Quote: inside_man "You'll improve SL by getting more players playing the game. You get more players playing the game by having a thriving international game (see Union). A successful England is something any man on the street can identify with, random clubs in expansion areas aren't. The way to get more coverage for RL across the media is through England (see Union).
Having more of our players competing in the best league in the world can only be good for England, and in turn good for the sport.'"
I think that's a bit of a simplification myself. I agree that people get behind the England Rugby team, I know this from my own family who care nothing for the sport. However I think it runs a little deeper. They don't watch England rugby because England are a great Rugby team, they watch it because the media tell them that international Rugby matters.
Until we have the same relevance, by way of media promotion, I don't think it matters one little bit whether our England League team is strong or not.
It all comes down to legitimacy. International Rugby has it, international League does not. There are a 1001 reasons why and each reason is correct, to a degree.
The game, in my opinion, has deep rooted problems that aren't easily solved, or even recognised.
I agree that having players in the NRL and by extension fielding a better England team is great, but I don't believe it will bring interest in itself. What we need to realise is that the games problems aren't necessarily with the game itself, but in the coverage and promotion of the product. The England Rugby team is none better or more competitive than the English league team, so it's not that, in my view.
