https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-leagu ... 01xy7l41eo

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-leagu ... 01xy7l41eo

Won’t believe it till they actually kick off. NRL control it all and never want their players in internationals.

On another website I have seen a list of stadiums that suggests where these games should possibly be played and no surprise a few are down south.

Now I have banged the drum a lot recently about needing to grow the sport financially and better sponsorship etc. so my next comment maybe hypocritical but I would not be happy playing at any London stadiums. I have many reasons why but ultimately I don’t think enough of them care so why should fans up here have to travel to London.

There would have to be a London test, I’d prefer 1x London (Spurs?), 1x Newcastle and 1x Etihad.

Been some great moments in London for internationals.

So you would not have 1 at Headingley or Wigan ?

I'd rather we aimed bigger tbh for an Ashes series. Headingley certainly doesn't feel big enough at 18k / 19k. Maybe I'm being a little ambitious with Newcastle and Elland Rd would make more sense (though I don't like it particularly).

We should be aiming for around 40k at least per game I reckon.

Definitely needs to be a test in that there London IMO, Spurs is a good shout seems to work for the NFL. It's tough but we must keep trying to shake off our provincial shackles and beat the drum that we are representing the nation not just the M62 corridor.

Additionally, if there are any antipodean backpackers having a UK gap year they'll be down there.

No.
Wigan and Headingley are not big enough.
You could have Etihad and Elland Rd.

The 2003 series was in Wigan, Huddersfield and Hull. I went to the Wigan one where Moz got sent off after 12 seconds.

There was some iconic series before that at Wembley, Old Trafford and Elland Road, but if you try and use grounds like that (or Etihad, Anfield, St James' Park etc) then all you will see are thousands of empty seats.

I'd make the London one a bigger one - Wembley, Spurs, Arsenal or West Ham - and then use Wigan and either Leeds (Headingley, not Elland Road) or Hull.

Wherever it’s going to be held it’s going to need to be marketed properly and I assume the BBC will have the coverage they have to pay it more than lip service. For this reason I’d rather the BBC did not be the broadcaster for many years I have found them to be disingenuous to Rugby League.

I’m not saying Sky would do it any better, but the marketing and advertising needs to really sell it. Oh and if it is the BBC can they for the love of god get rid of the childish opening graphics, so amateurish. Look like they were done on a ZX Spectrum.

Everton's new ground would be a good idea IMO

I remember the 2003 series and thought it was awesome. Even with the aussies winning late on etc. I agree a full house at Wigan etc produced an electric atmosphere back then rather than bigger venues. Sadly the product on the field isnt as good as back then so it would have a lot to live up to. I mean, back then i knew most of the aussie team by name and i didnt particularly watch that much NRL. Now i couldn’t name one aussie international apart from Nathan Cleary. Where are all the superstars/characters these days?

They are there. The Hammer is a real superstar.

All comes down to exposure, there seemed to be regular matches between Eng/GB and Aus / NZ back then. Plus the tours were longer and included games against club sides (the Aus vs Wire game at Wilderspool in 94 was tasty!). I also used to watch a lot more NRL than I do now - purely a time thing for me, had much more time when I was younger to follow it - I don't even watch State of Origin anymore.

Good call that, better placed than Anfield for getting into city centre.