Should definitely rename it, thats for sure. This sport of ours should NEVER bow down to RU by wholesale copying.

Not really wholesale copying, what else could you call it. There are 4 nations so its called the Four Nations. Pretty simple really...

It would have been worth 10 minutes though to come up with something new though, dont you think? Lets not give RU and its fans any ammo against us.

I think your reading too much into it. I havent got a problem with the name and I dont think changing it would do that much for its profile. But it wouldnt bother me either if they did change it.

I like RU ... as well as League.

I drink with quite a few RU fans.

They see RL the same way as we see Kiwis.

That slightly irritating insignificant similar neighbour that always seems to be there but would wish no harm on them.

RU Fans/Players/Organisations dont CARE what RL does. Its 2 differnt sports. RU dont want to see RL put out of business. RU doesnt care about RL.

I wish people would realise that.

Perhaps so Barry. Perhaps so.

I still would like to see our International game put on a better footing, and Im just not convinced that making an imitation of an RU tournament does that. I also think that more internationals should be played against NZ and Aus. Also, I would like to see more effort put into bringing South Africa back into the fold.

Despite what you may think of RU you have to admire the crowds they pull in for internationals. I've been to Wallabies games and I've struggled to get tickets. I've gone to Kangaroos matches and just been a 'walk up' on the day... and got tickets without any problems at all.

A lot of people don't like the Super 14 Rugby union tournament. I quite enjoy it personally.

If there were more countries playing League COMPETITIVELY I'd like to see a similar concept brought in. Some of you may remember the extended WCC of 1997 (that lost a fortune)

Good concept though... I think if it was brought back now the Gulf between NRL Clubs and SL clubs is not as wide it would be far more competitive.

So, England aren't good enough to play Australia, but Wigan/Saints/Leeds etc are?

The Four Nations helps bring a small RL nation (such as France or PNG) the chance to test themselves against the "big 3" nations. However, for once, I agree with Baz... in that no team outside Aus, Nz or Eng have any chance of winning the tournament.

The Ashes were good in that I like the touring side of it where Aus or NZ would play SL teams in a warm up and it all hinged towards a 3 match series. the 4 Nations doesn't really allow that kind of build up or set of matches.

However, if you removed the 4 nations and replaced it with the tours, either NZ or Aus would miss a season of internationals....other nations wouldn't have the chance to develop their standards. Its a necessary building tool for the next few years in order to build a greater international game.

so 75% of the teams involved have a chance of winning it......sounds like a very competitive comp to me..

I reckon so.

All 3 of those sides have got some good Aussies playing for them.

Any of those sides would give the Kangaroos a good game... especially Wigan

Barrie McKenzie struggling to get something?

I though you was a legend and everything just falls into the palm of your hands at a canter..

I don't think it's actually possible to fall at a canter …

Only 50%



Sounds impressive to say to someone who is unfamilar of the concept of 4 nations RL 'Oh half of the teams involved in the tournament could end up winning'

Until you tell them there are only 4 nations involved.

So, we shouldn't play the 4N because only 2 teams have a chance of winning (in your opinion), but your "logical" replacement is to have an Ashes tour instead involving one of the teams that you have given no chance of winning the 4N (because GB is essentially the same as England) and one of the teams you think will easily win it most years?

I'm sorry, I see no sense in this at all. The logic is lost on me here...