That’s what we are getting next year, and over the next five years(every other year) as kind of a tester, but i agree i think it needs to be in october/november. I think if it is well attended and well viewed then we would go for a proper tournament. If there was the will it could be fitted in.

my way of fitting it in would be to play it in whichever country is hosting the international tournament that year. Move the end of the season back one week and Beginning the week after the GF’s (which should be played the same weekend) in 2011 for instance the NRL GF was the 2nd of Oct and the 4 nations started the 28th of Oct. So move that back a week and it is played 25th of Sept, Melbourne and Brisbane could fly to the UK 18th of Sept. Nz and Manly would fly to the uk 27th Sept. Split in to two groups where you only play the 2 overseas sides.
1st Oct We would have Leeds (1st) V Brisbane (4th), St’s(2nd) v Melbourne(3rd) Melbourne and Brisbane having been in the UK 2 weeks at this point.
7th Oct We would have Warrington (3rd) v NZ (2nd) and Wigan (4th) Manly (1st) NZ and Manly having been in the Uk 2 weeks at this point
15th a super weekend with 2 double headers with the fixtures reversed. So Leeds v Melbourne, Sts v Brisbane. And Wire Manly, Wigan NZ.
Top two in each group go through to semi finals played on 22nd and 23rd.
Final on the 29th
4 Nations begins one week later on the 5th Nov. Fits in 11 extra games, but a maximum of 4 per club and only extends the season by a week.

Ambitious ....

I really don't think you could fit both an extended WCC and a full international tournament, not properly anyway. I'd work on a 5 year cycle where the 5th year is the WCC, after a WC year. I know the development of international RL is important but as long as we only have 3 competitive international teams the end of season competions become stale IMO, plus there would be plenty of interest in a WCC in both hemispheres.

In terms of structure, I'd make it so each SL team played each NRL team once, followed by semi finals and a final. Something like:

NRL 1 – NRL Champions (Pool A)
NRL 2 – NRL Runner Up (Pool B)
NRL 3 – Minor Premiers (A)
NRL 4 – Next-Highest League Position (B)
SL 1 – Super League Champions (B)
SL 2 – Super League Runner Up (A)
SL 3 – League Leaders (B)
SL 4 – Challenge Cup Winners (A)
(Next-Highest League Position if a team qualifies via multiple criteria)

Week 1
• SL1 v NRL1/ SL2 v NRL2/ SL3 v NRL3/ SL4 v NRL4

Week 2
• SL1 v NRL2/ SL2 v NRL3/ SL3 v NRL4/ SL4 v NRL1

Week 3
• SL1 v NRL3/ SL2 v NRL4/ SL3 v NRL 1/ SL4 v NRL2

Week 4
• SL1 v NRL 4/ SL2 v NRL1/ SL3 v NRL2/ SL4 v NRL3

Week 5
• Winner Pool A v Runner Up Pool B
• Winner Pool B v Runner Up Pool A

Week 6
• Final

I agree it should replace the internationals on alternate years

possibly so. I was using the 2011 post GF positions though so there was some semblence to reality.

thats not a bad idea, after all the players get paid alot for playing rugby, 40 games or so a year isnt too much!

I'd stick to the current format of a one-off game between SL champions and NRL champions in the interim years, alternating between the UK and Aus. I'd also like this moved to the end of the season so it is played with the actual title winning squads, and doesn't interfere with the regular season. An extended competition would be a much more special event if it was played every 5 years, annually would eventually kill the interest IMO. The next 10 years could look something like:

2014 – 4 Nations (Southern Hemisphere)
2015 – GB Tour Australia
2016 – NZ Tour GB
2017 – World Cup (SH)
2018 – 8 Team WCC (NH)
2019 – 4 Nations (NH)
2020 – GB Tour NZ
2021 – Australia Tour GB
2022 – World Cup (NH)
2023 – 8 Team WCC (SH)

Keeping the end of season tournaments fresh. The main issue is giving the teams not involved in the tours competitve games. It could be 2 4N per cycle rather than 2 tours to overcome this.

Not really sure how back-to-back competitions give continuity? If anything I'd say it's the opposite, as the international squad can't get together until a lot later and would go in to the competition under prepared. Having limits on how many games players can play is a complete non-starter. It's up to the coaching staff, doctors/physios and the players themselves to decide who is fit and when they can play, not some arbitrary rule that is is enforced by the governing body.

international squads could for the most part get together at roughly the same time. It is only the international players playing in the final who would have less than two weeks.

There is no reason we can't enforce a limit. Players argue they play too many games, clubs argue they need games for financial reasons. There is only one solution. Clubs play more games, players play less. To protect the players from pressure to play too many games from their club. Make it a rule and the players and the decision is neither the players nor the clubs. They are protected.

Sydney 22
Wigan 6

It'd be fantastic if Wigan could win though, I'll also have the disinfectant ready for the final whistle when I'll stop being a Wiganer.

I shall, in the finest Wigan tradition, continue to eat pies though.

www.wiganwarriors.com/WContent.a ... &type=news Looks to be a big following going down for the game from Wigan.

www.wiganwarriors.com/WContent.a ... &type=news Looks to be a big following going down for the game from Wigan.