Nations final. As you can see from the result of the final one could easily be forgiven for thinking the whole concept was in fact staged in a pathetic attempt to provide Rugby League with some desperately sought international appeal. Sadly for Rugby League administrators no one is fooled by the farce that is international Rugby League.

Beaussie wrote:

Well we had the two codes go up against each other for comparision today in the motherland of both codes.

Firstly, lets get this straight, the Tri-Nations concept in Rugby League is nothing but poor imitation of the concept first developed by Rugby Union.

Secondly, double the crowd that attended the Rugby League test attended the rugby union test. Clearly as is the case here in Australia, rugby league is a minority sport in England too.

Thirdly, as for competitive nature of the the two codes, well, need I say more:

RU: Australia 21 v Great Britian 19

RL: Australia 44 v Great Britain 4 <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v385/ ... n_rofl.gif" border="0" alt="" align=""/

Me thinks the recent upset in the Rugby League Tri-Nations where Great Britian defeated Australia was in fact staged to ensure somewhat decent crowd support for the Tri-Nations final. As you can see from the result of the final one could easily be forgiven for thinking the whole concept was in fact staged in a pathetic attempt to provide Rugby League with some desperately sought international appeal. Sadly for Rugby League administrators no one is fooled by the farce that is international Rugby League.

I'm sorry Beaussie, but on this occasion mate, I'll have to disagree with the views you've just put forward.

"Firstly, lets get this straight, the Tri-Nations concept in Rugby League is nothing but poor imitation of the concept first developed by Rugby Union."

Not so IMHO.

This is the first "real" Rugby League Tri-Nations series between the Top 3 competing nations, and it's a concept I've been craving to come on the scene for quite some time.

And i'll make that point clear again: this is the first real Tri-Nations series. It was untested, untried and was it was unknown to administrators what level of support it would attract. So, now that the very first series has been run and won, i'd have to say it has exceeded all expectations. The competition was closer than anyone would've predicted and the Kangaroos, who were certainties to go through the competition undefeated, only came away with just 2 victories in the round-robin stages. And might I just say that they were very lucky to have 2 wins, with a final second vitory against Britain in their first encounter with them.

This saw Britain finsh on top of the table - something we didnt expect.

It also saw NZ finsih last on the table - another thing we didnt expect.

The series was well supported in the stands and in the media (surprisingly in Australia also).

For it's very first run, I'd call the Tri-Nations a surprising success.

I'm uncertain, though, about what you were expecting from it Beaussie? Rugby Union has a well established International format and timetable, surely you aren't serious in putting down a positive move from Rugby League on the International scene because it apparently can't compete with Rugby in it's debut running?

You're very harsh

"Secondly, double the crowd that attended the Rugby League test attended the rugby union test. Clearly as is the case here in Australia, rugby league is a minority sport in England too."

I'm not sure as to your point with this comment, Beaussie. From my understanding, both matches were a sell-out. The difference is, Twickers holds over 70,000 people, whilst Elland Road holds 40,000.

Great result for both sports i'd say. But I sense once again that you are insinuating that this is a bad result for Rugby League? Hardly, if you ask me.

"Thirdly, as for competitive nature of the the two codes, well, need I say more:

RU: Australia 21 v Great Britian 19

RL: Australia 44 v Great Britain 4"

Granted, the final was a blow-out in the League, but the Wallabies just got home :D

But I'm not sure if you are aware of recent results in the two forms of Rugby and clashes between the major teams.

The Rugby League Tri-Nations has been very closley fought. And, before the Final, Australia had not beaten Britain by more than 6 points in their previous 6 encounters. It's accepted now also that Australia aren't a given to beat New Zealand anymore either, with the Kiwis enjoying a reasonable record against the Kangaroos of late.

The French have also been a find this year for Rugby League, coming so close to victory against both New Zealand and Australia before those respective sides escaped with charges in the final minutes. Might I just add that a clash between lower grade teams from Australia and France played each other this morning with a big win to the French.

