Got thinking of the days when foreign players were actually living and playing in the country of origin. Doesn't that actually constitute a real Test Match.
Got thinking of the days when foreign players were actually living and playing in the country of origin. Doesn't that actually constitute a real Test Match.
:crazy:
uwot
Wow.
If that were the case the world cup just may well just be a tri series between Australia, New Zealand and England.
Besides the NRL and ESL are there any other top tier competitions being ran to feed international rugby league?
No.
And never think again.
Ok ...so my thread got moved to here . it's really a NRL issue in my eyes .
:lol::lol::lol:
Name me a World Cup, World Series, 3 and 4 nations competition that wasn't just a competition between Australian and NZ with the very occasionally visit by the pommies to the finals?
No.
And never think again.
France were Word Cup finalists in the first competition and are still the last side to beat Australia in a proper test series. Don't you know any RL history?
The question posed by the thread title is actually valid. I was taught that Test matches were originally designed to test the strength not only of the players actually competing but also to test the strength of the national system that developed those players. In order for a nation to be allowed to compete in an official test match it had to satisfy criteria relating to administration, competitions both senior and junior and numerical strength. Maybe rules have changed.