1. 372,000+ witnessed 6 friendly Union games over the weekend at an average of 62,000 a game.
2. Italy v Tonga, that's IRB ranked 11 & 12, attracted 20,036 in Rome....12k more than the RL final.
3. Argentina Scalped Wales, Ireland nearly got SA and Italy Tonga was another close game.....England were expected to spank Fiji, as were the AB's the Scots.....the only surprise result was the wannabees getting spanked....but then again, France were RWC 11 Finalists.
4. Why do RL fans feel the need to compare international League to International Union? All it does is make international League look worse than ever.....32,526 watched the 4 games of League this autumn...less than half of the crowd in Scotland on Sunday.


You may think NH Union is average, but saying so doesn't make intenational RL any less of a basket case.

Rugby League fans are pathetic. They take absolute delight in attacking what has always been a smaller part of our sport, one which was even smaller in the so-called Golden Era to which they continually hark back.

Rugby Union international crowds have nothing at all to do with Rugby League ones.

Biggest enemy to the sport.

Off the field it was a success. Except for the England vs Wales game, all games were well attended.

On the field it was predictable. But in order for us to improve we need better local competition. To get better local competition we have to play them so they can improve. So we should probably do this more often.

Given my negative feelings before it all started, I feel now that it went as well as it could have.

Looking forward we need Wales to have at least 20 full time pros to have a chance to improve. So something needs to be done to make this happen. Hopefully it will carry on in none WC years. Maybe with the Knights when we have games with NZ/Aus.

I would also have an extra team so we can have 2 games a weekend. Maybe the winner of the second tier competition could qualify for it.

Super League fans are even worse.


I must have imagined attendances of 54569, 73631 and 57034 at Wembley... and attendances of 50583, 46615 and 43930 at Old Trafford... all less than 10 years before Super League appeared on the scene and screwed the international game. Not a single international attendance in the UK during the Sooper Dooper League era has matched any of those above.


You mean Rugby Union scorelines have nothing at all to do with Rugby League one's surely? Oh, I forgot... that doesn't suit your agenda does it?

It's clear the sport is dying. The only option is to move back to winter IMO.

Correct.
Pre-Super League World Cup (1995) - Total attendance 265609 from 15 games, average attendance 17707.
Post-Super League World Cup (2000) - Total attendance 263921 from 31 games, average attendance 8513.


You won't have long to wait. It's called February and March, though I appreciate that the primary function of Super League is to provide a schedule filler for Sky Sports during the soccer and union off-season. It knows it's place in the sporting hierarchy.

How on earth does soccer and union cope playing throughout the whole of winter? Tough buggers, eh? Players and fans alike. They must be mad!

The drop in attendence more likely to do with ppl being more spoilt for choice nowadays. Check out viewing figures for some of the rubbish on BBC and ITV during the late 80's, early 90's. They got much better viewing figures than today, now was that because of the programs being better or lack of channels to choose from.

The reason International RL isn't popular is because it only has 3 proper teams, that it was more popular in the 70's and 80's says more about the simplicity of the times than the sport in general. Comparing attendences from then and now is a weak and sloppy way to form your view but I've come to expect that of you.

Everything old = good, Everything new = bad....the sooner the likes of you disappear from RL the better, contrary to your expected claims that the sport NEEDS your like to tell us what is wrong. Its negative views like yours that stop people viewing before they've even watched because they hear how "rubbish" the game is from 'fans' who claim to love it. Contrary to what you like to think YOUR OPINION ISN'T IMPORTANT to the overall game, even though you'd love it to be for the sole reason that you can say "I was right all along". That you and many others think doing things 'how they use to be' is the way to go is only a sad reflection on how stuck in the past you are and how you are a glass half empty man, i feel sorry that this way of thinking will be how your entire life goes.