So turning to Rugby Union now, and really we have found the exact opposite of late. There have been massive scorelines posted, alot of teams going over the 70-100 mark.

I'm also interested to know if you are aware of recent meetings between England, Australia and the All Blacks. Do you remember the 50+ points thrashing the Wallabies gave England at Suncorp Stadium? Or the 50+ points thrashing that the All-Blacks gave the Wallabies at Telstra Stadium?

Despite all this, Beaussie, am I right in saying that you are labelling the first genuine blow-out in the international League season as something that has happened throughout the season, yet the first really close fought Rugby interntional just happens to erase the fact that all of these massive blow-outs have occured on the Union scene?

A touch narrow-minded IMHO mate, but I suppose it is in the spirit of this forum as I understand it

I'm in no way attempting to rubbish Rugby, but in the context of my response, and the fact that im quite passionate about my League, I will defend it in any case.

"Me thinks the recent upset in the Rugby League Tri-Nations where Great Britian defeated Australia was in fact staged to ensure somewhat decent crowd support for the Tri-Nations final. As you can see from the result of the final one could easily be forgiven for thinking the whole concept was in fact staged in a pathetic attempt to provide Rugby League with some desperately sought international appeal."

Granted, i'll take that on the chin as banter my friend. But surely ye jest Beaussie?

" Sadly for Rugby League administrators no one is fooled by the farce that is international Rugby League"

I shall finsh by saying that I'm extremely pleased with how the Tri-Nations went in its first year.

From the crowd support to the media coverage, from the intense contests to the pride the players displayed, it exceeded all expectation. Really, all I had hoped for was to just see the thing happen, to at least take a step in the right direction for Rugby League.

Let's face it, the future of the game isn't in the NRL, it isn't in the ESL either, or any other domestic premiership. The future of the game is international competition. In this ever shinking world, lengthy supported domestic seasons will most definately, IMHO, fall behind in the relevancy stakes compared to good battles between nations from around the globe. Rugby League has held back from spreading its wings for many a year, and the NRL/ARL hasnt helped in recent times im afraid, certainly not compared to the British who are keen for an extensive International program.

This series is a step in the right direction for the game. Rubbish it all you like, but it will only help strengthen the game around the globe. It has a way to goyet, granted, as the base to work off is small compared to other major and established sports such as Soccer (or futball, whatever they call it in most places ) but we are moving in that direction now.... FINALLY! :D

Dizi, I will reply to your comments in due course. But I think Beaussie, as original thread starter, has first right of reply in this topic!

Dizzys_on_fire wrote:

I'm sorry Beaussie, but on this occasion mate, I'll have to disagree with the views you've just put forward.

"Firstly, lets get this straight, the Tri-Nations concept in Rugby League is nothing but poor imitation of the concept first developed by Rugby Union."

Not so IMHO.

This is the first "real" Rugby League Tri-Nations series between the Top 3 competing nations, and it's a concept I've been craving to come on the scene for quite some time.

And i'll make that point clear again: this is the first real Tri-Nations series. It was untested, untried and was it was unknown to administrators what level of support it would attract. So, now that the very first series has been run and won, i'd have to say it has exceeded all expectations. The competition was closer than anyone would've predicted and the Kangaroos, who were certainties to go through the competition undefeated, only came away with just 2 victories in the round-robin stages. And might I just say that they were very lucky to have 2 wins, with a final second vitory against Britain in their first encounter with them.

This saw Britain finsh on top of the table - something we didnt expect.

It also saw NZ finsih last on the table - another thing we didnt expect.

The series was well supported in the stands and in the media (surprisingly in Australia also).

For it's very first run, I'd call the Tri-Nations a surprising success.

I'm uncertain, though, about what you were expecting from it Beaussie? Rugby Union has a well established International format and timetable, surely you aren't serious in putting down a positive move from Rugby League on the International scene because it apparently can't compete with Rugby in it's debut running?

You're very harsh

Gees, I'm copping it from all angles today in both Fight Clubs. Ah well, Dizzy that is indeed the purpose of the Fight Clubs here and it's good to see debate on the issues.

