Who would you have in World Cup 2007?

[winnyason]

i expect georgia to be the bolters, i would not be surprised to see pro rugby players in france play in qualifiers.

as for russia everthing to me counts to turning it back on league, cancelled sevens a week before, pisspoor excuse, many clubs just not dynamo playing rugby st.peterberg to name one have.rrl locomotiv fielding two teams in 1st division not a good sign, say they have money eg coca cola deal & gov, but is it true, the language barrier is troublasome, the website has not been updated for three months(all signs count to a meltdown).
they will not host under 16 world cup, rlif please look for new host.
sorry got side tracked, also jamacia depending on who gets on field could be real danger.

 

[ouwet]

Sorry guys but you surely can't leave out one of the biggest draw cards for a RL World Cup in Australia... LEBANON!!!!
With a bit of promotion surely Lebanon will be able to sellout games say at Parramatta Stadium and get decent crowds for most Sydney games PLUS LBC (Lebanese Broadcasting Channel) have in the past and will in the future show big games involving Lebanon in Lebanon and fingers crossed AROUND THE WORLD (Their are over 10 million people with Lebanese decent in Brazil alone and millions more in Europe and America and obviously Australia who have LBC AND of course in the Middle East LBC is one of the most popular tv stations)...
To make things interesting... Melbourne have a pretty big Lebanese population as well and with a lot more promotion i'm certain they will jump at the chance of watching their native countrymen at any Sport.

 

[dimitri]

Sorry guys but you surely can't leave out one of the biggest draw cards for a RL World Cup in Australia... LEBANON!!!!
With a bit of promotion surely Lebanon will be able to sellout games say at Parramatta Stadium and get decent crowds for most Sydney games PLUS LBC (Lebanese Broadcasting Channel) have in the past and will in the future show big games involving Lebanon in Lebanon and fingers crossed AROUND THE WORLD (Their are over 10 million people with Lebanese decent in Brazil alone and millions more in Europe and America and obviously Australia who have LBC AND of course in the Middle East LBC is one of the most popular tv stations)...
To make things interesting... Melbourne have a pretty big Lebanese population as well and with a lot more promotion i'm certain they will jump at the chance of watching their native countrymen at any Sport.

i agree

a packed belmore or homebush stadium watching lebanon play would be an unbelievable sight

something that would get front page of the papers

 

[DIEHARD]

Sorry guys but you surely can't leave out one of the biggest draw cards for a RL World Cup in Australia... LEBANON!!!!
With a bit of promotion surely Lebanon will be able to sellout games say at Parramatta Stadium and get decent crowds for most Sydney games PLUS LBC (Lebanese Broadcasting Channel) have in the past and will in the future show big games involving Lebanon in Lebanon and fingers crossed AROUND THE WORLD (Their are over 10 million people with Lebanese decent in Brazil alone and millions more in Europe and America and obviously Australia who have LBC AND of course in the Middle East LBC is one of the most popular tv stations)...

To make things interesting... Melbourne have a pretty big Lebanese population as well and with a lot more promotion i'm certain they will jump at the chance of watching their native countrymen at any Sport.

Lebanon have to be dead certs. They have a good domestic comp, TV coverage and government support. Also shows what can happen in rugby league developement and an example of the benefits of having a World Cup.

 

[Ari Gold]

If Italy had a domestic competition, they'd have to be in it. We have good NRL and ESL talent running around at the moment (M Mininchello, Grimaldi, Davico, Laffranchi, Mellor, Franze, Rigon, Campese etc.), and if they manage to put 4-5 home grown players, that'll do me.

 

[In-goal]

From the information that i have gathered i believe that there will only be 8-10 nations at the next WC finals.

1. Australia
2. New Zealand
3. England
4. France
5. Ireland
6. P.N.G.
7. Wales
8. Tonga

I think we will find that as pretty close to what the final turnout will be.

 

[southsman]

I totally agree with the proposal of a Lebanon team in the world cup, I do believe the ability to draw a crowd has to be considered. I would hate Lebanon to be the laughing stock of Australia again as it was in 2000. Would be worried about crowd violence at the Lebanon vs Australia game....

1.Australia
2.N.Z
3.England
4.Wales
5.Somoa
6.Tonga
7.P.N.G
8.France
9.Ireland
10. Russia/Lebanon/Georgia

The rest just forget about and set up a northern hemisphere emerging team.

 

[griff]

Lebanon have to be dead certs. They have a good domestic comp, TV coverage and government support. Also shows what can happen in rugby league developement and an example of the benefits of having a World Cup.

Yeah they should definitely be at the World Cup, but rather than just give them automatic entry and open yourselves up to all sorts of criticism there needs to be some regional qualification system in place. This will make the RLWC that much more credible. That's why I reckon there should be a spot for an Asian qualifier, to be competed for between Lebanon and Japan.

 

[southsman]

What are the chances of a Pacific Islander team instead of all the individual nations??? How is league going in Fiji? and are they any chance of making it over Somoa or Tonga?

 

[hgfds]

hasnt rl stopped in canada,hard to see them in qualifers,there only hope would be if a union team entered a team in the amnrl.

 

[hgfds]

I dont think saving money and having a 10 team wc is a good idea,the 2000wc was a success because it brought the game forward in france,lebanon,russia,ireland,png etc .to go forward rl has to encourage developing nations and at the very least the wc should be 12 teams.

