not in the habit of defending ozzies but it is also up to us to have a competitive side otherwise what is their incentive to play? think how annoyed we were by injuries to our players eg leuluai in 'pointless' exiles matches gone by. the competitiveness of international rl means ozzie fans probably feel the same about their players. that's before the money men get involved.

Great article, if depressing to read. I don't think it's all down to the Aussies either. Let's face it, most on here put Wigan above the welfare of the sport.

Switching to summer rugby and disbanding Great Britain as a team finished the international game for me. We aren't strong enough to support four national sides and we never will be, the switch to summer rugby ended aussie tours to here and GB tours to Aus/NZ virtually ending everyone's interest in the international arean. I used to really look forward to the aussies touring here and playing club v country along with three test matches for me it was the highlight of the year and my ambition was to go on a GB tour to Aus/NZ sadly that will now never happen. I've said it before and I will say it again, the switch to summer rugby has killed the game in this country

There's probably a convincing counter argument to be made here, particularly if attendances are considered. However, as far as the sentiment goes, I'm with you.

There are problems with summer rugby and the dissolution of the GB team, but consider what keeping the pre-90s structure might have produced: direct competition for TV time with not just RU but soccer as well (leaving only cricket or horse-jumping for the summer).
This would in all likelihood have led to even more dwindling revenue as satellite came on stream & the Murdoch way of fleecing supporters relegated league to mid-week games or playing out of a shed half way up a windy moorside (been to Rochdale Mayfield recently anyone?).

The image of a bunch of lard-ars*s rolling around in the mud is not something the marketing sweeties with their lattes & langoustine ciabattas would ever have spent their clients' money on & I think it likely most clubs would have gone to the wall a long time ago.
However much I loath that slimy Australian lying sleazeball Murdoch & everything he & his empire represents, there is no denying that the money Sky have put into the sport since the change has led up to what the game is now. Without it, it wouldn't exist. All this in spite of repeated failures in governance from Red Hall - imagine what we could have been had there been a professional outfit in overall charge.

Moving away from the GB team was principally to get funding from Sport England if I remember right - something that should have been resisted in my view, as I agree that we would have been stronger as GB than we will ever be as 4 separate countries.

The malaise in the international game isn't a result of any change in seasons, it's purely down to money. There isn't enough. We aren't strong enough to field 4 separate teams, and the lowest placed NRL side would give our elite squad a run for their money any day.

I have to totally disagree that ending GB tours virtually ended everyones interest in international RL. Up to the 80s/early the only countries that played ANY RL whatsoever were England (AKA GB plus a couple of Ex RU players), Australia, NZ, PNG and Russia. The "World" Cup was played between five countries up to the late 80s. International RL was cr*p.
There are now more nations than ever playing RL. Not including the current 4 nations participants, during this month alone has seen the following internationals - Thailand v Norway in Bangkok, The Balkan Cup between Greece, Serbia, Bosnia & Hungary (with Greece upsetting the odds to hammer the favourites Serbia in the final in Belgrade), Ireland v France in Dublin (a great game in front of a partisan Irish crowd that you can watch on YouTube), Fiji v Lebanon, PNG v Tonga. Obviously these nations are currently nowhere near elite level, but all long journeys start with the first step.
Even at the elite end of international RL, if you exclude Australia, you could argue that there are now 5 countries who on a given day can give each other a game (England, NZ, Samoa, Fiji, PNG). Just a few other examples of the current ongoing international RL development are: Only a few months ago Canada v Jamaica drew a crowd of 7K. The USA championship final drew its highest ever gate of 3K and was televised for the first time. The game has been officially recognised by the Ghanaian govt (meaning they can now apply for government grants and so on to develop the game). The fledgling Thailand league have attracted sponsorship for their newly expanded comp. etc..etc..
Don't get me wrong, bearing in mind the sport has been going for over 100 years there is a long, long way to go, but starting from where we were as recently as the late 80s/early 90s we ARE heading in the right direction. You have to take a long term view of this and thinking where the sport could be at 3 or 4 or more world cup tournaments down the line. We all know that we don't currently have as many competitive nations at elite level as, for example, football, and need more. However, compared to the virtually zero development of RL for the first 80/90 years of the sport, there are comparatively big strides being made in developing the game from the foundations up worldwide.

a fabulous opening day of the four Nations International series....

