Time to tweak the World Club challenge formula

so at the time... the loss of tiquiri / sailor / rodgers - wern't considered elite?

@CrazyDave - The WCC is held in England because there's more interest in it there; it has nothing to do with the previous winners. Melbourne beat St Helens in 2000 in England, and the 2001 match between St Helens and the Broncos was again held in England. Similarly, despite the Roosters beating St Helens in 2003, the next match was again played in England. @The Answer - To be fair, Australian league fans also complain about rugby union, who haven't really stolen anyone of note in years, and Japanese rugby, who haven't stolen anyone of note yet at all. I always roll my eyes when I hear how Super League is supposedly poaching the NRL's top talent - Monaghan, Riddell, Mogg et al are good players, but they are not the NRL's best of the best. Monaghan left the NRL in part because he couldn't get a starting gig as a halfback there, and Riddell hadn't played representative football since 2005 (and even then, it was only for City). King is the only one mentioned who realistically still enjoyed star status in the NRL before leaving. To be honest, the only time I can remember the NRL's real elite (someone like Thurston, Slater, Stewart, Prince, Lockyer, Cameron Smith, etc) opting out of the NRL whilst still in their prime was the case of Sonny Bill Williams. For the most part, the NRL really haven't had trouble keeping their best of the best - it's been in maintaining the core of 'good' players beneath them that they've experienced difficulties.

Good article Steve, Except I have a couple of questions. Firstly, why do we need to expand the WCC? What is wrong with 1st playing 1st? Why extend it to 2nd and 3rd playing 2nd and 3rd? Secondly, you say that you would keep it in England for the present... I thought it had only been in England recently, because the English clubs kept on winning it. Now that an Australian club has won it, the next WCC will be here in Australia... Am I correct?

Here is my format for the comp: the NRL Champs and Grand Finalist, the losing semi finalists play off for the the third spot as a curtain raiser to the NRL final, The ESL Champ and Grand Finalist and Challenge cup winner play 2 weeks after the NRL Grand Final in a week long tournament. The Champions get an instant semi final appearance, with the other 4 teams playing it out for the semi final spots. You could even be able to break up the games Have the quaters on the first sunday, Wednesday have the Semi and the following Sunday have the Final.

Tim seems to highlight the problem with the attitude of Australian fans rather than anything with the product themselves. As the article says a bizarre parrallel exists when we complain the ESL is pinching our best players but then deride the competition as being for clapped out has beens. Which club wouldn't want Matt King, Michael Monaghan, Mark Riddell or Adam Mogg on their roster just to name a few. It might take the Aussies a year or two to really get into the concept, that or a glitzy advertising campaign, but I think it is well worth it.

If you build it, they will come.... Billo already mentioned the Wigan v Brisbane clash and I think any league fan at the time remembers it well - that was a chance to see the two best club teams at the time go round and I think if you give people the chance in Brisbane or Sydney to watch it now, they would, even a this time of year (as shown with 25k at the Charity Sheild). It's great braging rights for the fans - I recall St Helens having it emblazened on their jerseys. And I for one would have loved to be cheering on the Rhinos to down Manly at Telstra so I don't have to listen to Manly fans carry on with "we are the champions of the world". I think in Australia, what was a great concept in the early 90s was tarnished by what it evolved into during the Super League War. Although I think the memories of almost hundred point floggings mid week in Sydney have fadded and they should definitely bring the one off game back down here again asap - I do think a tournament is a bridge too far at this stage.

@Billo - Because the Australian public is lukewarm about the whole concept. They were apathetic when ESL teams regularly won the contest, and remain apathetic now that Manly have taken the title off Leeds. The ESL is simply not regarded highly enough by the Australian public or the Australian media to get people excited about its champion team playing the NRL's finest. To be blunt, it's looked on (whether rightly or wrongly) as a B grade retirement home for Australian players past their best - which is why articles such as this one need to frequently remind readers of the merits of the competition. The ESL is simply not taken seriously enough by Australians for the WCC to be taken seriously by them as a best of the best competition. And therein the problem lies. If the NRL schedules the WCC shortly after the Grand Final, a loss by the NRL team will be attributed by Australians to the fact that they haven't really given a damn about the game ('still celebrating the GF victory'). If the NRL team wins, the concept's pretty much dead there and then - Australians will take the game as confirmation that the ESL is an inferior competition ('still hungover and they still won') and stay away from the game thereafter. Consider: Manly just broke a 5 year drought, during which NRL teams were routinely beaten by ESL competition, yet people in Australia have been more interested in a pre-season trial between the Dragons and the Rabbitohs. That's what the WCC is up against. Apathy of that magnitude is simply not that easy to market your way around.

Tim, The cooperation needed would be to play the Grand Finals on the same weekend, which happened in 2008 in anticipation of the World Cup, so it could happen again. As I've explained, the disruption to internationals would be minimal, because the timescale of the international season will be reduced to four weeks from 2009. Why should the NRL bother taking the steps to ensure the concept kicks on? Because the WCC has a unique selling point, as Champions v Champions, and if the NRL can't market that concept it should hang its head in shame. Incidentally, the game could also be played in centres other than Brisbane - Perth and Melbourne spring to mind in Australia, while there is also Auckland and even Hong Kong. I just can't understand why the NRL is so lukewarm about the whole idea of the WCC.

