i think its pretty pointless without the aussies
why dont they get some three match tours going?.
England v NZ.
PNG v france.
celtic nations v pacific isles.

Who?
What's pointless is inventing new 'teams' to play against other made up 'teams'.

1) They all play rugby league
2) They are in the South Pacific
3) They are all islands
4) They are all dirt poor
5) They were all colonised by the British Empire

Quite a lot of things when you look at it.

Dirt poor? If Samoa and Tonga and Fiji individually fielded the teams they did in the World Cup, they could beat England.

I meant in terms of money.

And playing without Australia is how it always should be from now on.

What do those things have to do with culture, anthropology and language?

Wasn't PNG first colonised (in part) by the Portuguese? The Germans had some power there and later the Australians governed the island. I'm not sure the British ever held PNG as a colony, but you could be right.

its not pointless,its giving these players the opportunity of playing interntional RL,something which they might never,otherwise experiance.
is GB a made up team?
are the british and irish lions a made up team?
are the barbarians a made up team?
do you not think its about exposing more people to the game of RL?

It has a great deal to do with culture.



I don't think so.



The Germans had a bit and we had a bit (one bit was called Papua and another called New Guinea) after WW1 - the Aussies got the German bit.

If someone isn't good enough to play international rugby league, they aren't good enough. You can't just go creating sides to give players the chance to play against other countries.


No, but at the moment Celtic Nations and Pacific Isles are.


Like the people doing such good work in France, London, south Wales, Wrexham and many other parts of the UK?

In terms of linguistics, the Papuans have little in common with each other FWIW. There are hundreds of Papuan languages and they are often unrelated to each other. FWIW I understand that some parts of Papua are Melanesian like the Fiji.

Though tbh I think it depends on on field results. The RU equivalent seemed a goer at first but poor results seemed to take the impetus out of it.

If they do well then it could be like Europe at the Ryder Cup. There is no such country as "Europe" and yet they play the USA.

Oh purleeease. I was at the 08 WC and saw those sides, none of whom could beat England. Sometimes we take the "woe is me, aren't England awful" schtick a bit too far folks. We're the 3rd best side in the world by quite a distance, and beat the Kiwis only a year ago in a competitive match they needed to win to make a final. Let's keep a little perspective here.

There are thousands of languages on the island. A few years ago the figure was estimate to be somewhere around 5,000.
I think it would be much better to consult the people themselves rather than have a few Aussies in a Sydney board room decide they'll play under the banner of Pacific Nations or Pacific Islanders. As I said earlier, I get the feeling this will turn out to be a non-story but it does create some interesting debate.
I for one hope we don't go down the Ryder Cup route as I think a two team international competition would be repetitive, exclusionist and ultimately a poor draw for neutrals.

i take on board everything you've said there,but imo RL needs to grow quickly at international level.
if you've got six nations who are crap on there own and no one is interested in watching, but they've got a few decent players each,then why not combine these players and let them play each other in a proper series,its not long term is it ?

I'd rather a three-match series against the Kiwis. Let France, Wales and the rest play the likes of Samoa and PNG as they warm up for 2013.