If players are exhausted let's postpone Origin, not internationals

If NRL players are so exhausted that the 4Ns should have been called off how can anyone explain SBW going on an All Blacks tour? Even Sammy Burgess would be playing RU this week if not for the cheekbone not burnout. Burnout is a myth.

To the question you pose in your second paragraph, I answer again- basically the same! We’ve established that despite the gibes of a few here and there (and how many dyed in the wool leaguie fans bother to read what Peter Fitzsimons has to say?), the overwhelming tone of the international league press is positive. To suggest otherwise is a falsification of the truth and again I question the impact the dribs and drabs of negativity have on the public perception. I’d suggest it’s not a ‘tiny minority’ that believe the Wallabies are the All Blacks greatest rival. If it is I’m in good company with Richie McCaw holding the same opinion. I and I’m sure you’re not about to do a mass survey of kiwis to get to the bottom of this, but the general perception I get from friends is along the same lines which (along with the most important opinion of all) has helped cement my thoughts on the topic. You keep on using what I said regarding ‘overkill’ in some completely abnormal contexts in ways that it was never portrayed on my end. Whatever floats your boat I guess, but it suggests a serious lack of comprehension on your part. You also keep on introducing these new subjects that I’m supposedly ‘failing to acknowledge’. A- You’re only introducing them in your most recent post and B- for the most part (suprise, suprise) they’re mostly irrelevant to the discussion. But again, whatever floats your boat. It’s my opinion that the Kiwis are the Kangaroos greatest rival and clearly it’s the opinion of at least a few. Well I’m glad you got the opportunity to have a chat with your good mate Sam Burgess to find out exactly why he left league. You don’t think money and what he’s mentioned regarding the wear and tear his body experiences in the NRL played a part?

Rob9, you are also adding live fox sports ratings which the international RL games atm don't have. Like for like FTA intl RL out rates union internationals atm. You are doing an AR in regard to his ratings for his sport.

OK. For what it is worth I think NZ are Australias biggest foe in both RU and RL. England was dominant before I was alive. So who cares. Really thats like hating on Italy because of those Roman conquerors. I don't know who NZ's biggest foe is in RU because I don't really care. It would be interesting to see what the International viewership was for both of these comps... You both have presented valid points throughout the discussion and in a way you are both correct. Rugby League Int. aren't given the respect they deserve as a specatacle. And Rugby Union is a much more worldly sport. I think with the World Cup this year and nothing next year maybe they could have played the 4 nations at the end of next season instead of this season to allow players to recover...

The TV ratings are what they are. I gave you a specific figure. This figure, to me , is remarkable given the stark contrast in which internationals are written and spoken about. The Bledisloe Cup is exalted and promoted as being the "pinnacle" of rugby union, while international rugby league is traduced by not only influential enemies of the sport - e.g., Fitzsimons - but also by its own journalists and callers from its broadcasting partners. I ask again, how high might the ratings be if international rugby league were written about with the kind of reverence and respect afforded to its union counterpart? You'd be in a tiny minority to stick to your belief that the Wallabies have been NZ's great rivals. Historically and traditionally it is South Africa all day and night long. In rugby league, again, we'll have to disagree. GB/England Ashes Tests have had a far greater impact on rugby league in this country than anything the Kiwis can muster up. After 104 years, Australia lead the Lions by one solitary Ashes series. A series, incidentally, that the RFL in England wanted to revive for next year, but which was rejected by the ARL. So much for the dangers of "overkill..." One other thing you fail even to acknowledge is what playing Australia means to the Poms - to their players, their fans, their officials and what remains of their journalists. It is everything to them. Nothing, but nothing would help the revival of the game in England more than playing - and defeating - Australia in a series or a World Cup. I think this matters. The ARL have more power and are capable of wielding more influence than you seem able to acknowledge. A stronger England will mean a resurgence in the interest in international football over here. Attendances might again break records - as they did in the past - and TV ratings might trounce those for the Bledisloe - let alone all the other internationals that the Wallabies play on a weekly basis. International football has great, largely untapped potential. Players want to represent their country on the big stage, in great stadiums and in front of huge crowds. Sam Burgess didn't leave the NRL to play club rugby union. For those who don't know, there is no free-to-air live coverage of club rugby union in England. The TV ratings are tiny. No, he went because of the opportunity to represent his country at Twickenham and Cardiff and Paris and Sydney - something denied to him in league - in front of huge, passionate crowds in a vibrant, colourful setting. It was only a year ago when Old Trafford held 75,000 for an Australia v NZ Test. Why should rugby league give all that up just in case they are ludicrously charged with "overkill?"