 

[dimitri]

I dont think saving money and having a 10 team wc is a good idea,the 2000wc was a success because it brought the game forward in france,lebanon,russia,ireland,png etc .to go forward rl has to encourage developing nations and at the very least the wc should be 12 teams.

agree totally

10 teams is a joke!

 

[screeny]

Did the 2000 WC bring the game forward in those countries though? I'm not so sure. Are there people in Russia, Lebanon etc who were so inspired by their nation's participation in a badly run, ridiculed, poorly attended, unevenly matched tournament that they decided RL was great?

To say the 2000 WC was good is not really accurate either IMO....it was terrible!

The rise of Russia was due to the money, wasn't it, and general organic growth of a sport that had been present for years. In Lebanon some dude went over there in 2001 or 2002, if he hadn't would lebanese have RL now coz of the WC? No.

The WC should make money whcih should aid development. The 2000 edition spectacularly failed to make money and so I question its subsequenty development value.

 

[yankeeboy]

The RLWC in 2000 failed to make money--but a lot of that was just because it was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The railways were in disarray and the media coverage was horrendous.

RLWC '08 should be great--any RL held in Australia would be successful.

With the number of teams competing, I think that qualifiers should be used. NO more than 4 teams should have free spots: AUS, NZ, France, and GB (with only 8-12 teams in the cup, it would be unfair for 3 or four of the teams to be British, especially since most of Ireland and Scotland's teams are GP rulers).

I think that there should be two cups running concurrently- the World Cup, for nations with domestic comps and players who actually hail from the country in question; and a Multicultural Cup, for teams such as Greece, Italy, and Malta who rely solely on GP rulers to complete their sides. An Emerging Nations could also be a possibility.

A 12 team cup that has teams which actually earn their places (not like 2000, where there was only 1 qualifier spot and 15 free invitations) should give media credibility and lead the cup to be a success.

 

[southsman]

Still think 10 teams is one of the only ways we make this World Cup viable . Let's have a good qualification set up which builds momentum for the Show Case World Cup . Let's not go down cashed up rugby unions path and have 90-0 massacare witnessed in their World Cup. It was few and far between when it came to games that were contests.

 

[griff]

There is no use making money to aid development if most of the emerging teams aren't get a chance to compete. As the head of the IRB has said, international development isn't about money, it's about competition.

The World Cup isn't just to make money to aid development, it can aid development it its own right. I think Russia and Lebanon did benefit from being at the RLWC in 2000. Of course it needs to be followed up by on the ground work like that done by Danny K.

Where are the profits from a World Cup going to go? To smaller nations to enable them to play international RL. So instead of a 10 team World Cup making a profit of say $400,000 that will flow to emerging nations, it may be more beneficial for international development to have a 16 team World Cup that makes a profit of $100,000. So in forgoing $300,000, you give 6 more teams a chance to play valuable matches in international RL. I think that is $300,000 well spent.

A bigger World Cup gives the smaller nations a realistic goal to aim for, which will be a spur to their domestic development.

 

[bender]

There is no use making money to aid development if most of the emerging teams aren't get a chance to compete. As the head of the IRB has said, international development isn't about money, it's about competition.

The World Cup isn't just to make money to aid development, it can aid development it its own right. I think Russia and Lebanon did benefit from being at the RLWC in 2000. Of course it needs to be followed up by on the ground work like that done by Danny K.

Where are the profits from a World Cup going to go? To smaller nations to enable them to play international RL. So instead of a 10 team World Cup making a profit of say $400,000 that will flow to emerging nations, it may be more beneficial for international development to have a 16 team World Cup that makes a profit of $100,000. So in forgoing $300,000, you give 6 more teams a chance to play valuable matches in international RL. I think that is $300,000 well spent.

A bigger World Cup gives the smaller nations a realistic goal to aim for, which will be a spur to their domestic development.

Dont forget though, it wouldnt be a 10 team world cup, it would be a 10 team world cup finals. The lesser ranked teams get meaningful competition during the qualifying tournaments, in theory.

 

[carlnz]

My 10 teams:

1. Aus
2. NZ
3. England
4. France
5. PNG
6. Wales
7. Ireland
8. Lebanon
9. Tonga
10. Fiji or Cook Islands or USA

Why these teams? Because they all have their own local footy competitions up and running. And with there NRL or Super League based players they would be competitive.

I would also like to see a rule that 4 players must have been born in that Country or played local footy in that Country.

Then next World Cup up that number to say 6 players in the Starting team must be born or played at home.

1995 World Cup worked bloody well...lets start small and then build on it!

 

[southsman]

It would be nice to see a mandatory 4 players have to come from the local leagues in that country. Even if they get 10 minutes games time , just to train and play with players of NRL quality would be fantasticfor them personally and great for that players family and team mates. Not to mention promotes the Rugby League gospel in those smaller developing countries.

 

[bender]

It would be nice to see a mandatory 4 players have to come from the local leagues in that country. Even if they get 10 minutes games time , just to train and play with players of NRL quality would be fantasticfor them personally and great for that players family and team mates. Not to mention promotes the Rugby League gospel in those smaller developing countries.

But if we are going to force the lesser nations to play 4 or more of their home grown amateurs, shouldnt we have the same rule for australia, England and New Zealand, who should also be made to play 4 amateur players, or at the very least, non ESL/NRL teams since both are now arguaably international and not domestic competitions?