Just because you're sad enough to have multiple accounts, the rest of us aren't. You just have to accept several DIFFERENT people all share the view that you're an idiot.

1. I have one account. I know you think Galiant and I are the same poster, but we're not.
2. I am sure there are plenty of people who think I'm an idiot. They are welcome to their opinion and you'll notice that I'm not whining like a little girl because they don't agree with me. This isn't a popularity contest, it's a debating forum where grown up debate issues surrounding the sport of Rugby League.
3. Care to discuss the OP's theory that the RUWC is as contrived as the RLWC or do you accept that it was a misguided and failed attempt to paint Union in a bad light?

I know others think you and Galliant are the same poster but I DON'T......so that's pee'd on your bonfire right there.

Still no comment on the OP then?

I think the OP is actually criticising people for talking RL down.

You've taken it (as always) as an attack on RU.

Nope, I've taken it as yet another example of a badly thought out use of something in Union that isn't good to make a League fan feel better.


This is factually correct. The Recent RL 4 nations had a Samoan squad with 2 Samoan born players in it.....the RLWC 2013 was farcical with 9 teams having on average 17 "heritage' players in their 23's.

The Notion that the RUWC where the average across the board is 4 heritage players per 33 man squad is comparable to the RLWC is quite laughable as it is a polar opposite situation. 74% Heritage in League, 11% in Union.

So thus far, the comparison doesn't hold up to scrutiny and therefore doesn't work.......so just in case let's throw media coverage into the mix 2.3681640625:5