International rugby league has taken a bit of stick in the last two weeks from people with no clue...

For the record, here are some facts about the competitiveness between the top two in world rugby league, Australia and New Zealand (in no particular order)...

Over the last nine (9) Tests between the two teams in tournament play the AVERAGE SCORE is:-

New Zealand RL 21.44 Points
Australian RL 21.33 Points

To suggest anything other than that those two countries are nearly in step is clearly wrong.

It paints the English performance in a different light as well, given being third behind two such closely matched competitors is no disgrace.

Interestingly, the last ten Tests between Australia and New Zealand (ranked one and two in union's world rankings) has seen Australian union win one (1) test and NZ union nine (9) tests...

Well said mate, good to see someone being positive.

OD stop spinning it.

im as much a fan of int. RL as anyone else but between the kiwis tri nations win in 05 and WC win in 08 they didnt win a single game

australias winning percentage is something like 80%. thats not healthy

to make int. RL better we need :

1. 2nd nz nrl side
2. png nrl side
3. origin open to PI players ie play origin and also play for tonga, samoa etc
4. 2nd French SL side
5. more english players in the nrl

I'd agree with everything you say Dally, but i'd say more French and other northern hemisphere nationalities in the NRL too. I was thinking that maybe every NRL and SLE team had to sign one amateur player from an 'emerging nation' every year. Maybe this could improve Italy, Lebanon, USA etc?

One day you will finally win that debate against me on rugby league, DM.

Unfortunately, today is not that day.





You raise a different issue. I have said elsewhere what needs to be done to improve international rugby league and why. You have adopted a lot of it since...

But re your post:-

1. I have stated elsewhere why the Anzac ambush should go;
2. The All Blacks winning percentage is actually higher than the Kangaroos;
3. The FACTS in relation to Aus v NZ in rugby league can't be argued with (see OP).

We have had 8 international teams playing this month in two competitions:

Australia, New Zealand, England, PNG, Wales, France, Scotland, Ireland.

The international game needs:

1. exposure and
2. correction of the misinformation regarding it.

Sounds familiar? lol

biased.

just include all tests played rather than a sample which isnt reflective of all games played

Joke post.

Your knowledge of the international game continues to make Phil Gould look like the almighty on the same subject.

realistically only english players have enough skill level to make it here

we arent a charity and clubs wont just sign clubs cause its good for the int. game

its going to take a long while to get int. RL as strong as wed like it to be

Eight teams in international competition this month.

Great going for the international game.

NRL teams wouldn't in many cases have the foggiest who is good enough if they don't live in the Sydney CBD.

It would be nice to see SL litered with French players but they have to be good enough to sign and not just charity cases, same goes for players from other nations who want to go to the NRL.

I also don't want to see players from all nations gonig to the NRL and playing the exact same brand of rugby as each other. It would be terrible if the French lost their flair because it's trained out of them in other leagues.

We need to stop comparing ourselves to union. Yes, they are good at spinning things in certain ways but their international game is far more advanced than ours so let's not kid ourselves.

I also don't like the words "test" or "test nation," This isn't union or cricket. I believe it segregates all the nations and creates a sort of old boys club where Australia, England and NZ get to dictate whether other nations deserve to play at the highest level. Also, I think it leads to some of the ignorance surrounding international league that non test nations aren't worth the time of day.

In fact, union pinched the term "Test" from rugby league. They previously referred to them always as "internationals".

Further, they have 4 different WC winners to our 3...

We have a good top 8 - 10 nations, so do they.

They have a team with close to an 80% international record, so do we...

etc. etc.

Misinformation and exposure.

Why am I surprised those two words pop up again. And again. And again... Oh...that's right, I'm not surprised in the least.

just to throw a spanner is your lovely work..

over the last 9 tests between england/GB & NZ.....the AVERAGE SCORE is ;-

New zealand RL 20.22 points
England/GB RL 20.88 points


and i love how people cherry pick stats....cos the last 9 tests in ALL GAMES between australia & NZ produces a average score of :-

New zealand 14.33
Australia 25.33

dont forget the atlantic cup that starts in a few weeks time with USA, Canda and Jamaica.

It doesn't throw a spanner in any work at all...you may have noticed I said tournament play and the point stands.



I have explained on this board before why the ANZAC Test remains a joke. For instance:

1. NZ - a country that splits its players between the ESL and the NRL traditionally - has been unable to pick players from the ESL for the Anzac Tests for most of that game's history;

2. An ANZAC Test hasn't been played in NZ for donkeys (the home ground advantage favours Australia by nearly a 100% margin);

3. Smaller teams need more time to prepare (little preparation time plays into the hands of the strongest nation).

etc.

ANZAC Tests clearly favour Australia: I can say this with authority as an Australian.

When NZ have time to prepare, as the stats show, they have been effectively level since 2005 - with each nation winning two tournaments each. And one of Australia's was over NZ in extra time!!! (2006 3N)

Australia - 2006 3N, 2009 4N
NZ - 2005 3N, 2008 RLWC

The only interesting point I hadn't considered was the NZ v GB/Eng stats, which again, confirm my comments on the closeness of the top 3.

Thanks for that.

without checking i'm pretty sure if you count just tournament games between us & NZ dating back to the 2004 tri nations...england/GB would still come out better that NZ??

So, we have established that we have had eight (icon_cool.gif nations playing internationals this month and that the top 3 are very close when a decent sample of say 5 years or so is considered.

Sounds like the international game is going under to me...

Not.

What international rugby league NEEDS is to be treated with the proper respect it has not been afforded since the Super League War...and this will only change with the correction of misinformation and greater exposure for our wonderful game.

And some major changes at RLIF level.

I like the 4 nations format; i really do but it is a bit.. i dunno.. a wet fish that after 2 weeks we're done for this years internationals. I liked the idea of playing PNG last tbf, i just wish now that we hadn't!

Again, this year's 4N format was poorly thought out (that was obvious from when the draw was announced).

Culprit - RLIF.

Am I correct in thinking it was the same as last year's? A round robin and final format?

It was.
But the last games werent dead rubber last year.

Well ours wasn't anyway.

For once I actually agree with you.

People keep harking on about promoting players from emerging nations to make the international game closer. If they players aren't good enough, they won't get played. Simple. It won't do anything except lower our own standards.

Because YOU keep typing them


I agree with you Old Dear......the game lacks exposure, but misinformation..I am not so sure about.

In the UK (and I am going on past years as I am no longer there) I doubt the European comp that Wales won would have got a mention in any of the national papers outside the M62 print editions. I doubt the Irish papers covered it much, the scotsman had no mention of it on-line and in wales it wouldn't have made much of a splash.....
If you temper this with the other lot and the Grand Slam tour of the AB's, I would expect every paper is all over the "international" at Twickenham this weekend. The Irish, Welsh and even the Scots will sell out their grounds for the AB's games and until an England team can (a) be cometative with the 2 southern Hemisphere teams and (b) sell out Wembley for an international, then the media whores will not cover the game......
I don't believe the misinformation stuff carries much water....as I doubt there is a secret agenda on a global scale to undermine league.....I can't speak for Australia, where League rules.....but the attendances over the next few weeks for kick and clap would point to International League not needing any lies to damage it........it's doing fine on its own.

if we ignore the last 10 meeting between PNG and australia the stats show :

average score aus 0
average score PNG 0

Typically you can't see it for the obvious reasons.

The union chips on your shoulders obscuring the view...

lol

A good example of misinformation off the top of my head. Which sport holds the largest crowd for a WC match in either rugby code in New Zealand?

Have a guess.





I've got another 50,000 after that one...