International game is looking sad

[Anonymous]

Well the news today is that Aust, GB, France and NZ have agreed to stage the tri-series in GB for the next 3 years.

They have also apparently agreed to have two Aust v NZ Test matches next year.

 

[kier]

Aus are the best international team, that is without doubt - what is infuriating though is that they also arm themselves with every advantage to extend this dominance - as GBT mentions above.

Teams with various advantages can use them to gain wins - France in 1978, the first test in the last ashes series, some of the recent WCC in teh UK are examples.

The July tests can only result in wipeouts as the scores of 52-0, 64-10 and 48-6 show.

The country v city and three SOO matches are preparation beyond the wildest dreams of any other country, add to this home advantage and a home ref and there is no other result.

I'm glad the mid season games have been ditched - a tri series is the only way forward. (although I am sad to see the postponment od ashes series and WC).

 

[legend]

I think the ESL has to reduce their quota to a maximum of three players per club for the international game to prosper. More home grown talent invariably equals much greater depth. This may take five years but the current band aid solution of diluting the ESL with Australian/NZ players who are mostly past their prime or never had a prime is doing nothing to help the game in the U.K.

I would like to see a tri series played in the U.K, then rotate to Aust/NZ every second year with a WC and Ashes tour in between. The only disadvantage to this is the Kiwi's will be left twiddling their thumbs once every four years but that fourth yer could be used for some matches bewteen NZ and PNG/Pacific Island and possibly an emerging Australian side.

So, for mine, the international schedule would go as follows.

Year 1 - Tri series in the U.K
Year 2 - RLWC
Year 3 - Tri series in Aust/NZ
Year 4 - Kangaroo tour/ Emerging nations v NZ

Now, to make the tri series a little more interesting, Aust and NZ could have a warm up match against the two grand finalists in the ESL before the tri series starts and the NRL winner could play GB as their warm up match.

Simple but perfect.

 

[salivor]

Thats a very nice schedule legend but very Australian orientated. Theres no room in there I see for a New Zealand tour of Great Britain or visa versa. I like the idea of working on a 4 year schedule but only if Kangaroo and Kiwi tours to Britain are alternated. Only thing is Australia are more likely to play no football than football against emerging nations.

 

[legend]

True Hermy but the Ashes tour of Great Britain (and hoepfully France) is the one thing that should never be srapped from the international calendar. Simply, there is too much tradition involved and Rugby League needs some traditions left intact.

I'm not sure how much tradition there is for a Kiwi tour of the U.K but unless the RLWC is scrapped, I don't see any other way around it. I mean, the Kiwi's would be playing England/Great Britain three out of four years with the schedule I proposed.

The Kiwi players also need to stop bludging on the ESL. Look at how many Kiwi players ship themselves off in their prime to play in the U.K

Robbie Paul
Henry Paul
Richie Barnett
Lesley Vainikolo
Joe Vagana
Tevita Vaikona
Richard Swain

I know a lot of Aussies do it but the majority do it in the twilight of their career. Only Tony Martin comes to mind as an Aussie player who left the NRL to play in England in his prime.

Don't you find it criminal the Paul's never played for the Warriors or in the NRL?

 

[salivor]

Legend I'm not talking about scrapping the Ashes for a Kiwi tour. I'm talking about working on a 4 year schedule like you but having the Ashes and Kiwi tours alternating. It just means the Ashes will only be held every 8 years and the kiwis will only tour Britain every 8 years. Not an ideal situation really.
I personally think you either have the Tri Series every 4 years instead of 2 or scrap the World Cup and just make it into an emerging nations tournament not featuring Aus, NZ and GB. Both options have merit.

As for Kiwi players playing in Great Britain in their prime, it doesn't bother me really. In this part of the world we seem to have a real stigma about players going to the UK. At least NZ has maintained its credibility by still allowing UK based players to be eligible for rep matches.
As for a guy like Henry Paul I think the Warriors only have themselves to blame for losing him. I'm pretty sure the story is that Ian Robson, the Warriors CEO at the time gave him an early release to go to Wigan to get rid of the big transfer bill for Andy Platt.

 

[GBT]

Denis Moran is still in his prime, although I'm sure some Aussies will label him as next to useless.

Vaikona and Vainikolo are not New Zealanders. Besides, NZ players have been plying their trade in the UK for decades until the formation of the Warriors it was their best way of making a living in the game.

Blame the poms as usual. :roll: