The answer to your 2 questions are NO.

Quote: BlackCape "I remember the 'tournament' where teams from both hemispheres were thrown together. Seem to remember it was played partly in the UK and partly in OZ. I was only young at the time and can't remember the ins and outs but do remember that some of the UK teams got a right pasting. Can anybody remember it from a different perspective? Would it be worth having a look at something like this again?'" www.rugbyleagueproject.org/compe ... mmary.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Worl ... ampionship We should definitely do it again.

Quote: BlackCape "I remember the 'tournament' where teams from both hemispheres were thrown together. Seem to remember it was played partly in the UK and partly in OZ. I was only young at the time and can't remember the ins and outs but do remember that some of the UK teams got a right pasting. Can anybody remember it from a different perspective? Would it be worth having a look at something like this again?'" www.rugbyleagueproject.org/compe ... mmary.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Worl ... ampionship We should definitely do it again.

Just think, it could have been worse.
Most people agree that the ARL loyal teams were stronger than the breakaway teams that went to the Super League fiasco in Australia.

When was the last time we beat the Aussie national team? Just because we might not win doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. The top 6 of SL would be competitive against NRL teams, particularly if it was played over here. 1997 was a disaster for English RL, but there's no reason nearly 2 decades later we shouldn't try something similar. A simple 5/6 week tournament in one country as opposed to the drawn out competition played in both hemispheres we got then would be better.

As a sport our strength is the club game, and we need a platform where this can be highlighted. Too many people think that we should just follow the RU format and push the international game, but that won't work as long as we've only got 3 competitive teams.

double post

My preferred format would be to keep it as an annual SL Champions V NRL Champions game, played 2 weeks after GF weekend, alternating hemispheres (it could be done so that it is in the same hemisphere as that year's international tournament, then the players involved join up with their country after the WCC). Then as part of a 4/5 year cycle, an expanded 8 team WCC is played in the October/November slot instead of the 4 Nations.

The Clubs have their off season trip away after their Grand Final and the players get some much needed time off for surgery, recuperation and family time.
The Test matches only involve 20 or so players per country not 80 players as you are suggesting, the players Union in Australia would never agree to it.

Both competitions need to shorten their seasons but I can not see it happening

The ones who are involved in the end of season internationals don't get a rest, and for the rest of the squad it just means their season is 2 weeks longer. It's the only way the WCC can be contested by the same two playing squads who actually won their respective comps, and it also would mean the WCC doesn't have to disrupt either domestic league the following season.

Having an expanded WCC would probably only involve a similar number of NRL players to what the World Cup did, why did the players union agree to that? Not that the players union should have the final say on what's best for the game, anyway. Playing it once on a 4/5 year cycle featuring 4 Nations, World Cup and Tours would be fine IMO.

I agree with the last comment, but SL have now decided that reducing the number of teams but increasing the number of games is the right way forward.

The Players union insisted in having 2012 as an end of season rest because of the 2013 World Cup and there was no four Nations that year.

If the players union is not consulted in Australia regarding how many games are played and how the season runs they will pull their members I guess.

It also sounds like we won't be having a GB Tour next year either, not sure whether that's down to the union or not, though? Player welfare is obviously important but there will never be any meaningful expansion of the game if this insular attitude continues. In 2012, after the Aussies decided they weren't going to participate in any internationals, England got a god awful European tournament that was a complete waste of time, which was reflected in the poor attendances. Fans want to see the best players in the world competing against each other, there are limited ways this can happen with only 3 competitive international teams. Club internationals are the next best thing IMO, too many people think we need to follow the RU formula where the internationals lead the way, our strength as a sport is the 2 premier club competitions, and we need to find a way to exploit this for the benefit of the sport as whole.

Plenty of SL fans watch the NRL regularly, and I think their would be a lot of interest in an expanded WCC over here. If the mooted GB Tour has fallen through then I would look at bringing in an expanded tournament at the end of next season instead. Put it this way, would fans have more interest in going to watch a tournament featuring, for example, Wigan/Leeds/Saints/Warrington and Sydney/Manly/Souths/Melbourne or England, France and Wales?

Only having 2 premier competitions in the world is a weakness not a strength, and the only way we can change this is by taking a long term view and promoting Test football.
State of Origin rules already handicap Tests by forcing players to plump for Australia eligibility and denying particularly Pacific Nations from picking from the largest pool.
For most mature nations war has been replaced by sport - international sport - and we are way down the list in most if not all central funding tables because of our lack of international matches and profile.
If we want pro leagues across Europe, the USA, and the Pacific nations we need to let them play meaningful internationals EVERY YEAR - let's start with a Nines or a series of Nines; stick with it; and build.
We have the greatest game - lets have a pathway so the greatest athletes can play it.

The developing nations need more internationals, I agree. But the development of even one more competitive, elite nation is years, possibly decades away, let alone enough to provide an international stage that we can base the sport around. What I'm suggesting is while that is the case, we can use our top clubs rather than countries to showcase the sport to a worldwide audience. Look at the NFL, as an example, as a sport American Football doesn't have any meaningful international competitions, yet the clubs are some of the biggest worldwide sporting brands and on-the-road games have attracted full houses at Wembley. Why can't we use that as a model to grow RL?

It doesn't hurt the AFL or CFL either.
However, unlike the USA or Australia, everything that doesn't happen in or around London has no chance of a national profile. The AFL thrives in part because Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth have very little competition from the NRL.
The AFL would love some international presence of some meaning, but it hasn't happened thus far. The fact is Australia's media isn't centred on one city. As a media centre, Melbourne is just as important as Sydney and this as been the case for well over a century.

he means no matter what leeds are going to be in it.