Now to your first points raised above, I'm of the belief that the final result as seen this morning was never in doubt. Comon seriously, a final and the scoreline is 44 - 4 - with that one try for GB being very lucky indeed.

The whole event IMO was staged to allow GB and NZ to seem somewhat competitive. Do you honestly believe the media and crowd support would have been present had it went as predicted with Australia topping the table and GB finishing last creating a final between Australia and NZ?

Congratulations to the rugby league administrators on getting the results they had planned for though. The healthy crowd support should have at the very least provided a financial windfall for the international rugby league administration. Let's not loose sight of the fact that this is exactly what these adminstrators had prayed for. They certainly didn't want to another financial disaster like the 2000 RLWC which really did damage the international rugby league image.

Dizzys_on_fire wrote:

"Secondly, double the crowd that attended the Rugby League test attended the rugby union test. Clearly as is the case here in Australia, rugby league is a minority sport in England too."

I'm not sure as to your point with this comment, Beaussie. From my understanding, both matches were a sell-out. The difference is, Twickers holds over 70,000 people, whilst Elland Road holds 40,000.

Great result for both sports i'd say. But I sense once again that you are insinuating that this is a bad result for Rugby League? Hardly, if you ask me.

Hahahaha, do you honestly think the Tri-Nations final would have been a sellout at a stadium the size of Twickenham?

Surely if it was the case that such a huge crowd was to be expected for the final, the match would have been scheduled for a larger stadium. Rugby league is a minority sport in England. I repeat a minority sport confined to minor parts of the country. Put simply:

Soccer....daylight....Rugby....daylight....Cricket.....daylight.....Rugby League.

Dizzys_on_fire wrote:

"Thirdly, as for competitive nature of the the two codes, well, need I say more:

RU: Australia 21 v Great Britian 19

RL: Australia 44 v Great Britain 4"

Granted, the final was a blow-out in the League, but the Wallabies just got home :D

But I'm not sure if you are aware of recent results in the two forms of Rugby and clashes between the major teams.

The Rugby League Tri-Nations has been very closley fought. And, before the Final, Australia had not beaten Britain by more than 6 points in their previous 6 encounters. It's accepted now also that Australia aren't a given to beat New Zealand anymore either, with the Kiwis enjoying a reasonable record against the Kangaroos of late.

The French have also been a find this year for Rugby League, coming so close to victory against both New Zealand and Australia before those respective sides escaped with charges in the final minutes. Might I just add that a clash between lower grade teams from Australia and France played each other this morning with a big win to the French.

So turning to Rugby Union now, and really we have found the exact opposite of late. There have been massive scorelines posted, alot of teams going over the 70-100 mark.

I'm also interested to know if you are aware of recent meetings between England, Australia and the All Blacks. Do you remember the 50+ points thrashing the Wallabies gave England at Suncorp Stadium? Or the 50+ points thrashing that the All-Blacks gave the Wallabies at Telstra Stadium?

Despite all this, Beaussie, am I right in saying that you are labelling the first genuine blow-out in the international League season as something that has happened throughout the season, yet the first really close fought Rugby interntional just happens to erase the fact that all of these massive blow-outs have occured on the Union scene?

A touch narrow-minded IMHO mate, but I suppose it is in the spirit of this forum as I understand it

I'm in no way attempting to rubbish Rugby, but in the context of my response, and the fact that im quite passionate about my League, I will defend it in any case.

Well you could say somewhat narrow minded, but there is no doubting the fact that on the international scene, rugby playing nations are generally more competitive than rugby league nations. I mean seriously, who else besides AUS, GB and NZ is actually competitive when it comes to rugby league?

Dizzys_on_fire wrote:

"Me thinks the recent upset in the Rugby League Tri-Nations where Great Britian defeated Australia was in fact staged to ensure somewhat decent crowd support for the Tri-Nations final. As you can see from the result of the final one could easily be forgiven for thinking the whole concept was in fact staged in a pathetic attempt to provide Rugby League with some desperately sought international appeal."

