Rugby league has always been defined by its hard-as-nails players, who give the word ‘tough’ a new meaning.
When fans come together to wax lyrical about the topic, moments such as South Sydney second rower John Sattler’s heroic display in the 1971 grand final while nursing a broken jaw, or Sam Burgess’ similar feats in this year’s decider are at the centre of each discussion.
Similarly, it seems as though not an Origin series goes by without a player being alluded to as a ‘hero’ for playing through a debilitating injury in order to help steer his team to victory.
Rugby league is not a game for the faint hearted.
With the game’s proven history of players taking pride in their battle scars, it came as somewhat of a surprise that so many top-level international players chose to bow out of the Four Nations tournament due to injury.
While I do not condone the somewhat masochistic nature of playing through pain, it seemed as though players sought exemption due to injuries which they otherwise would not have given a second thought if it were a State of Origin or finals contest in question.
Many of the game’s officials and onlookers almost immediately singled out the taxing length of the season, which is admittedly something that needs to change sooner rather than later. However, amidst the upheaval and commotion surrounding the issue of scheduling, one issue went almost ignored – the lack of reverence with which the game’s players treat international rugby league.
While undoubtedly still a proud achievement for younger players, it seems as though international selection is looked upon as something of a burden, particularly by those who have already taken part in the rigours of Origin and finals football.
This lack of favour is in stark contrast to the early days of international rugby league, when it was looked upon as the preeminent fixture of the rugby league calendar, and Kangaroos jerseys were keenly contested. In those days, Australia often found themselves in the position of the underdog, unheard of in today’s rugby league climate.
In 1951, Australia faced a mighty French team in a three-game Test series, which they lost in a clean sweep. It was this disappointing loss that had them marked as outsiders leading into the inaugural Rugby League World Cup in 1954, which was played in the same format as today’s Four Nations, and featured the same number of countries.
The tournament, referred to at the time as ‘The Rugby World Cup’, was marked by similar failure for the Australians as three years earlier, winning only one of their games, against New Zealand 28-13. In the fiercely contested final, played in front of 30,368 fans at the Parc des Princes in Paris, England defeated France 16-12, winning the first of their two World Cup trophies.
For the remainder of the 1950s, the Kangaroos would continue to experience mixed results, as they prevailed in the second World Cup tournament in 1957, before losing a three-game ashes series to England on the 1959-60 Kangaroo tour.
For the next two decades, Australia slowly began turning the tide of international rugby league in their favour. In 1972, England won what would be their last ever World Cup title, before Australia won every tournament until 2008, in which they lost to New Zealand in the final. Following their 1978 Ashes victory, England would not win an international series against Australia for 15 years.
By the 1980s, Australia had established themselves as the powerhouse we know today, with world-class players such as Eric Grothe, Peter Sterling and Wally Lewis tearing apart their opposition with ease. Ironically, as Australia rose to prominence on the international stage, a new phenomenon emerged which would dramatically influence the future of international football.
State of Origin was a big hit with fans, due to the fierce interstate rivalry between New South Wales and Queensland, and the spectacular sight of seeing club mates as opposition for one night only. Following two one-off games in 1980 and ’81, State of Origin became a three-game series in 1982.
By the early ’90s, the interstate rivalry had established itself as the most anticipated representative fixture each season, towards which the majority of attention was placed by the players, fans and officials.
The rise of Origin football coincided with the steady decline of international rugby league. Plagued by the Super League war which had ravaged the code, Australia still managed to continue their dominance through the ’90s, despite having two teams from 1995-97 – one which only selected players who were loyal to the Australian Rugby League, and another which featured Super League players.
In 1998, the traditional Kangaroos tour became yet another casualty of the Super League war, being cancelled.
The decade of the 90s also featured two World Cups, which had become something of an anomaly in the world of rugby league. Lacking the promotional support which its FIFA and rugby union counterparts enjoyed for their centrepiece events, the 1995 tournament in particular was greeted with great pessimism from the league community.
Unlike the first tournament in 1954, much of the concern revolved around the issue of competitiveness, or lack thereof, which would deem the World Cup to be a waste of time, particularly as the ’95 edition featured 10 teams, most of them minnow nations who had no chance of winning.
Sure enough, Australia defeated England in the Final, played at Wembley Stadium in London, clinching their fifth successive title and eighth overall.
If the 1995 World Cup signified the death blow for the once-esteemed tournament, then the mediocre 2000 tournament was the nail in the coffin.
Although it was backed by a record sponsorship of over £1 million from Lincoln Financial Group, an overwhelming number of one-sided contests and poor attendance figures marked it as an unsuccessful World Cup which only served to confirm doubts that rugby league was unable to host an international event on such a large scale.
