Why do we, with our weak international game, think that we know better than union, with its international game that props up the entire sport, when it comes to supporting and nurturing uncompetitive international sides?

The one game that has achieved lower prominence in union's pro era is that involving the Barbarians, they are no longer a draw card for players or spectators...

You are absolutely correct , but how many full time pro's do all these international countries have at their disposal ? , you are also comparing 2 different sports , RU is like football in that you can employ tactics that can make any given game closer , RL however is not so forgiving , there is no ' defending , retaining possession, slowing down and ' easy ' points in RL , it is brutal from 1st minute to last , that's why we like it

....I am the first to use the IRB as a yard stick to measure the progress of an international sport, but the problem faced by the northern hemisphere in League differs entirely to that of Union.

As for the Barbarians...45,000 turned up to watch them play south africa FFS........I wouldn't exactly say that many people paying over 50 quid each wasn't a draw card......when was the last England RL international match (played in England) that got that attendance........I think Australia v New Zealand got about 23k a few years back in London, but for an invitational team playing a touring side to get 45,000 is pretty good going given they are an invitational side.

I repeat.....England, NZ and Australia should play the RLWC with second string teams....like a plate competition and the tri-nations should be the decider of who are world champs. The game will grow internationally when Ireland and Scotland are fielding teams full of players born in those countries.......and the way to do that is get competative games at international level....not tonkings

iv'e alway thought thats why league has never really taken off elsewere.

theres less real action, but a lot more unpredictability in the other main sports.

Good point jc , all the more reason to ' even ' thing up if at all possible IMO

but how do you even things up without holding back the more wealthy clubs ?.

Well we were discussing the International game , but even at club level , there is no other choice , or the game will die

oops

.

sorry...i ain't willing to disclose private e-mails i've had with the RFL hierarchy....not yet anyway

I would suggest you're slightly wide of the mark. When the RUWC took off in the nineties, the game was far from the fully proffessional sport it is now, meaning smaller teams like Romania, Fiji or Western Samoa, when fueld by WC induced passion, could prove a real test for the 10 or so core nations. A few years into the proffessional era and an experimental England team put 145 points past Romania (30 penalties, 16 drop goals, 1 try and 1 conversion, charlie hodgeson recording 140 individual points). Now most of the WC fixtures including smaller nations are a formality.
Argentina and to a lesser degree Italy have improved, but most minor nations have fallen away.

England RL tonking France doesn't do them much much good, but it does England even less.
I'd replace MM with an event at Cardiff/Murrayfield that had a few fixtures like
England vs other nations
France Vs Wales
Cumbria/Championship England vs USA or other emerging nation
Scotland vs Ireland
Play the internationals on the Saturday, then maybe something like a club 7's tournament on the Sunday?

Abandoning? Well, we weren't playing Wales. Have we abandoned them as well?

And how do we know we're not playing France at the end of the season, like when we used to play Wales?

And don't you agree that Wales vs France is a far more enjoyable fixture to watch than Wales/France vs England?

And don't you think we will get more than 6-8k? Which is all that this French mid-season test has attracted against England.