Nerval, I don’t dispute your figures. You’re just being very selective with what you’re choosing to share. This year, the Kangaroos and Kiwis have played twice and the Wallabies and the All Blacks have played three times. Looking at all of those games, Bledisloe 1 ranked first, followed by the ANZAC Test, then Bledisloe 2 and 3 and bringing up the rear was the Four Nations clash the other night. Going off recent form/results, I’d say most would believe the Kiwis are our greatest league rival at the moment. May be not historically speaking, but in recent times, the Kiwis have provided far stiffer competition than England/GB have. As well as recent form, the fact that almost all of their players ply their trade in the NRL and they have a team participating in our national competition feeds this rivalry today. I challenge your assertion that the Springboks are the All Blacks greatest rival also. I concede, many Kiwis still believe this to be the case, but there’s still a lot that don’t. One of those that don’t subscribe to your point of view is the greatest AB of all time and their current captain. As well as the obvious geographical/cultural factors that are present and help cement the Trans Tasman rivalry across all sports (including RL), since the game turned professional the Wallabies/Boks respective records against the AB’s are neck and neck and we actually have the wood over the Boks since 96’ (in Wallabies v Boks tests). Nerval, I mention overkill not because it’s necessarily present currently, but because it should be avoided in the future to help build the prestige associated with the top of international rugby league. That said, there’s every reason to think the Kangaroos will play the Kiwis 3 times this year. That to me is too many tests between the two rivals in one year. I’m not denying opinions are written that challenge the legitimacy and competitiveness of international rugby league. But that negative press sits well and truly in the minority of overall content and instead of being responsible for holding back public engagement, I repeat, I believe it’s just a reflection of the wider rugby league community. Change that perception in that exists within a decent chunk of the RL community, and those few knockers won’t have a voice. Simply shutting the knockers up won’t change that perception and suddenly increase interest. It’s all speculative and I’m more than happy to agree to disagree on what might or might not be the effect of these few negative opinions. I agree, the regular season should be scaled back, but only when the competition is expanded. If by 4 weeks you mean 4 games, I believe that’s too much. That’s each team giving up the revenue of 2 home games a season. I’d only drop 2 games in total and as I said, try and establish that prestige with international rugby league and only have Australia, NZ and GB playing each other once each year. That’s 2 winner take all tests per country after the season. 1 at home and 1 away.

Yeah, I missed that one. Bloody work. All my bosses must be something or other for making me work. :) I'm in no way anti-Internationals. I guess I would just prefer to watch a game where the outcome isn't pre-determined. Samoa England was awesome. NZ - Aus was pretty ordinary in terms of dropsies. But I still love Australia, and will cheer them on whenever I can. Maybe they should focus the Intl's on O/seas like they have been doing I guess? Try and get interest from UK/Pacific.

It would save me the money I spend on two gold season tickets to my club

That's what is so great about internationals.... it doesn't become that accustomed slog fest that we now see in origin. It's a different brand of football but played with the same passion and intensity of Origin. The England-NZ semi last year would be in the top 5 games of all time i reckon... it was a legitimate classic.

Fair enough. Helps when your team is winning I guess. I think 2006 was a great year for RL, but in reality it rang in the death of attacking football. When Bennett worked out you could win a p/ship by strangling your opponents it was all over. Tigers in 05 were the last truly attacking team to win. Which is sad, and maybe also says something about why Origin games have been slipping? Game 2 this year was hands down the worst game of RL I have seen in years. It was such a shame for NSW to win like that. As a QLD'er I knew a loss was coming, but after the first game I though game 2 was going to be epic....

Yeah that's probably a fair summation mate. I still think the quality has dipped though, game 2 this year was garbage.... there was even plenty of NRL games that were better.

I'm old enough to know you are remembering through Blue rose coloured glasses. Sure there were some absolute classics back then. But you are a harsh marker if you haven't enjoyed at least some games the last ten years. I would say 30 percent are duds. 50 percent get a pass mark but 20% have been absolute rippers.

