The 4 Nations 2014 is a Mess

[gyallop]

yes on sale today , maybe they thought it a problem until Origin was decided

http://premier.ticketek.com.au/show...tm_medium=friendly+link&utm_campaign=4Nations

 

[Burns]

8:45 kickoff for the final seems very strange. Can't think of any sporting event which starts that late.

 

[deal.with.it]

It's so the TV broadcast is in prime time in Australia

 

[deluded pom?]

I'm hoping to attend a game from the European Cup and asked DK at the RLEF when the fixtures and venues would be announced. He replied that they would be published sometime in June. I checked the RLEF website this morning and there's nothing on there yet. Only one day left Danny. It really is poor. Do RL administrators go on courses to learn how to organise a pi$$ up in a brewery? If so, I bet not many of them pass.

I tried to follow this up now that June has been and gone. I sent an email to DK at the RLEF using the same email that he originally replied to me with. Strangely the email bounced back with a message saying the address wasn't recognised!

 

[RoosTah]

What do people think of having a "final" in such a tiny comp as the 4N? Personally I think it's just stupid and makes no sense. Read an article on the Roar the other making a case for dumping the 4N setup in favour of something similar to what Union started with when they first setup their Tri Nations.

I'd love that setup to be honest - would mean I got the chance to see the Roos play England and NZ every year.

 

[roughyedspud]

nonsense

 

[RoosTah]

What is?

Because I reckon having a final for 4 team comp is just too dumb for words... Tried explaining it to family in Melbourne and the universal response was "that's just geniused".

They're right too - the comp is too short and has too few teams for a one off final to make any sort of sense.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

Nothing at all wrong with a final.

And as for our 4 nations, I think it's a good move to have 1 rotating team per tournament seeing as we don't have the old tours anymore. So far we have seen France, Wales, PNG and soon to be Samoa play the big 3 over the last few years. If teams have a full on pathway to actually reach for the top and grab it, what else could you really ask for?

I know it's not all perfect but I do know that if it wasn't for the 4 nations, the only time I'd have seen PNG, Samoa, France and Wales would have been at last years RLWC. Everyone knows Channel 9 and Foxsports Australia do not like to show any International Rugby League outside the top 3, they actually come across as loathed to do it at times.

 

[Son of Minto]

What is?

Because I reckon having a final for 4 team comp is just too dumb for words... Tried explaining it to family in Melbourne and the universal response was "that's just geniused".

They're right too - the comp is too short and has too few teams for a one off final to make any sort of sense.

Maybe explain it a little slower for the mental midgets in your family who describe things as "geniused".

 

[RoosTah]

Nothing at all wrong with a final.

I disagree. To me, playing a final in a comp that goes for 3 or 4 weeks is almost like giving the Origin Shield to whoever wins game 3 regardless of the other results. With the current setup a team could win 3 games in the pool stage, while the other 3 just win one each, but then not get awarded the trophy because they've copped a freak upset in the last game from a team that has been crap the rest of the tournament.

Just doesn't make sense and makes a joke of the word "final". There's just not enough teams for it to make sense, and people clearly don't buy it. I noticed that only 33k turned up to the "final" back in 2010, while 44k turned up to the game the week before (both Aus v NZ games).

And as for our 4 nations, I think it's a good move to have 1 rotating team per tournament seeing as we don't have the old tours anymore. So far we have seen France, Wales, PNG and soon to be Samoa play the big 3 over the last few years. If teams have a full on pathway to actually reach for the top and grab it, what else could you really ask for?

I know it's not all perfect but I do know that if it wasn't for the 4 nations, the only time I'd have seen PNG, Samoa, France and Wales would have been at last years RLWC. Everyone knows Channel 9 and Foxsports Australia do not like to show any International Rugby League outside the top 3, they actually come across as loathed to do it at times.

I agree it's good to have them more involved, but I reckon they ought to be playing in their own comps outside of World Cups... have a concurrent Euro and Pacific 4 Nations series that gets played along side a top tier Tri Nations. That way we'd get both more international footy, and more high quality and evenly matched international footy.

It'd also help the RLWC retain it's significance, because the current 4N setup basically functions like a world cup with only one pool (4 teams that play eachother once, with the top two proceeding to a knockout/final).

 

[Rodney]

What is?

Because I reckon having a final for 4 team comp is just too dumb for words... Tried explaining it to family in Melbourne and the universal response was "that's just geniused".

They're right too - the comp is too short and has too few teams for a one off final to make any sort of sense.