Granted, i'll take that on the chin as banter my friend. But surely ye jest Beaussie?

" Sadly for Rugby League administrators no one is fooled by the farce that is international Rugby League"

I shall finsh by saying that I'm extremely pleased with how the Tri-Nations went in its first year.

From the crowd support to the media coverage, from the intense contests to the pride the players displayed, it exceeded all expectation. Really, all I had hoped for was to just see the thing happen, to at least take a step in the right direction for Rugby League.

Let's face it, the future of the game isn't in the NRL, it isn't in the ESL either, or any other domestic premiership. The future of the game is international competition. In this ever shinking world, lengthy supported domestic seasons will most definately, IMHO, fall behind in the relevancy stakes compared to good battles between nations from around the globe. Rugby League has held back from spreading its wings for many a year, and the NRL/ARL hasnt helped in recent times im afraid, certainly not compared to the British who are keen for an extensive International program.

This series is a step in the right direction for the game. Rubbish it all you like, but it will only help strengthen the game around the globe. It has a way to goyet, granted, as the base to work off is small compared to other major and established sports such as Soccer (or futball, whatever they call it in most places ) but we are moving in that direction now.... FINALLY! :D

You sure about that? I read just the other day that the likes of Dennis Fitzgerald and various players and clubs are not so supportive of the international scene/calender. Bit like the AFL clubs and players when it comes to International Rules. Oh and before you start on me about the AFL's international scene, I'm in no way claiming it to be anything more than generally expats and locals keen for a kick on the weekend. Thankfully the AFL's major strenghts are here in Australia where it is unquestionably the most dominat footy code in the country, not to mention the 4th most attended football league in the world.

Opps, sorry to get sidetracked there, this thread was afterall about international rugby union v international rugby league. Clearly rugby union was the winner this weekend.

Just to conclude:

RL Tri-Nations Final: AUS - 44 def GB - 4

rofl rofl rofl

Ah Beaussie, I applaud your wit in your responses. Must say that I agree with certain points you've raised, but not the overall reason that I sense from your arguement. I'll make my responses as breif as I can.

I'll put this in point form:

* On the stadium capacities: No, I do not for a minute believe that the Rugby League Tri-Nations Final would've sold out Twickers. Absolutely not. However, the point that I was making is that a 40,000 sell-out more than a week in advance is by no means shameful for Rugby League. I, for one, didn't expect it, so it came as a pleasant surprise.

* On the scorelines comparison between the Rugby's: Generally, and overall, Union is miles more cometitive, no doubt. I was simply using the Tri-Nations series in comparison to recent internationals between the corresponding nations in Union of recent times. The reason why, of course, is obviousky due to the fact that Union has a well established international scene compared to Rugby League.

* I won't rubbish the AFL's international presence and my lack of knowledge about the games situation around the globe probably isnt as good as other members on these boards, so I wont comment on it. Don't worry Nor would I anyway, if they are trying to expand the game then good on them I say.

* On an International comparison, the winner will always be Rugby Union these days. However, thats not to say that anything Rugby League is doing internationally is automatically farcical IMHO.

Dizi,

I read again with interest your responses to Beaussie's attempts to create a discussion. In defence of Beaussie, I don't think he 100% believes everything he said, but was engaging in a piece of persuasive writing in order to highlight deficiencies in RL, of which there are several.

Now, I agree with 90% of what you have written as well as the overall argument of your piece. Simply put, the Tri-Series was a success for RL and it has been a step forward for RL internationally. Clearly, the sellout crowds, closeness of most of the results and international interest has given it some roots in which to establish itself in future years.

I disagree with some minor points though.

First, you suggest that close results generally mean a parity between teams. I would tend to disagree. Despite my predictions of a GB win in the final, there is clearly still a difference between the two sides. Just because the results are close, you couldn't argue that internationally there is now only a tiny gap between the 2 nations.

When was the last time the Brits have beaten us in a series? When will they?