I don't know how old you are, probably not old enough to remember although you've got two heads ;) .... but the last decade has nothing on the contests from the 90's.

Spoken like a cockroach. We have been enjoying our SOO north of the Tweed. I don't know what they put in smokes down there but to say the last 10 years has been dipping just blows me away.

Like Tamou?

Apart from Game 1 this year.... the quality of Origin has dipped significantly over the last decade. Origin provides the most hype that's about it.

Rob9, your last paragraph first: I have read elsewhere that the Australia v NZ rugby league Test rated 1.068 million nationally, out-rating games 2 and 3 of the Bledisloe Cup. The parameters have not been changed. You're welcome to challenge those figures if you like. I also challenge your assertion that NZ are Australia's greatest rivals in rugby league - historically, traditionally, England/GB have always meant far more to Australia than have NZ. And vice versa. This simply isn't commensurate with rugby union as, while the Springboks have always been NZ's great rival, it is the All Blacks against whom the Wallabies always have measured themselves. Your penultimate paragraph mentions the dangers of "overkill" - something that might have relevance in rugby union, but is nonsensical when applied to international rugby league. Overkill? Can anyone even remember when the last time England or GB played Australia in Sydney? The last Lions tour was in 1992! Australia are due to play - wait for it - one whole Test match next year! The very notion is preposterous. As for the first paragraph, we'll have to disagree. Again, may I remind you that I speak not merely of rugby union aficionados such as Peter Fitzsimons - who revels in the acres of space afforded to him by the SMH to slight international rugby league in a way that simply is not reciprocated by a rugby league writer - but also of those rugby league writers on the Roar and the SMH and the Terrorgraph who betray an ignorance of the history, traditions and values of international rugby league that is quite incredible. I repeat, I love State of Origin but would dearly love to see the regular season shortened by about 4 weeks in order to introduce the kind of international fixture list that the game both needs and deserves.

Nerval, no doubt these views are broadcast. What I’m suggesting is that instead of being a voice of influence, they’re more a reflection of the considerable chunk of the rugby league community that simply aren’t that interested in internationals. Even if they aren’t (a reflection of the percentage of RL fans that really don’t care), I certainly don’t believe these negative opinions are influencing the masses decision making process with regards to international rugby league to the degree that you’re suggesting. Within the media that I’m exposed to, between the positive media commentary and the marketing push, there’s enough ‘upbeat’ content to drown out the negative opinions of a few. I don’t believe playing the victim card due to the big bad media really flies in this instance. Considering until now, you only mentioned the history of rugby league briefly in one sentence, I didn’t think it warranted discussion. And again, I think you’re over exaggerating the relevance. As a young boy growing up in the Shire in the 80’s, I absolutely loved my Cronulla Sutherland Sharks and later on the Blues. I have some memories of tests between the Kiwis and Great Britain, but these other platforms well and truly dominated my (and I’d suggest most 80’s babies) attention. When it came to rugby, there was virtually no domestic scene to talk of, so my passion for the sport started and finished with the Wallabies. Obviously now, since professionalism, an elite domestic competition (of sorts) with SA and NZ provincial sides has been established, but this tier remains a great weakness for rugby in this country and is responsible for many of the issues facing the game here (imo). My point is, for my generation and even kids growing up now, the history doesn’t mean anything. When I was growing up, international rugby league was well down the list of priorities and I believe it still is for most. Most would take a Grand Final win for their club, an origin win for their state and then a 4 Nations title I’d suggest. For Australian rugby fans, our priorities would be World Cup, Bledisloe Cup, Rugby Championship followed by Super Rugby. Three international competitions before the domestic. Changing either of these priority line ups will take a huge shift in the game which I don’t believe will happen. Rugby League was (when I was growing up) and still is a 3 horse race at the top with Australia well and truly out in front (even more so now). If you want to increase the relevance of international rugby league, I’d suggest just play to your strengths and don’t ‘overkill’ it (as is happening with the Wallabies being flogged almost every second weekend throughout the year). Regarding ratings, you’ve changed the parameters of your argument. It’s gone from international rugby league out rating the Bledisloe to now the ANZAC games regularly out rating international rugby union. If you’re going to compare apples and apples, compare Australia and New Zealand across both sports. New Zealand are our greatest rival in both codes and there’s a large number of expat Kiwis living in Australia. Of course changing those parameters is going to have an impact.