The reason we have a final is to stop the best team winning every time.
This isn't rally a competition to strictly see who is the best team in the region, we really don't need a torunament for that, its Australia.
The Four Nations is designed to allow England and New Zealand to challenge for the trophy despite being (usually) inferior.

If the final didn't exist Australia would have won every League 4 / tri nations since 2004.

It also gives the tournament a guaranteed weighted, big fixture as its final act.
And as a code that struggles to generate interest in 'pointless' test matches the weighting boosts its standing.

 

[Rodney]

Just doesn't make sense and makes a joke of the word "final". There's just not enough teams for it to make sense, and people clearly don't buy it. I noticed that only 33k turned up to the "final" back in 2010, while 44k turned up to the game the week before (both Aus v NZ games).

One was in NZ (there was a big buzz about moving the fixture into Eden Park.
The other was in Aus.
The difference was circumstantial.
The Final has never been lower than the 2nd highest attended match of the tournament and is usually the highest.

I agree it's good to have them more involved, but I reckon they ought to be playing in their own comps outside of World Cups... have a concurrent Euro and Pacific 4 Nations series that gets played along side a top tier Tri Nations. That way we'd get both more international footy, and more high quality and evenly matched international footy.

It'd also help the RLWC retain it's significance, because the current 4N setup basically functions like a world cup with only one pool (4 teams that play eachother once, with the top two proceeding to a knockout/final).

League needs at least a 4th contender.
And Samoa/ France/ PNG aren't ever going to be able to beat any of the big 3 on a diet of inferior matches and conditioning.
They're not that far away from being competitive and they provide the 4 nations with much more content and the ability to run 2 games every week.

And its not drawing eyes away from the world cup.
Football manages Euro, Asian, ect. ect. 'mini world cups' in between their big ones and but their world cup is the biggest of all contested.
International needs more peaks to crack into the mainstream and its not going to get there by dialing down its second biggest tournament.

 

[RoosTah]

The reason we have a final is to stop the best team winning every time.
This isn't rally a competition to strictly see who is the best team in the region, we really don't need a torunament for that, its Australia.
The Four Nations is designed to allow England and New Zealand to challenge for the trophy despite being (usually) inferior.

If the final didn't exist Australia would have won every League 4 / tri nations since 2004.

It also gives the tournament a guaranteed weighted, big fixture as its final act.
And as a code that struggles to generate interest in 'pointless' test matches the weighting boosts its standing.

That's an interesting one - just checked it and you're right. Although ironically in 2004 the poms finished top and Australia then knocked them off in the final.

I get the thinking behind a final, I just think it always makes the tournament feel half-baked.. it's kinda stuck in no mans land.

Maybe we'd be better off if we just went back to 3 test tours. There's something much more gratifying about a three test series than the weird hybrid setup the RLIF use for the 4N. Of course it would work better if the poms were any bloody good of course (honestly can't even enjoy beating them when it's League... almost find myself backing them!).

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

Roostahs, we have a Euro comp each year where teams can get promoted from the lowest level all the way to the 4 nations if they are good enough. It has been going for years now.

We have had a Pac cup and I'm sure the new lot incharge are working on bringing it back or bringing in something new and updated. It's not perfect but each time each hemisphere has held a 4 nations, they have managed to get games played beforehand to see who makes it into the four nations group.

 

[RoosTah]

And its not drawing eyes away from the world cup.
Football manages Euro, Asian, ect. ect. 'mini world cups' in between their big ones and but their world cup is the biggest of all contested.
International needs more peaks to crack into the mainstream and its not going to get there by dialing down its second biggest tournament.

I'd argue that's different... Those tournaments are all genuine knockout comps - they're just focused on specific regions.

Maybe if League played a 6 Nations where it cycled between the big 3 and 3 teams from the host region it would make a bit more sense. There's just something a bit off about having 3 powerhouses and one developing nation.

I'd also argue that in terms of developing the likes of France, Wales, the PIs and PNG what's really necessary greater inclusion in either the NRL or ESL... the kiwis are competitive because of the Warriors and the high number of kiwis running around in the NRL, not because they play the Kangaroos a lot.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

I'd argue that's different... Those tournaments are all genuine knockout comps - they're just focused on specific regions.

Maybe if League played a 6 Nations where it cycled between the big 3 and 3 teams from the host region it would make a bit more sense. There's just something a bit off about having 3 powerhouses and one developing nation.