I follow horse racing a bit and there was a galloper a few years ago called Octagonal. The horse was a champion, however most of his wins were only by noses, heads and necks - all close results, but conclusive and decisive results. (i.e. He was always going to win)

Possibly, the Kangaroos are similar in that they need motivation or a challenge to keep them interested. How much better could they play when faced with an opposition "raising the bar?"

Second, you claim the French were the find of the year. I tend to disagree again. How are they the 'find' when they didn't win an international? To put it into an analogy related to precious metals, I believe they are "fools gold" - looks good, but worthless.

Third, you say the future of the game is in an international arena, not in the respective national competitions. Again, I believe many would disagree with you on that score. Most would argue that a secure local competition is important first, and any international interest/success is cream on top of it. Look at AFL for example. Really, what happens internationally in the game is not that important. As long as crowds and interest remains in Australia, the sport will prosper.

If your contention is true, that internationals are the future of the game, you would have to argue that the administrators are not doing their jobs as little has been done to promote the game at that level until now. Why is this the first series? What plans have been put in place for the future? I read with interest that they are still infighting about a possible series in Australia next year, with half saying it has to go ahead, and the other half citing 'burnout' as a reason for it to be halted. Hardly a game plan!

Generally though, I agree with you that there is definately a few smiles on faces today, as this series has turned out a few lifelines that appear to be used. Good on them for that.

By the way, was the game a high quality game. Clearly we played well. Were the Brits disappointing, or did we just prevent them from playing well, as a champion team do?

Dizzys_on_fire wrote:

Ah Beaussie, I applaud your wit in your responses. Must say that I agree with certain points you've raised, but not the overall reason that I sense from your arguement.

Gees, I'm not used to leaguies agreeing with me, even if it is only certain points.

Dizzys_on_fire wrote:

I'll put this in point form:

* On the stadium capacities: No, I do not for a minute believe that the Rugby League Tri-Nations Final would've sold out Twickers. Absolutely not. However, the point that I was making is that a 40,000 sell-out more than a week in advance is by no means shameful for Rugby League. I, for one, didn't expect it, so it came as a pleasant surprise.

* On the scorelines comparison between the Rugby's: Generally, and overall, Union is miles more cometitive, no doubt. I was simply using the Tri-Nations series in comparison to recent internationals between the corresponding nations in Union of recent times. The reason why, of course, is obviousky due to the fact that Union has a well established international scene compared to Rugby League.

OK cool, glad we cleared that up. Rugby league will however always remain the poor little sister of Union if you ask me. :P

Dizzys_on_fire wrote:

* I won't rubbish the AFL's international presence and my lack of knowledge about the games situation around the globe probably isnt as good as other members on these boards, so I wont comment on it. Don't worry Nor would I anyway, if they are trying to expand the game then good on them I say.

Awww, you sure you're on the right board mate. Usually the leaguies always attack on this very issue. This is the fight club Dizzy. No need to hold back mate. As you've probably noticed by my posting style, I'll take any opportunity I can to lay the boot into rugby league domestically and internationally. Never mind, I'm sure KE will try again to attack my credibility.

Dizzys_on_fire wrote:

* On an International comparison, the winner will always be Rugby Union these days. However, thats not to say that anything Rugby League is doing internationally is automatically farcical IMHO.

International rugby league is farcical in my opinion and yes I'll agree the same can be said for International AFL. The point I was trying to make however was, why is it that the league mongs on LU are always claiming International RL is superior to International RU. Clearly that is not the case. Even you'd agree, wouldn't you?

BTW, how are the preparations going for the next financial disaster known as the RLWC coming along? Russia, Lebanon and PNG will no doubt give the likes of AUS, NZ and GB a real run for their money wouldn't you say?

crocodileman wrote:

First, you suggest that close results generally mean a parity between teams. I would tend to disagree. Despite my predictions of a GB win in the final, there is clearly still a difference between the two sides. Just because the results are close, you couldn't argue that internationally there is now only a tiny gap between the 2 nations.

