A Good 12 Ranked International Teams

[whatsdoing1982]

I think we are starting to go well. We have 12 really strong international teams now. Outside the 12 teams there is a bit of daylight but I think over the next 10 years Rugby League is going to be sitting pretty. If we have 12 strong teams in every World Cup then it would make the closest WC in all codes. Heres my rankings at the moment. Samoa's position is still undecided until the Lebanon/Samoa game is played.

1. Australia
2. England
3. New Zealand
4. France
5. Tonga
6. Fiji
7. Ireland
8. Lebanon
9. Scotland
10. Wales
11. PNG
12. Samoa

Samoa could be as high as 8th after this weekend. These rankings are only based on the last 2 years fixtures between all the sides.

Prediction France to beat NZ or just lose by 2 points in a late try.

 

[Kurt Angle]

To be honest, it is not in the sports interest to have too many teams in the mix.

We've seen that with cricket, Australia now is forced to play the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, and that's to the sports detriment as it imposes meaningless and loss-making games.

I would like RL to have a big 4 comprising of Australia, England, Russia and USA. All evenly matched and with interest meaning that any rep game would sell in all 4 markets.

Have a second tier of say France, NZ, PNG and a composite 'Polynesia' side akin to the West Indies in Cricket.

Fringe teams such as Lebanon, Serbia and Fiji would round it off.

Once you start getting more sides, you start to commence playing round robin tournaments all the time.

That is why you get 'not the best team' winning world cups and such.

The greatest meaningful challenge is a test series, because teams bounce back from a loss in the first game of a series for example.

However, I'd be quite pleased if Lebanon got 10th spot, it'd guarantee two sellouts in Sydney for the world cup, and what we have is a happy situation to be in regarding international RL post 1995-2000.

 

[thommo4pm]

To be honest, it is not in the sports interest to have too many teams in the mix.

We've seen that with cricket, Australia now is forced to play the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, and that's to the sports detriment as it imposes meaningless and loss-making games.

I would like RL to have a big 4 comprising of Australia, England, Russia and USA. All evenly matched and with interest meaning that any rep game would sell in all 4 markets.

Have a second tier of say France, NZ, PNG and a composite 'Polynesia' side akin to the West Indies in Cricket.

Fringe teams such as Lebanon, Serbia and Fiji would round it off.

Once you start getting more sides, you start to commence playing round robin tournaments all the time.

That is why you get 'not the best team' winning world cups and such.

The greatest meaningful challenge is a test series, because teams bounce back from a loss in the first game of a series for example.

However, I'd be quite pleased if Lebanon got 10th spot, it'd guarantee two sellouts in Sydney for the world cup, and what we have is a happy situation to be in regarding international RL post 1995-2000.

You are right Kurt.
Cricket is the best example to use.
Australia are so far ahead of the rest it's not funny...much like League.
The next few nations are evenly matched, being Sth Africa, England, India, Pakistan, then there would be another tier below that with West Indies, NZ, Sri Lanka and so on.

Very similar to the International League structure.
We have Australia at the top.
NZ / England below.
Then a range of teams like France, PNG, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, Wales, Lebanon and Ireland maybe, all capable of beating each other on any given day.

I think we need to concentrate on these teams and development with Serbia, Malta, Russia and USA also thrown in.

The top 4 you referred to I would probably throw 2 more into that.
I'd like to see NZ & France added to that top 4 and make that a top 6.
Then have a 2nd tier under that.

In any case the game is growing and we have seen some excellent results via the qualifiers.
I don't think we need to try and have more then 20 nations playing at this stage and to try and pretend like Union that the whole world plays our game would just be silly.

 

[The Tank]

For god's sake. Look at soccer. It's the world number one sport for a reason.Everyone is given a reason to improve i.e. by playing games.





Really ?. Hows that ?. I tell you I've watched your RLWC qualifiers and that really was a failure. Crowds of less then 500 !!!!. 500!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yet there was more talent, skill, and excitement on display than the entire history of "sport" of rugby ugly.