In the semi-finals, England was blown out of the water by New Zealand to the tune of 49-6, while Australia cruised to a 46-22 win over Wales. Those hoping to see more of a competitive match between Australia and New Zealand in the final were disappointed, as the Kangaroos prevailed 40-12. It was a telling sign of the poor state in which international rugby league had found itself.
Off the back of the 2000 World Cup, which was a disaster both financially and results-wise, the decision was made to call an end to the tournament, at least for the time being. In 2004, the success of the newly-created Tri-Nations tournament, which was contested between Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain, saw many proclaim the beginning of an international resurgence.
Still, old problems remained. Despite it being a great deal more entertaining, and competitive, than any international tournament in recent memory, Australia still prevailed in dominant fashion, defeating Great Britain in the final 44-6.
Although it only added to the colossal workload of the game’s top players, particularly those in the green and gold, the inaugural Tri-Nations tournament (not counting the series of the same name which took place in 1999) was seen as an exciting opportunity by players and fans alike. When the Kiwis won the tournament in 2005, it seemed as though the proper steps were finally being taken to re-establish the credibility of international rugby league.
After another successful Tri-Nations in 2006, capped off by a final between Australia and New Zealand which will go down as one of the greatest games played between the two countries, the tournament was a notable omission from the representative calendar in 2007.
Instead, it was replaced by a one-off Test match between the Kiwis and the Kangaroos, which Australia easily won 58-0. The reasoning for the competition’s exemption was not due to lack of competition or disappointing attendance figures, but the re-introduction of the Rugby League World Cup.
In 2008, Australian rugby league’s centenary year, the game’s officials decided that a serious attempt at re-launching the World Cup would be a fitting way to celebrate. Following the success of the Tri-Nations, the World Cup was seen as the next logical step in the advancement of international rugby league.
Backed by an impressive promotional campaign, Australia played host to one of the most successful Rugby League World Cups in history. In a unique draw, four of the tournament’s top nations were placed in the same pool during the group stages, ensuring competitive matches throughout the competition.
Following what had been a largely entertaining and well-attended World Cup, New Zealand upset Australia in the final at Suncorp Stadium, which had been sold out months in advance. The tournament was hailed a success by the game’s organisers, as well as the fans, garnering over $5 million in profit.
For all the success of the World Cup, international rugby league was in no different position than it had been four years prior. At the top were two dominant sides, arguably three if one wishes to include England, while every other team had no chance of coming close to competing with the top-tier nations. In fact, there weren’t even enough sides for competitive semi-finals, as Australia demolished Fiji 58-0. This is in stark contrast to the Rugby World Cup, which features at least six teams – from both the northern and southern hemisphere – with a viable chance of winning the trophy.
The problem is further accentuated by the Four Nations tournament, which takes much of the shine off a World Cup victory. Because it features the only teams with a shot of winning the cup, the annual series is essentially a smaller version of the World Cup. This was the case in 2009, when Australia defeated England in the final 46-16 – yet another indication of the disparity between the two countries – and the Kiwis success the year before was all but forgotten.
In 2013 after Australia won the World Cup, it was treated almost the same as a Four Nations victory. Furthermore, for all of the increase in competiveness between the top-tier nations, the Kangaroos’ 34-2 victory over the Kiwis in the final served to remind us of their overwhelming, and at times boring, dominance, which is also reflected in their amazing 84.2 per cent winning record.
Although the Kiwis prevailed in this year’s Four Nations, the major talking point following their victory was that it had only come after defeating a second-string Australian side.
The problem in the approach to international rugby league is the focus on decreasing the overall disparity. Ideally, officials and fans would like to see teams such as France, Ireland and Wales be as competitive as their rugby union counterparts, but it isn’t possible.
Firstly, the popularity of union in those countries far exceeds that of rugby league, and they also have established domestic competitions which help to breed world-class players. On an international scale, rugby league lacks both the resources and popularity to truly become a global presence. At the moment, the game is stuck in a familiar rut; each year, either New Zealand or Australia win the Four Nations tournament, while England does enough to remain competitive without coming close to victory.
If the game’s officials truly want to fix the problems surrounding international rugby league, and the alarming rate at which players are pulling out of the Four Nations, they could do worse than go back to the inaugural World Cup in 1954.
Instead of focusing on the quantity of nations, focus on quality. However, instead of featuring four teams, perhaps they could expand to include an additional two; Papua New Guinea and Samoa, or even a combined Pacific Islands team.
Instead of the Four Nations taking place every year, in what is a crowded rugby league calendar, the tournament should be scrapped in favour of the aforementioned World Cup concept, which would be played in the same format as the Four Nations. Taking its place each year would be a series of one-off Test matches played between rival nations.
While New Zealand and Australia battle in the annual mid-season Anzac Test, both sides could then face England at the end of the season in one-off Test matches. Meanwhile, France could face a Pacific Islands side in a battle of two of the less competitive rugby league nations. This would serve the purpose of keeping the interest, as well as competition, in international rugby league between each World Cup tournament.
