That's definitely sound logic

There were two choices available to the RFL, host a European Tri-Nations tournament, or host nothing at all and leave the national team to not play a game for the best part of a year.

Consider this a pre season for the World Cup next year, consider it a team bonding exercise if nothing more, but it was far better than the alternative.

As for Wales and France, they seem to be in a position similar to the one Italy and Argentina have been in in recent years in Union entering the 6 and 4 nations comps. Hasn't done them much harm given some of the scores they have had put on them.

Spot on J O N N Y,
it was France and Wales or nothing and although its been boring and predictable, the games will be of some benefit come next year.
We could have afforded to try some other options though, like Chris Hill, there are others who MacNamara could have had a look at.
The point is that unless the likes of Wales and France have games of this type, they will never be able to develop.

I wish people would stop moaning it was 3 games for us to watch instead of nothing at all, and when you look at our and wingers they look big and good something we have not had for some years and 2 players that can play at fullback, and that is not counting our oversea players you never know we might win the w cup at last

Meanwhile, over in the Onion department:

Scotland 22-51 New Zealand
England 54-12 Fiji
France 33-6 Australia

Do these one-sided processions signal the imminent demise of rugby union, too? No? Funny, that. There's something very weird about your average League depressive.

we know one thing.

Whatever 17 England put out in a game it can only include any one of the following three Westwood, Hock and McIlorum.

If all 3 played the combined penalty count to the opposition would mean England would have no chance

I suppose the argument would be should England have taken a break as Aus and NZ did or was it important to give the players a chance to form a group and a chance to gel.
For me I think it was worth it even though it was very one sided but I suppose time will tell

Not with crowds like this.

Scotland 22-51 New Zealand 67,144
England 54-12 Fiji 82,000
France 33-6 Australia 80,000

Not to mention the close games that also had big crowds

Ireland 12 - 16 South Africa
Italy 28 - 23 Tonga
Wales 12 - 26 Argentina

Meanwhile in RL

4,014
8,963
7,921

Let's not play a Northern Hemisphere Three Nations again until there is a least one more French club in Super League (i.e. Toulouse) and one Welsh club from South Wales in Super League (Wrexham is a backwater even for Wales)..

Also, let's hold the pool matches in bigger stadia, like KC, John Smith's and DW Stadium, in England, Stade Ernest Wallon in France, with the final at Old Trafford or Wembley. Nigel Wood suppresses attendances by holding matches in geographically remote and tiny stadia.

Until we can satisfy the professionalism criteria of having more French clubs and at least one Welsh club in Super League, and until we can at least half fill the above mentioned stadia for the relevant matches (including 40,000-45,000 for the Final) then the whole series is a great embarassment to our game, and a source of mirth for journalists and rugby union fans alike.

I've always been a keen advocate of getting big RL fixtures onto free-to-air TV, but I wish the BBC hadn't had the rights to this tournament.

Aside from personally seeing the opening game in Lens as a success because of the size of the crowd in a non-RL area, even that didn't look great from the point of view of the casual viewer because the stadium was far too big for the size of the crowd, and then the quality of the grounds of the other two group games just made the games look amateurish.

Tonight's game was obviously a better venue, but the positioning of the cameras meant that viewers were looking out over three tiny stands, one of which was only 1/3 full despite all of this week's claims that the game was practically sold out (all week terrace tickets were showing online as unavailable so this was particularly disappointing).

As far as the entertainment value goes, this is probably the dullest rugby league tournament I've ever seen. So sad, because I really want this sport to succeed and took a friend from Northern Ireland to his first ever game tonight, but trying to make out that this is an elite even in the sport's calendar was an impossible task because it was such a non-event.

I think the best thing we can do with years like this when there isn't an option of an Aussie or Kiwi tour is to play these games at the biggest grounds possible but actually make it part of Super League/CC clubs' season tickets - every fan gets one free ticket to the game of their choice, first come, first served, and tickets can still be purchased for those who don't qualify for a freebie.

Rather than selling tickets at £6 each like most of tonight's tickets will have been on the BOGOF offer, playing the games at somewhere like the Reebok Stadium or Elland Road (or maybe somewhere slightly more unusual around the fringe of the heartlands like Bramall Lane or Goodison Park if they can be secured at the right price) would make the perceived value of the event higher to the recipient, and could justify charging £15-£20 because people will be more attracted to a big event.

Playing at more reputable venues will then make the sport look more prestigious to casual observers.

As one friend has pointed out to me today though, at least a big positive from this tournament is that to those flicking through the channels without a particular interest in the game, they will have at least seen England totally dominating and may give the team greater stock ahead of the World Cup. We live in hope!

That's because the RL fans are too busy sat at home talking about how bad the crowds are.

But unfortunatly what most of us expected did happen, a lacklustre competition with a predictable outcome, just the way it is