Yes a little bit of rustiness from all teams, but two decent games, no heavily one sided scorelines or plucky losers cheering their solitary try, and hardly any empty seats on show in suncorp.

and The Aussies lost as well which is a bonus.

worried about the standard of refereeing from the Aussie ref, I thought he was very generous with a few high shots by the samoans. Bentham did ok and was the better of the two refs today, but he could have penalised the Aussies for messing about at the play the ball a lot more.

quite positive about the state of the international game after today.... something to build on thats for sure....

I have never seen the logic behind this argument. There are few, if any, differences between the GB and England teams, in terms of who is selected...and in fact it gives valuable international experience to those with dual options who would be unlikely to make a GB team but can use a grandparent or similar eligibility to play for one of the other home nations.

Spot on. I mean who'd get in from the other nations? McBanana would be in charge anyway so that rules out Brough. Whisper it quietly but the only player I can think of who'd possibly get in is Ben Flower and that's not guaranteed (if he did it would be as a squad player).

In the future if the likes of Matty Russell, Ben Currie, Rhys Evans etc ever got the sniff of an England place they'd move over anyway.

Here's something that probably won't get mentioned on the "national press"

There were 2,000 more fans at the Suncorp yesterday than at the same venue last week for the Australia v NZ Rugby Union game.

Let's hope that our own RL press at least mention it.

Which is why we should have home countries and GB IMO. If we had a 4 home nations comp of our own but entered the "real" 4 nations and WC as GB I believe we would have the best of both worlds - English, Welsh, Scots and Irish all getting a chance to impress for a GB spot whilst helping to grow the sport across the whole of th UK.

I wondered what the crowds were. I certainly saw more gaps in the Union game then I did on Saturday so I'm not surprised.

Great effort that. It's a shame the stadium isn't bigger come the next rugby league World Cup.

Why would they?

It's a nice bit of spin but Saturday was a double header. There are plenty of British expats in Brisbane who probably wouldn't have gone on the day had England not been playing. Same goes for the Samoa fans who together with the England lot probably contributed a lot towards that 2k.

Also why would the RL press bring it up knowing that over the course of November Twickers will see three if not four 82,000 sell outs vs Nz, Aus, SA and maybe Samoa!

There is merit to this point of view and I agree that the other three nations would be vastly outnumbered, if represented at all. But who genuinely aspires to represent Wales, Scotland or N Ireland for league? Even Blind Pew would see that they're "also-rans" with as much hope of competing at top level as Burnley have, and so a GB squad that's pulling in the best of what sp talent there is can only be a benefit - the whole being bigger than the sum of the parts.

(tin hat on)

FWIW i agree.

Why would none RL fans from Wales, Scotland or Ireland support their RL team when the vast majority, if not all, of the players that make up the side have tenuous links to that country? People aren't stupid and can see it for what it is, a ill-conceived attempt to create something out of nothing.

I'd liken it to the equivalent of the NFL creating English, Welsh and Scottish NFL sides that were made up of Americans who weren't good enough to play for the USA. I would probably go and watch a match if it was being played near me but i wouldn't be claiming it's the birth of an international game.

If we want to develop an extended player base then why don't we just have a GB A team? Have them play against other 2nd tier nations like Samoa, Tonga, France or play them against the first team in a possible vs probables match. I'd argue that we could put a decent side out for a mid season fixture;

1-Ratchford
2-Burgess
3-Cudjoe
4-Hardaker/Bridge
5-Makinson/Briscoe
6-Chase
7-Myler
8-Taylor/Crabtree
9-Clarke/Mcilorum/Hodgson/Roby (2 with the first & two with the A side)
10-Flower/LMS
11-Whitehead/Ablett
12-Bateman/Westwood
13-Harrison/Westerman

That's a useful & youthful looking side who would have a point to prove and a reason to play well.