I read an article and wondered if we can learn anything from Argentina Rugby Union? They have no professional clubs but managed to beat sides with professional leagues and reached the semi final of the union World Cup. They do have amateur clubs but in the past struggled with the gap between amateur rugby and the international side. This is a similar situation to RL in London and France, granted France have Catalan but one club cannot produce a decent international side on their own. Personally I don't think putting Toulouse into League 1 is going to make much difference. Entering a French U25 international side based in Toulouse into League 1 may be a better option for bringing players through and improving the national side. They could then move on to Catalans, another Super League club or Elite1 depending on how good they are and when they are ready. m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34611387

I read an article and wondered if we can learn anything from Argentina Rugby Union? They have no professional clubs but managed to beat sides with professional leagues and reached the semi final of the union World Cup. They do have amateur clubs but in the past struggled with the gap between amateur rugby and the international side. This is a similar situation to RL in London and France, granted France have Catalan but one club cannot produce a decent international side on their own. Personally I don't think putting Toulouse into League 1 is going to make much difference. Entering a French U25 international side based in Toulouse into League 1 may be a better option for bringing players through and improving the national side. They could then move on to Catalans, another Super League club or Elite1 depending on how good they are and when they are ready. m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34611387

Eat more beef! Best steak ever in Buenos Aires

The single biggest thing we can take from that article is that they play regular international rugby.

"Before you would play the All Blacks every six or seven years," says the team's defence coach Pablo Bouza. "Now we have played 10 matches against them in four years. And for the players, and for us as coaches, we are always learning when we play them."

We play a single game against a French team with 12 regulars missing, win with a cricket score then write the French off. We need a regular set international calendar and have to accept for 5 to 10 years there will be big scores.

It's been said before - in RL, we need a generation where it is set in stone that there will be a RL World Cup held every 2 years - alternating between the hemispheres. The rest of the international calendar (qualification for RLWC, 4 Nations etc) could then neatly fit around that. Hard work for the Administrators - but worth it!

If England need a one-off international (e.g. before matches against Australia or NZ as part of tours) it could be against, not France, but "Europe" or "Rest of Europe" thus not just French but the best of Wales, Scotland, Ireland etc qualified players plus give an incentive to such as Russia & Serbia based players.

Every 2 years for a World Cup would be ridiculous and heavily devalue the competition.
We do need a properly set out international programme and put some investment into the marketing of such events.
Properly planned at decent venues and help given to the "lesser" nations.

At the moment, we have 3 nations Aussie, NZ ad England who are head and shoulders above the rest.

More has to be done to help France improve and sustained effort given to the other nations, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and the south seas countries.

The 4N concept, with the strongest 4th Nation included as a good thing but, as with most things in RL, we don't persist long enough with the idea.

This would have given more exposure to some of the developing nations.

RL needs to stop searching for quick fixes and make proper plans for the future development of the game.

Instead of constant chopping and changing, we should work harder at making what we have work better and advance the game as a whole

The problem in League is that there are fewer "tier one" nations than in Union. They have arguably eight (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, Wales, France, Ireland, England) and then a gap to another tier with the likes of Scotland, Japan, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji. There's then a narrow gap from those tier two nations to the likes of Georgia, Canada, Romania etc.

So while tier one versus tier three games can end up as blowouts, there is stiff competition between the bottom of tier one and the best of tier two, and the bottom of tier two and the best of tier three. It creates uncertainty of results, and therefore public interest.

In League, there are three tier one nations and then an absolute chasm to the tier two of the Pacific Islands, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France. Any game between a tier one side and a tier two one is pretty much foregone conclusion, without the tier two side having some significant advantages in their favour such as home ground, climactic conditions, dodgy local ref etc. So even if you want to put on a four nations tournament, there's going to be one whipping boy. The tier two nations don't learn anything from playing the tier one sides, other than getting a reminder of how far behind they are.

Argentina's union side has achieved success by basically abandoning its domestic competition, and getting its best players out playing in Europe either in the Heineken Cup or the French Top 14. They have improved their individuals. but not necessarily the structures to produce that next batch of individuals.

As AG says the Argentinians have given up on their own competition and got their players playing in others. A bit like New Zealand in RL.

But as mentioned they also regularly play top nations.
I make it that in the last 10 years (2006-2015)
Argentina have played the top Union nations (Eng, Wales, Ire, Fra, Aus, NZ & SA) 54 times not including World Cup Games.

Even if you include RL World Cup games, France have only played 36 games in total. And only 14 v top RL nations.

Now that's not the only reason, the game itself is easier to be competitive in than League for instance, which is why I favour tweaking RL's rules to make it easier for "lesser" teams to be competitive. But it must help to regularly play the top nations.

I understand they have more top nations which helps. And there are obviously issues between Catalans and the national side which definitely need sorting ASAP. But we desperately need to get lesser nations playing more often, to a set schedule and against the top nations.
If we do that you'll start to get some pride in their nations team and players will want to turn out for them instead of prioritising their club.

Union obviously had a strategy for improving the likes of Argentina over time. We just seem to hope that a nation gets better.
Also, Argentina took plenty of hammerings in these games but the sport stuck with them and helped them develop rather than just write them off.

THIS

We need to focus on the club game it is what differentiates us - much better to have more games between the top side in the NRL & SL than meaningless internationals against the likes of France, Wales, Scotland etc. How are the likes of South Pacific countries supposed to afford to bring sides to the UK when attendances for games against England would be pitiful. Argentina are OK because when they play the likes of England the crowd is still huge.

Love the short-term, negative attitude you have there. Do you work for the NRL?

Except most people outside of Leeds, Wigan etc aren't particularly going to care about Leeds or Wigan.

The problem with going down the club route is that our clubs are northern. And the media doesn't give a toss about anything north of Watford.

England, on the other hand, when played at a decent stadium in London attracts attention.

And nice red wine too

Eng v Fiji sold out the KC. NZ v Samoa sold out the halliwell jones.

I think a four nations between Eng, France, NZ and Samoa would go well and be a success.

The attendances that mention were for world cup fixtures and it may be difficult to replicate these in a 4 nations comp.

As we are now, we should probably try and alternate test series with NZ and Aus in alternate years and work like hell at trying to help the "smaller" nations improve.
This probably means someone digging into the ancestors of players in England and Aus and trying to find Scots, Irish, Welsh etc in their grand parents

Personally I think we need to concentrate on Wales and France in the short to medium term.
I think we need a big effort to get development of Welsh and French players and get them into the Championship and eventually SL.

I don't really know much about how player development is going in Wales. Are they one of the regional academies? Am I right in saying Catalans have recently just started their u19 academy?

If we can develop 15 SL standard Welshmen and 15 SL standard Frenchmen then their national sides should be competitive.

I think there's potential for both nations but they need assistance, the players need a pathway to full time RL and the national sides need regular games v England and a set international schedule.

Halliwell Jones holds 11k hardly a huge crowd on which to build a stable international game - Leeds Rhinos haven't had a crowd that small for years.

Are all the games against NZ sold out? so what makes you think a SSI country will be as big a draw as NZ?- crowds for a series of that nature would be pitiful - how many turned up at LSV on Saturday even at £10 a ticket - the international game is not where RL has strength. It is very likely the WCC game Leeds v North Queensland would draw a bigger crowd than any of the 3 internationals if it were played at Elland Rd.

The exiles would produce a better series than either France or Wales - I think the would actually beat England.

Halliwell Jones holds 15k

This discussion ignores the nature of the two games. RL is generally far more unforgiving on the scoreboard when a 'better' team plays a 'weaker' one. There is no place to hide. You cannot aim for scrums, lineouts and penalties and starve the opposition of possession. You score a penalty, you give the ball back for 6 tackles. Against Australia just one set is quite possible to lead to a try against minnows even when starting from their own line.

If the sport wants to become genuinely more competitive across a bigger range of countries we'd have to look at bringing back genuine contests for possession - stripping the ball, allowing tacklers to strike at the PTB, not to mention proper scrums.

This simply won't happen because this isn't what RL is nowadays - contests for possession have been removed to make the game faster and cleaner. Which is fine when teams are relatively evenly matched but a fatal flaw when they're not.

Agree with that. I think for a thriving future of the sport we have to go back and reintroduce some of the elements we got rid, even if only in a very mild fashion.

I'd have proper scrums. I totally understand people being against this but I don't think it'd turn into Union style scrums (which have been hugely cleaned up in the last year or so) and I think they'd genuinely give "lesser" teams another chance at competing. Get some tackle-hungry backrowers and a couple of big props and a good kicking half back and suddenly a team has a way of making a better opposition have to work. Because the lesser team can kick downfield and then potentially win the scrum.

Smokey had some decent suggestions on a previous thread of possibly changing the 40-20 to a 30-30 or changing the game to 4 quarters instead of 2 halves.

I'm not advocating going back to rucks, mauls and lineouts but just a few ways to help teams compete.

Television coverage for the european championship would be a good start. Lot's of emerging amateur nations taken up the game in recent years e.g sweden, norway

I don't think I could stand the 'Feeding' thread after every round, repeated VR of the SH putting the ball in the scrum, Stevo ranting on endlessly, another reason for the Pies to scream persecution. Stats showing how they had lost 56.8% of scrums with Bentham in charge. No thanks.

Those of us who remember vividly the days of the specialist hooker whose job it was to trundle from scrum to scrum winning possession, usually by sticking their legs outside those of the open side prop and flailing wildly at the ball so it came back out of the tunnel three or four times before the game got under way again, say no thanks to the return of "contested" scrums.

Why "go back" to something? Why not "move forward" to a contested scrum unlike we've seen before.

oh ffs. Nothing, lots of wealthy ppl have bn playing RU for yrs in Argentina. They've got a lot of good players who get transferred abroad to play professionally, same with Georgia, although Georgia are still behind Argentina obviously in terms of development.

We're in competition with soccer for fans, they're the fans we should be targeting, as G Hetherington has said, we can forget about getting people with good degrees to follow our sport, it's not gonna happen, possibly ever. I've always bn in favour of negative marketing, we should be putting soccer down, I think soccer is a stupid game and we should be telling people that.

RU have contested scrums - how often does it resort in a different result to RL scrums? The contested part of RU revolves around who can get penalty at the scrum rather than setting up for a sparkling threequarter play. Is that what we want in our game?

I would continue with the scrums as we have but the 12 players in the scrum cannot get involved in play 1 i.e. 7 against 7 for one play.