When was the last time the Brits have beaten us in a series? When will they?

I understand what you're saying crocodileman, but I suppose as a long time supporter of internationals, the constant tight contests - despite the fact that the Kangaroos win the vast majority of them - is much more pleasing to see than a 50 point thrashing, followed by a 60 point thrashing, followed by 30 point thrashing, and so on.

Has the gap closed? Yes, but not to the extent that many believe (especially the Poms ) And only in the top group of British players has the gap closed. The NRL is still way ahead of the ESL in terms of depth.

When did the Poms last win a series? Unfortunately for them, against Australia, 30 years ago

When will they? Hard to say. I've said many times though, that I will only rate this British side when they can compete and beat Australia in Australia. Until that time comes, they might win the odd series in Britain with a few close wins. But even that could be a long shot.

crocodileman wrote:

I follow horse racing a bit and there was a galloper a few years ago called Octagonal. The horse was a champion, however most of his wins were only by noses, heads and necks - all close results, but conclusive and decisive results. (i.e. He was always going to win)

Possibly, the Kangaroos are similar in that they need motivation or a challenge to keep them interested. How much better could they play when faced with an opposition "raising the bar?"

Nicely put. That's one way of looking at it, for sure.

crocodileman wrote:

Second, you claim the French were the find of the year. I tend to disagree again. How are they the 'find' when they didn't win an international? To put it into an analogy related to precious metals, I believe they are "fools gold" - looks good, but worthless.

Yes, I see your point.

However, again the fact that their preformances were completely unexpected is what makes them a "find" to some extent IMHO anyway. Especially the fact that they did so in the space of a week against the No. 1 and 2 ranked sides in the world. French Rugby League has had its fair share of hardship of the decades, and its still working its way up the rankings with lack of support and facilites. I've watched these guys play on several occasions and I think some people would be quite shocked at just how talented the French actually are, not to mention their great attitude.

Sure, they arent up there yet, but I believe their performances are a wake up call to the rest of us to start taking them seriously and support French Rugby League. The British are entering a French side into the ESL next season. Maybe some NRL clubs should look to take on a French player under their wing?

crocodileman wrote:

Third, you say the future of the game is in an international arena, not in the respective national competitions. Again, I believe many would disagree with you on that score. Most would argue that a secure local competition is important first, and any international interest/success is cream on top of it. Look at AFL for example. Really, what happens internationally in the game is not that important. As long as crowds and interest remains in Australia, the sport will prosper.

If your contention is true, that internationals are the future of the game, you would have to argue that the administrators are not doing their jobs as little has been done to promote the game at that level until now. Why is this the first series? What plans have been put in place for the future? I read with interest that they are still infighting about a possible series in Australia next year, with half saying it has to go ahead, and the other half citing 'burnout' as a reason for it to be halted. Hardly a game plan!

I see you've used the AFL as an example of a thriving national competition that doesnt require an international presence as such to prosper. Quite true, the same can be said for the NFL.

Personally though, and not saying its something i'd prefer, I think eventually sport may get to the stage where club premierships between teams from different countries becomes "the norm" to an extent. Not saying it will happen, but is certainly very possible.

In the 1997 Super League, the Australian premiership was shortened to allow for a weekly prempiership called the World Club Challenge (not the one-off game that is played these days). It wasnt necessarily a success by any means, but it was a concept that I can see sport in general heading towards in years/decades down the track.

Just think about it, trips around the world will become cheaper and much quicker. It could also open up a new world of sponsorship possibilites.

Such "global premierships", in theory, create close competition between nations.

I think, say for arguments sake 50 years down the track, we might have a season looking like this....

1st - A domestic season.
2nd - A world club premiership.
3rd - An Nations Cup.

And by then there may be no such thing as an "off-season" in terms of how we know it today.

So, that is why I think we need to strengthen the game beyond our shores. Because if the time comes when everything is trending towards globalisation in sport, and we are still only interested in out isolated premierships, we may miss the boat. We would still keep the domestic comps and they would still thrive, but we need to get a slice of "the international sporting market pie" before everyone else gobbles it up.