Just to add to the list of moans.
The commentary and "expert" comment on the BBC was absolutely shocking.
People moan about Eddie & Stevo but they are a far better listen than yesterday, even if Stevo has his moments.
When you compare this to the Union coverage, it makes our game look very poor indeed and this is after making allowances for the"raw material"
that they are working with.

too true

The international game is in a trough. A World Cup win would almost certainly be the most effective way for England to drag themselves out of it. I doubt the value of the current series will be known until next autumn but should we win then I'd regard the current series as a worthwhile venture.

The crowds reflect where we are right now. No point trying to disguise it or wish the BBC hadn't shown the series. No amount of marketing will sell the international game (or more accurately England) until we can post a creditable series win.

No doom and gloom intended, I believe this will happen. I spent yesterday evening leafing through the Rothman's Yearbook from 1976, the year I started watching the game. Back then, the average first division crowd was fractionally over 2k. Some things can change for the better.

Yep, be gone you antiquated old sod.

This ship is sailing to a bright new world & the last thing it needs is old school whinges constantly harping back to a rose tinted era.

Just let go & leave it to the new breed.

The tourney gave England a chance to get some game time together and gave the likes of Watkins, Hill, Charnley and Hardaker some time with the England squad. It was never going to be much of a contest, with only one profesional club outside England in the northern hemisphere it was always going to be (and will continue to be) difficult for Wales and France to compete. Hopefully they'll have a larger pool of players to pick from for the world cup. We're just going to have to accept that at this point in time that France and Wales are long way competing with the top 3, but to stop playing them would be a mistake, I don't see how playing less international matches is going to improve things.

From a performance POV England's defence was structured, with good line speed and technique around the ruck. The attack was hot and miss at times but with so many players to come into the side I'm not too concerned at the moment.

As far as the selction goes I think Tomkins is the obvious selection at FB, I still have doubts about his positioning and ability to defend kicks but he's easily the best option we have at the moment. The wingers will probably be Hall and one of Charnley/Briscoe. Both have strengths and weaknesses to their game and there isn't much to choose between. I hope Broughton can improve and play himself into contention to give us more competition on the flanks.
The centres IMO will be Watkins and Reed, Watkins is easily the most complete centre we've got and if he can stay clear of injuries will be a shoe in for selection. I think Reed will be the left centre, I think Cudjoe has done alright but I'm not sure he's done enough to displace Reed.
I think the halves will be Sinfield, and Chase Widdop or Myler. Myler and Chase haven't really made the spot theirs so this is biggest selection decsion McNamara will have to make.

I think the series was good. The fact that England won is irrelevant. The margins of victory against France was less than we've been beat by Australia a few times in recent years. France will get better the more chances they have to play.

So far as England are concerned, we learned that we have better potential in the three quarters than we have had in a short while. Just concerned how they may cope defensively against Australia in particular. I think we've learned that we still don't have any half-backs (at least the way the coach seemd to be thinking). Sinfield is a great player but not a half-back to frighten the big teams. Chase and Myler remain a long way short of international level, in my humble opinion (based on their performances for England to date)I think we've learned that barring an injury crisis, Hock will not start against Oz or NZ, although I think he may be in the squad and play against the weaker opposition. I'd love it if Tomkins could play stand off with the Leeds lad at Full Back.

with graham, sam burgess, westwood, roby and crabtree to come back in alongside ellis, hock, o'loughlin and hill, i think we have the pack to match anyone. in hall, charnley and briscoe we have 3 international wingers imo, and jones bishop, riley and dixon are waiting in the wings, so were ok on the wing, the emergance of watkins is a breath of fresh air, and with atkins, yeaman and reed, we seem to be getting a little competiton for places in the centre's, and young evans at warrington can hopefully fullfil is potential and put his name in the frame. tomkins and hardaker are both capable exiting fullbacks, so that just leave's the half back's and this is where we are weak, i don't know the best halfback combination we could pick, probably because we don't have any of note, one thing's for sure though, i would rather lose with ritchie myler or danny brough playing than win with rangi chase playing.

john bateman would be my darkhorse to make the world cup squad, but the main aim is find a half back pairing, where that come's from? dont ask me.