Well, over 50k turned up to see QLD Reds play the touring union side last week - even though they're also playing the national side, and weren't expecting to win - so if you're not the kind of person who can be bothered to go, I hope you're not representative. Or is union bigger than league down there, now?



If the international game was healthy, I might agree. But it's not. It's dying on its through lack of interest and a microscopic media profile. No-one at work (I'm outside the heartlands) knows there's a world cup this year - they all know there's a union world cup next year, even though they aren't even rugby fans. Why is there a lack of interest? In part because we wallop France, and get walloped by you lot, while you lot wallop everyone apart from NZ - and no-one's interested in one-sided contests (and the media don't give a toss, by and large). If there isn't actually competition in games, there won't be a meaningful international competition at all.

Even Sky couldn't be bothered putting on a half-hour pre-game preview for the England/Exiles game. The people who give a toss are currently a subset of the hardened club fans. If we want a healthy sport that will prosper, we have to get interest from casual viewers, and that interest is realistically only going to come with internationals and media coverage. And they're only going to care if they're competitive.

We carry on down this route, and professional RL will be confined to Sydney, with a couple of expansion clubs in Brisbane, Auckland and Melbourne. There's success and an attractive product in SOO - we could use that as leverage for the good of the game.

Or not. It's not like anyone's going to read this thread and follow up on the idea

If you say "Aussies wouldn't turn out for NSW v England because they see representative RL as a joke when it's outside their own country", you sort of are





How do you think we could do that? Which of the completely non-silly concepts of the Exiles, Four Nations, and France internationals grew the international game and improved the quality of the competition?

I happen to like the Exiles concept, but there are two glaring problems with it: half the England team are down under, and the better Aussies earn more at home, these days.

To improve, I think we'll need better opposition, and we need to get the first-choice squad playing together. I don't think England playing QLD or NSW is a silly concept (and neither did the recent Lions tour organisers, though YMMV), and it would fulfil both of those requirements.

1) I said the Aussies wouldn't turn out if it happened now. Maybe if we beat them in the World Cup they will sit up and notice us.

2) England should play New Zealand and the other Pacific nations, which would be of actual benefit to the international game whilst providing a challenge.

I don't see what playing the Aussie heartland regions does for improving our international game OR helping England improve?!

I take it back - you're not pessimistic





That would do me. We'd still have to take the team down under for it to be feasible and, as they would be proper internationals, the Australian clubs couldn't refuse to release players.



Better quality opposition and a chance to get the full squad together. Both of which would also be achieved by playing NZ and the (stronger) Pacific islands.

Your mixing up too many concepts. I'd love us to play a 'Lions' tour again in RL , playing club and lesser rep sides midweek . Do it every 4 years and it would be great. England playing and getting stuffed by NSW or QSL? No ta it would be even more embarrassing than the normal bitchslapping we get from the Kangaroo's

As for Burgess and being an Aussie? His choice I guess but it shouldnt matter if you get a passport or not , once you've nailed your colours to a mast you should be forced to stick with it. Moving international 'allegiances' just makes RL look even more of a joke.

They get 40k a game for playing SOO, I'd want to play it as well if I was in the NRL!