Qualifying for the Four Nations

[watatank]

So as we know, the Four Nations will involve Australia, England, NZ and the Europe (France)/Pacific Champions in alternating years.

Instead of giving a region a direct passage to the Four Nations why don't Europe and the Pacfic Champions play off for the final Four Nations spot every year? Just to take it a step further I think may possibly be worth considering the winner of that game play off with the fourth team to keep that spot.

Just to use an example to demonstrate...

I'm not sure who won Europe but say Ireland won and PNG won Pacific...

Ireland (Europe champions) v PNG (Pacific Champions)---winner to play France

France (fourth nation) v Ireland/PNG ---winner to play in next years four nations

This would give teams more to play for knowing that every year they have a fighting chance to play in the Four Nations. It also means more games for developing nations which can't hurt either. It could perhaps be counter productive in that the fourth nation may go better than expected and maybe either displace say England which I don't think is good for the game either.

Anyway its just an idea, love to hear your thoughts on the matter...

 

[Goddo]

Simple. is the cost of hosting an elaborate 4th spot qualification worth it? Answer is no.
Also, current structure means teams in Pacific/Euro Cups have something to fight for, and in alternate years the strongest nation isn't there, so its easier to win. eg, no PNG means the other pacific nations can bash the sh!t out of each other and win something.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

That's right. The cost probably makes it unviable. But also, when it's in Europe it makes sense to have a second European team because the likes of France and even Wales can host games and draw decent crowds. Having England and three SH teams wouldn't be as productive. Hopefully PNG will be able to host games when it's down here too, maybe not next year but one day.

 

[watatank]

We wouldn't necessarily have to take it that step further but I thank at the very least we should have PNG and European winner play off rather than PNG have a direct passage. Basically my point is I wouldn't want to see teams like France or PNG waiting two years to play in the four nations when they could easily have the chance to play there every year.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

We wouldn't necessarily have to take it that step further but I thank at the very least we should have PNG and European winner play off rather than PNG have a direct passage. Basically my point is I wouldn't want to see teams like France or PNG waiting two years to play in the four nations when they could easily have the chance to play there every year.

But if one of them plays every year the other won't play at all. At least this way they both get a shot every two years (along with the others potentially), in addition to the other reasons mentioned.

 

[watatank]

If one pushes well ahead of the other thats the way it should be.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

If one clearly pushes well ahead of the others we probably should look at adding a fifth team. But that is unlikely in a short time frame. There is almost nothing between any team from this year's Euro Cup (except Serbia and Italy) and the Pac Cup and France at present. Any of these sides could just about beat any other on their day. I don't think that will change much over the next few years but hopefully one day the likes of Wales, PNG and France will be close to the big 3 than to the rest.

 

[ANTiLAG]

I preferred the tri nations. This tournament is too short with each team only having 2 games worth watching not including the final.

I guess its 'good for the game'. But seriously - will France or Kumuls ever be OZ competitive? Maybe at home in PNG at forty degrees and no police present....

 

[deluded pom?]

No matter how sh!t England are they won't be displaced by anyone else. The 3/4N concept is an arrangement between the RFL/ARL/NZRL so all three will be playing in it ad infinitum or until they decide it's not worth carrying on with..