It is a different region, that's the point of the Southern hemisphere group having a shot one year while the next year the Northern hemisphere gets to host it. As pointed out already, we have seen more international teams play in the last few years than at any other time outside of a wc, it is giving other nations a chance and believe me, if and when a team or teams step up and consistently beat the likes of aus, nz eng, they'll expand it.

 

[RoosTah]

It is a different region, that's the point of the Southern hemisphere group having a shot one year while the next year the Northern hemisphere gets to host it. As pointed out already, we have seen more international teams play in the last few years than at any other time outside of a wc, it is giving other nations a chance and believe me, if and when a team or teams step up and consistently beat the likes of aus, nz eng, they'll expand it.

Hopefully you're right. I just like the idea of a more consistent and well rounded competition for the big three each year, because I think the team that needs the most in terms of development is England... they haven't beat the mighty Roos in a series or tournament of any type since the early 70s, and that's just astonishing given there just isn't that big a disparity in the resources between the two countries.

Some people argue the English suffer because of their weaker numbers, but that doesn't hold when you look at them and compare it to the reverse situation in Union.

To illustrate what I mean, the English have a little over half the number of registered League players we do (about 240k to our 460k), but have their own fully professional tournament with 14 teams, meaning their number of full time pros is comparable.

Now, compare this to Union, where Australia have less than one TWENTIETH the number of registered players the English have (86k to 2.5 million in England), and only have 5 pro teams compared to 12 in the UK. Yet the Wallabies are plenty competitive with the poms.

Whilst these are absolute numbers (England RL don't provide a breakdown), what it shows is that there England's troubles are clearly cultural and structural, rather than a matter of simple arithmetic.

The question is how does Australia help them? Having a strong England, much like having a strong New Zealand, is critical to the credibility of the international game.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

I wouldn't put my life in the hands of those playing numbers for a start. England RL would be no where near that and either to tell the truth would the England unions set up. Australia in union would probably have as many if not more union players than England has League players. Aus numbers for League wouldn't be that high unless schoolboys were counted.

English RL has come close to beating us on many occasions during the last 30 years, many of the ashes games were very close the problem was the poms forgot how to win while Australia was always used to winning in the tough games.

Doesn't mean they weren't close contests. Yes some major blowouts, but that happens in all sports.

The 2003 series for a start was a cracker with Australia winning each game literally in the last 2 mins of each match, at one stage winning in the last minute after playing against 12 men for 79 minutes and 49 seconds.

What about Ricky passing to big Ma after taking an intercept to win the game, doesn't get more spin tingling than that. The poms have there place and as we have seen with some of the guys playing out here, they can hold their own.

 

[RoosTah]

I wouldn't put my life in the hands of those playing numbers for a start. England RL would be no where near that and either to tell the truth would the England unions set up. Australia in union would probably have as many if not more union players than England has League players. Aus numbers for League wouldn't be that high unless schoolboys were counted.

The numbers are overall, so they count all levels. If you narrow it to adults it reads:

Australia Rugby League: 50k
Australia Rugby Union: 40k

For England there isn't any easily accessible data on adult registered players though, which is why I used the overall ones.

The critical one is really the number of full time professional teams though I think - in Australia we have 15 top tier League teams and 5 Union teams, in the UK they have twelve for union and 14 for League.

My point really is that the relationship between player resources isn't just the reverse in Union, it's actually massively in favour of the poms, yet they don't dominate like the Roos do.

English RL has come close to beating us on many occasions during the last 30 years, many of the ashes games were very close the problem was the poms forgot how to win while Australia was always used to winning in the tough games.

Doesn't mean they weren't close contests. Yes some major blowouts, but that happens in all sports.

The 2003 series for a start was a cracker with Australia winning each game literally in the last 2 mins of each match, at one stage winning in the last minute after playing against 12 men for 79 minutes and 49 seconds.

What about Ricky passing to big Ma after taking an intercept to win the game, doesn't get more spin tingling than that. The poms have there place and as we have seen with some of the guys playing out here, they can hold their own.

You're right, but close isn't winning. I remember the 2003 series pretty vividly too - was incredible how the poms managed to lead all three tests all the way until the last 5 or 3 minutes...

The problem is that after 40 years of blow-outs and near misses, you have to wonder what's holding them back. Why can't they get over the line against us?

 

[hutch]

Where did you get 2.5 million players for english rugby union? In a country of around 53 million (26 million males), you're telling me that 1 in 20 people play rugby union? Seems ridiculous considering the rugby codes are pretty much minority sports over there. There wouldn't be that many soccer players and that is a hundred times bigger.