If that makes sense

Might sound a little bit stupid now, but...

crocodileman wrote:

By the way, was the game a high quality game. Clearly we played well. Were the Brits disappointing, or did we just prevent them from playing well, as a champion team do?

The Kangaroos quite simply had one of those games. The statistics suggest that it would've been reasonably close, but Darren Lockyer tore them to pieces. He certainly made a mockery of the Golden Boot award which went to Andy Farrell Overall, Britain really weren't that bad, Australia were just on fire and unstoppable.

Beaussie wrote:

International rugby league is farcical in my opinion and yes I'll agree the same can be said for International AFL. The point I was trying to make however was, why is it that the league mongs on LU are always claiming International RL is superior to International RU. Clearly that is not the case. Even you'd agree, wouldn't you?

Considering this a Fight Club, i'll stand my ground and say Rugby League internationally is IMHO not a farce. Purely and simply because it's improving on and off the feild. If you're going forward, you cant ask for much more. Thats my approach to it anyway.

As for League being superoir to Union internationally? Anyone who claims such a thing either speaks in jest or needs to be put in an institution. In Australia, yes, League more superior. But globally, Union is much, much more established compared to League. No quiestion.

Beaussie wrote:

BTW, how are the preparations going for the next financial disaster known as the RLWC coming along? Russia, Lebanon and PNG will no doubt give the likes of AUS, NZ and GB a real run for their money wouldn't you say?

To tell you the truth, I'm scared about this WC

Rugby League doesn't need a World Cup as yet. Once we have a group of nations that can compete, then we can look at it. ATM though, all we need to do is slowly build on the Tri-Nations and gradually add more teams. Eventually, you'd have a bi-annual Nations Cup - much like a scaled down World Cup. Then, once there are lesser nations that are capable of "pushing" the big sides now and then, you have the grounds to create a "genuine" World Cup.

I cant see Rugby League doing this in 4 years .

I just hope they are approaching this 2008 World Cup with the sole aim of helping out the developing nations. Because it wont be a genuine World Cup that will attract any mass following IMO.

But then again, the Tri-Nations suprised us, didn't it...

Dizzys_on_fire wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

International rugby league is farcical in my opinion and yes I'll agree the same can be said for International AFL. The point I was trying to make however was, why is it that the league mongs on LU are always claiming International RL is superior to International RU. Clearly that is not the case. Even you'd agree, wouldn't you?

Considering this a Fight Club, i'll stand my ground and say Rugby League internationally is IMHO not a farce. Purely and simply because it's improving on and off the feild. If you're going forward, you cant ask for much more. Thats my approach to it anyway.

As for League being superoir to Union internationally? Anyone who claims such a thing either speaks in jest or needs to be put in an institution.

LOL, if only you had come across some of the dribble posted by the drongos at LU, in particular Diehard.

Dizzys_on_fire wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

BTW, how are the preparations going for the next financial disaster known as the RLWC coming along? Russia, Lebanon and PNG will no doubt give the likes of AUS, NZ and GB a real run for their money wouldn't you say?

To tell you the truth, I'm scared about this WC

Rugby League doesn't need a World Cup as yet. Once we have a group of nations that can compete, then we can look at it. ATM though, all we need to do is slowly build on the Tri-Nations and gradually add more teams. Eventually, you'd have a bi-annual Nations Cup - much like a scaled down World Cup. Then, once there are lesser nations that are capable of "pushing" the big sides now and then, you have the grounds to create a "genuine" World Cup.

I cant see Rugby League doing this in 4 years .

I just hope they are approaching this 2008 World Cup with the sole aim of helping out the developing nations. Because it wont be a genuine World Cup that will attract any mass following IMO.

But then again, the Tri-Nations suprised us, didn't it...

I would have thought the disaster that was the 2000 RLWC would be enough evidence to put an end to any ideas of another RLWC in the near future.