You think a team of part-timers from a nation not even regarded as fourth best in the world would beat a team of full-timers who have been regarded as second to third best in the world? I'd like to see he odds on something like that!
Who was the last team to beat Aus/NZ outside of the big three and when was that?


it's not arrogant at all. It's a pretty fair claim based on the strength of the two nations teams and past results in similar situations. It's not undue, it's not unfounded. And it cannot be compared to Eng/GB vs Aus.

I'm beginning to think you don't understand the meaning of he word arrogance!


If the other side of the stick is winning 0 and winning more than 0, than yes, it is worse

this whole argument is pointless.

until france has at least 25 players worthy of plying there trade in the SLE they will never compete with england in friendlies or competitions.

A Championship select would beat France on occasion , they would provide a better test for the Euro Countries

Apparently if we played them 20 times, they'd beat us.

at this moment in time i really dont care about france or wales.

because of the politics these day i really dont care about the SLE as well.

but england is different, from a sporting point of view i live for the day i see england beat australia in a final or even better to win a three match series after the spoils were shared in the first two matches.

until they get 70 or 80+ they are not going to come close! Hence why we need Toulouse in and why the French League needs to step up a gear and start producing enough talent not just for the 2 SL French teams but also for English and Australian clubs to sign as well. Same for PNG. Its cloud cuckoo land to think any nation that does not have a large number of eligible players playing in the top leagues of the world will ever compete with the big 3.

I think if they can at least field a team full if full time players then they can at least pull off the odd shock win (but not a consistent few wins). England can beat NZ consistently and vice versa, but both have so little depth in quality compared to Aus that it's still always seen as a massive shock if the Aussies lose anything important.

Exactly, if with 150+ and 100+ top grade players Eng and NZ struggle to beat Oz who have around 250 top grade players, what hope do you think any team below these three will have with 20-30 top grade players, at best. When was the last time a shock win was had against NZ, Eng or Oz by any other team? There is no way in the world anyone is going to beat the big 3 UNLESS they have a large pool of 1st grade players to pull from. The only reason Wales started to close the gap in the 90's was due to RL signing some world class Welsh RU players to add to the smattering of sudo Welsh Engish players. Sadly, from an Int perspective, RL is a game where there is nowhere to hide on the field and the slightest difference in ability and experience levels is shown up in big score margins.

Quote: Wellsy13 "You think a team of part-timers from a nation not even regarded as fourth best in the world would beat a team of full-timers who have been regarded as second to third best in the world? I'd like to see he odds on something like that! Who was the last team to beat Aus/NZ outside of the big three and when was that? it's not arrogant at all. It's a pretty fair claim based on the strength of the two nations teams and past results in similar situations. It's not undue, it's not unfounded. And it cannot be compared to Eng/GB vs Aus. I'm beginning to think you don't understand the meaning of he word arrogance! If the other side of the stick is winning 0 and winning more than 0, than yes, it is worse you mean a team of part-timers beating a team of full timers like this?news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/challenge_cup/4623013.stm or like this news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 040504.stm . Why dont we get rid of the challenge cup? there really is no point letting part-timers and full-timers compete is there? considering most games at the early stages finish news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 659704.stm and nobody goes to watch them anyway? It has happened before and it will happen again, sometimes a team over-performs some times one under performs. So yes, it is arrogant to assume England could never lose to France, similarly it would be arrogant to assume that Australia wont lose to England, despite the fact we have lost 85% of the last 20 matches we have played. We have shown that we can, on occassion compete and beat a vastly superior side in Australia, France have proven on occasion they can compete and beat a vastly superior side in England. They have beaten the odds before, and will do so again. It is arrogant and disrespectful to assume otherwise. Similar to us, they need structural changes and some growth before they will start beating us on a regular basis, as we need structural changes and growth before we will beat Australia on a regular basis. But we dont just give up on international RL in the mean-time.

Quote: Wellsy13 "You think a team of part-timers from a nation not even regarded as fourth best in the world would beat a team of full-timers who have been regarded as second to third best in the world? I'd like to see he odds on something like that! Who was the last team to beat Aus/NZ outside of the big three and when was that? it's not arrogant at all. It's a pretty fair claim based on the strength of the two nations teams and past results in similar situations. It's not undue, it's not unfounded. And it cannot be compared to Eng/GB vs Aus. I'm beginning to think you don't understand the meaning of he word arrogance! If the other side of the stick is winning 0 and winning more than 0, than yes, it is worse you mean a team of part-timers beating a team of full timers like this?news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/challenge_cup/4623013.stm or like this news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 040504.stm . Why dont we get rid of the challenge cup? there really is no point letting part-timers and full-timers compete is there? considering most games at the early stages finish news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 659704.stm and nobody goes to watch them anyway? It has happened before and it will happen again, sometimes a team over-performs some times one under performs. So yes, it is arrogant to assume England could never lose to France, similarly it would be arrogant to assume that Australia wont lose to England, despite the fact we have lost 85% of the last 20 matches we have played. We have shown that we can, on occassion compete and beat a vastly superior side in Australia, France have proven on occasion they can compete and beat a vastly superior side in England. They have beaten the odds before, and will do so again. It is arrogant and disrespectful to assume otherwise. Similar to us, they need structural changes and some growth before they will start beating us on a regular basis, as we need structural changes and growth before we will beat Australia on a regular basis. But we dont just give up on international RL in the mean-time.

as he said, name the last time any of the big 3 were beaten by an outside team. As the game has got even more pro the gap becomes ever larger. PNG with its masses of domestic players can't get close let alone beat one of them. Only reason Pacific Ilsands look closely competitive against the big 3 is due to relying on pseudo islanders playing in SL or NRL and they don;t have enough of them to really challenge any of the three. Best bet will be France, IF Toulouse comes into SL and IF the French national comp improves and starts producing more SL and NRL Frenchies.

Suggesting France won't beat England in modern times is not arrogant, it is simply stating the obvious.