 

[eels_fan_01]

You have to admit though, even if we have a "competitive" 12 nations which is good, people still wont give international rugby league the credit it deserves until either England (Great Britian) or New Zealand can win two tournaments in a row over Australia at some point.

 

[thommo4pm]

You have to admit though, even if we have a "competitive" 12 nations which is good, people still wont give international rugby league the credit it deserves until either England (Great Britian) or New Zealand can win two tournaments in a row over Australia at some point.

Why?
Australia has won 3 world Cups in Cricket in a row.
They've won 4 in total.
When was the last time they were seriously threatened, apart from the ashes in 05, in a test series.
They have been the best side in World Cricket now for the best part of 2 decades.
Nobody gets close to them, yet there is not a bad word said about International Cricket.

Why would we need to be any different?

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

Because cricket has the advantages of 1.5 billion people going apesh*t over it in the subcontinent, therefore more $$$ - something that league doesn't have, when the only country with RL as a national sport is a 3rd world country (PNG)

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Getting a fourth strong team to compete with the big three in the near future would be ideal. I think France is the big hope but realistically they are a few years off having enough depth to compete, especially away from home. We really need to give the likes of Tonga and Samoa some regular games against top opposition. If they can convince top NRL and SL players to play for them during the WC we need to see them playing more big games every year so that continues. They are probably the sides that can give the big three a scare. Wales is a chance long term, but like France, we probably need to wait for them to get a fully pro side together. That means we need Celtic Crusaders in SL and Toulouse getting in wouldn't hurt either. The NRL also has to make it a priority to help PNG develop its talent.

 

[International RL]

Why?
Australia has won 3 world Cups in Cricket in a row.
They've won 4 in total.
When was the last time they were seriously threatened, apart from the ashes in 05, in a test series.
They have been the best side in World Cricket now for the best part of 2 decades.
Nobody gets close to them, yet there is not a bad word said about International Cricket.

Why would we need to be any different?

Well sadly it is starting to reach that point....

I definitely think that for IRL to be taken seriously we need other nations winning more regularly. It doesn't matter how many teams there are as long as the product is of a high standard and the games are close. See Tri Nations.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

The reason why Cricket is not at all phazed if Australia are the dominant team for a decade or two, is because they have no rival sport.

A Rugby League player can go and play Union and vice versa but where would a Cricketer go?.

Its also a reason why the AFL is almost always growing, it has no rival sport.

 

[brendothejet]

I don't think PNG are 11th behind Scotland or Wales. PNG has done much better against the French sides in TEST MATCHES, and defeated the president's selection whereas Scotland got f-ing humped by them.

Not to mention the fact that PNG's side is made of Papuans...

In the only match between FRance and Tonga in the last two years Tonga won, yet Tonga are behind france?

 

[RLIF]

How can England be in front of NZ when the last time they played NZ won 49-6??

 

[deluded pom?]

How can England be in front of NZ when the last time they played NZ won 49-6??

Because for all intents and purposes "England" have just beaten NZ 3-0.

 

[Angry_eel]

The reason why Cricket is not at all phazed if Australia are the dominant team for a decade or two, is because they have no rival sport.

A Rugby League player can go and play Union and vice versa but where would a Cricketer go?.

Its also a reason why the AFL is almost always growing, it has no rival sport.

i don't think so. Rugby League is bad at selling itself by selling itself i mean in the media. AFL get good deals off the media and used that money in the development in the grass roots. The better Rugby League gets in the media, the less players will abandon it.

Cricket is entirely different. Its Fkn Huge in the subcontinent and whereever the people of subcontinent go, they take cricket with them. Indians have tried very hard to make cricket a known game in America.

 

[RLIF]

Because for all intents and purposes "England" have just beaten NZ 3-0.

No that was GB, plus they had an Irish full back in the GB squad

 

[deluded pom?]

No that was GB, plus they had an Irish full back in the GB squad

G.B. in name only. The Irish FB never played a game ;-)