@Steve - regarding Manly, I agree. It's not their attitude that seems relevant to me, but the fact that the media basically lost interest in the WCC the moment it was over and immediately shifted focus to the start of the NRL season. Never mind the Grand Final, not even regular round matches enjoy so little post-match attention in the Australian media. Usually we get a few days of articles reflecting on the match if it was of any significance, a handful of articles centering around the coaches' reactions to the game, 'experts' jumping in to say what a great game it was/ how well a given player played/ etc. It's understood that the teams are focusing on the next week, but the media takes a few days to follow suit. Not so with the World Cup Challenge. The morning after it was over we were already hearing about Manly focusing on the NRL opening week. Heck, the Charity Shield match between the Dragons and the Rabbitohs got more press than the WCC. So how on earth can we say the status of the latter is on the rise? @Billo - The problem is that this would require a certain degree of cooperation between the NRL and the SL to essentially centre their calender around the WCC, rather than just plugging it into a gap the way they do now. Holding it two weeks after the end of the premierships would be sensible - and, really, the only way to guarantee that the contest had any kind of credibility as a best-of-the-best fixture - but it'd disrupt the start of internationals and take some of the gloss off the Grand Final, and to be frank, too few people in Australia give a damn about the game for the NRL to give it such a prominent place in their calender. The pertinent question for mine is 'why should the NRL bother taking the steps to ensure the concept kicks on?' @Oikee - I agree, but the game isn't going to be held in Brisbane, and I very much doubt that any governing body would agree to stage a regular fixture in a city whose own team would only be involved a small percentage of the time (let's say 20%, based on the NRL's recent history).

Steve, Sorry, I meant to say that the 4-Nations will last four weeks, not one week.

Steve, On the two possible negatives you mention. The emotion of winning a Grand Final lasts for about a week. That's why I would suggest the WCC needs to be two weeks later, not one week. That would also allow the visiting team to get over the jetlag. With the Tri-Nations turned into a 4-Nations tournament, the international tournament will now last only one week, rather than seven. That creates the time to fit the WCC into the schedule, and it would be a great way to precede and draw attention to the 4-Nations tournament itself, which would be played in the same hemisphere as the WCC. I think it makes sense, which is probably why the Rugby League authorities will never do it.

Steve, I'm based in England (London) and agree that the WCC is much more popular in England than in Australia. And it was great to see Manly playing in London the week before the WCC. The WCC has been going for years now, but it hasn't really made any significant impact at home, and if we are going to tweak the concept we need to understand that the game has to be played in Oz in alternate years if it is going to work. But the solution isn't to expand the number of teams playing in the WCC, which would simply dilute the concept. What has to happen is that the game be transferred to October, two weeks after the respective Grand Finals, which should ideally both be played on the same weekend. The venue should switch north/southern hemispheres in alternate years. And when the game is in Australia it should be played at Lang Park. Brisbane is trying to get the NRL Grand Final, but the starter for them would be the WCC. A game between Manly and Leeds at Lang Park in October 2008 would have drawn a big crowd, in my view. And the Aussie media couldn't then ignore it. Remember when Wigan beat Brisbane in 1994 at ANZ Stadium, in front of more than 50,000 fans. That sort of crowd could be attracted again, especially if, as you say, the status of the WCC is rising.

Interesting concept - go a level below international in order to grow international rugby league. I like it; smart and pragmatic.

It needs to be times better aswell, preferably a week after the NRL Grand Final

oikee, Brisbane is definitely the only place you could have it. That's why they played the World Cup final there and all of the big matches from memory? Steve, good article. I too don't see why people criticise Super League so much, especially Phil Gould. It's really not that bad. There's nothing wrong with Australians playing over there, just like it's not wrong that so many Kiwis and Islander guys play in the NRL. I was kind of glad Australia lost the World Cup because it shut Gould up. If you were to belive him, any other nation should just give up against Australia from the start because they can't possibly challenge them. And if they do it's the referee's fault. British refs who purposely try and stop Australia from winning.

Agree with your points Tim. What you have to realise is that the game is played in England and has a huge following. I think you under-estimate the following it could have if maybe the game was played in Brisbane. They got a full house of 32 thousand to the game, A simalar crowd in Brisbane would be a good result. Any consept i am up for, i have seen the last 4 WCC games and have enjoyed them all. Its the start of the league season. Good bell to sound.

I think we're getting carried away. Expansion? The fact of the matter is that, despite being the first Australian victory in the WCC in 5 years, the Australian media reacted to the Sea Eagles' victory largely with apathy. Try Googling 'Manly Leeds' or 'Rugby League World Cup Challenge' and see what you turn up. Build up articles? Post-game analysis? Player ratings? Despite being Australia's first WCC triumph in five years, the game didn't even rate as much hype as a regular round derby, let alone a qualifying final or Grand Final. The public hardly seems all that excited, either. The uninitiated third party, visiting Manly would most likely have no indication that anything special had happened. Go to League forums on the internet and WCC discussion is limited - not even the Manly fans are all that excited about the victory. A day after the victory, all the articles were about Manly turning their attention to the NRL season. The fans were following suit. And let's be honest - Leeds didn't show any sign that they were a team who could justifiably claim to be the equal of any NRL team going around. They had every advantage possible over Manly and were well beaten, despite Manly's form being well down on last year. I'd love for the WCC to be revamped in such a manner that it becomes a true contest of champions, but saying that that single game demands it? You're joking, surely. If anything, it just reaffirmed how low a standing the WCC has in Australia.

Good article Steve, the WCC is a great concept and (as i've said elsewhere) is one area that League has it over Union on the international stage. One issue with the 6 team format you propose, what's in it for the bottom 4? Surely we need some kind of tournament structure to make it meaningful. What if the winner of Catalans v Sharks played Manly and the winner of St Helens v Melbourne played Leeds? The winners of these games then play off a week later for the big one?