Of course, in an ideal world, you would have a World Cup every four years.

In reality, the only way international Rugby League will really begin to reach the level it ought to be at, is to have a Rugby League World Cup every two years as the basis for the development of the game internationally.

The RL World Cup in the Southern Hemisphere in 2017 should be followed by another in the Northern Hemisphere in 2019, back down under in 2021 and so on. Two immediate benefits would be improved attraction and retention of players and a burgeoning international game in development countries as they see the attraction of various global qualifying competitions in the intervening years.

I've seen allsorts of clever proposed international calendars covering 4, 6 or 8 years involving old style tours etc. But we have to accept that they are not going to happen. Organising and running a World Cup is hard work but surely the game's administrators here and down under are up to taking their own turn every four years.

Once biennial World Cups have been in place for a generation, then a sensible debate could be had about whether it would be right to scale back to every three or four years.

I don't buy the argument about not wanting to clash with other major events - soccer world cup, Olympics etc. That's not really a valid reason not to go ahead. The game has to have confidence in it's own attractiveness. If Fiji v Ireland on a cold, wet November night in 2013 can be sold out, anything is possible. Familiarity does not breed contempt - I've lost count of the number of England v Australia cricket Ashes series in the last 10 years with no detriment.

The club chairmen should push for it; a stronger more visible ongoing international game would have positive impact on club competitions (including the world club series).

Because the World Cup isn't a prestigious or special brand if you have it every two years. Same reason Christmas is only once a year and not once a month. And the Federation Cup would not be a World Cup, it would probably have 8 teams, providing a major tournament in between the World Cup cycle similar to the continental championships/Confederations Cup in football. I have no idea why anyone would be against that or favor needlessly blowing a load by massively oversaturating the "World Cup" brand.

I'm not sure why a biennial comp is less prestigious than a quadrennial one. Or how 2 instead of 4 is over saturation. Especially when their likely to be held in two ends of the earth.

The world cup is a huge boost to developing nations. The casual fan knows and understands what a world cup is. I highly doubt they would be put off by it only being 2 years since the last one and an 8 teams comp would necessarily exclude a lot of them.

I'm very pleased to see that the concept of biennial Rugby League World Cups, alternating between the hemispheres, has the support of Smokey TA. I hope the idea can really gain some traction. The enormous opportunity that Rugby League, in its own particular circumstances, has is staring us in the face. Just look at what is going on just in Europe below the top level and consider the on-going boost that would be given by guaranteed biennial World Cups rlhttp://www.rlef.eu.com/index.phprl

All ideas and arguments attract some antediluvians who do not need to be accorded any weight. All I'll say is that seven series in the last ten years doesn't and hasn't detracted from the prestige and passion of the Ashes in cricket for example.

Oh do sod off.

Talking of the right amount of international rugby league, it was interesting to read the following about Gus Risman (part of the RL bronze sculpture to be unveiled at Wembley on Saturday):

"He played in five Ashes series, home and away in 1932, 1933, 1936, 1937 and 1946 (the last aged 35 – another record)."

i.e. there were four GB v Australia Ashes test series in five years in the 1930's (and it wasn't quite so easy to travel in those days)!