In a time where international success in rugby league is not as revered as it once was, steps must be taken to amend this worrying attitude.
If success or failure wasn’t able to be avenged with each coming season, and another Four Nations tournament, it would be held in much higher regard by both players and fans.
Russell Johnson
Guest
No problem Harry it was deserved, we are under attack from within and without and making the most of the positive is a very important issue for RL as a sport.
HARRY HOPWORTHY
Guest
Thanks, Russell.
Muzz
Guest
.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
I'd say the only problem with the 4 nations is that it includes all the top nations.. but seeing as there's realistically 3 world competitive RL nations that's hard to avoid.
Russell Johnson
Guest
Sorry "absolutely" fingers have gone to sleep!
Russell Johnson
Guest
Asoslutely correct except for one thing "the better this wonderful game will be" should have read the better the Greatest Game will be! Fantastic post and such a change from some dismal forums.
HARRY HOPWORTHY
Guest
I'm a fervent follower of International Rugby League, and as far as I'm concerned, the more nations playing the game, the better this wonderful game will be.The writer of this article suggests that the 4 Nations ''cheapens'' the World Cup !! What a daft statement !! Both tournaments are separate, and they were both incredibly successful. Brilliant for International Rugby League, the true summit of the game. Obviously, the World Cup is the pinnacle of the sport, as it is in Rugby Union and Football. The 4 Nations is still extremely important, and the fact that New Zealand beat Australia, in two successive Test Matches, is hugely advantageous to the International perspective of our game. Your two state series is of interest to those folk in those two states only, nowhere else. I'm talking about New South Wales and Queensland. To suggest that this series, is the pinnacle of Rugby League, is both ludicrous and arrogant in the extreme. Only the local population will have any connection with it, not the rest of the Rugby League world. As for the writer's suggestion that you drastically cut the number of participants in the World Cup, pardon me while I stifle gales of laughter !! We're meant to be growing the International game , all around the world. Let's eliminate this appalling Australian negativity to International Rugby League !! What with Mal Meninga's pathetic statement of:'' The 4 Nations is a waste of time.'' Well, at least he was a great player when he was young !! HH Exeter, Devon.
Russell Johnson
Guest
There seems to be themes on websites depending on what agenda is in the background. For some it's simply that they have a relationship with ru so like things quiet on the comparison/bagging the other sport side of things and this is dressed up as being reasonable in a middle class sort of way. For others its that they're simply favouring something and bashing the opposite. This website is great because there is a real sense of free speech about it but unfortunately that lets out the genie from the bottle. There is no doubt that International RL has to find itself. but blaming the 4 nations for the state we find ourselves in is bordering on delusional. I hope that the idea that players excused themselves deliberately from the competition is untrue. That aside the place where we find ourselves now is a direct result of attitudes to internationals from the NRL and a failure on the part of the RFL to stand up to them in international meeting and discussions. Nothing more and nothing less!
Robbo
Guest
I couldn't even read the whole article it was that negative. We've just seen some of the best quality footy and then the writer bags the comp's relevance. The reason the 4 Nations doesn't get the recognition it deserves is because media and journalists(sic) like this one does everything they can to slate or criticise it rather than building it up and encourage fans to be enthusiastic about the International games.
RayCee
Guest
Run out of things to write so decided on a nonsense article with a sensationalist twist? You should try for a job in journalism.
Dave
Guest
Disagree with a lot of this article. Being English probably one of the reasons. The main thing i do agree with though is the state of the international game. On paper i think the resolution is quite simple, its the action thats hard. For example: - have a World Cup every 4 years - 2 years after each World Cup (so in the middle of the cycle) have the 4 nations, but also have a Home Nations, a Pacific Nations and the Americas Cup (and also maybe an Asian one and an African). The results of these then determine seeding for the following World Cup - Have autumn internationals (similar to Union) - Regarding the point above, make time in the NRL/SL calendars to accomadate an international break so that all countries can field their strongest teams (it works for football) - Lastly, the NRL and to a certain extent SL are already made, money making competitons. Rather then spending money on improving these, keep the budgets as they are and use the additional money to promote the game in 2nd tier nations. This will help promote and establish top level leagues in countries such as Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France, even the Pacific Isles. They could even be used stepping stones to the NRL/SL. For example, the winners of the top Scottish league play the English Championship winners in a playoff and the winner is promoted to the European Super League. When you have more nations playing a higher level, the one off playoff could become something like a round robin between champions from 5/6 nations, with the winner gaining entry to SL
John
Guest
STUPID, STUPID idea instead the only time a combined Pacific side should be playing is during Origin vs NZ, other then that nations should remain standalone to develop there fan and player base. 4 Nations will be apparently expanding 6-8 Confederations Cup in 2019 Tours will return however Australia should be playing England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales then Great Britian not just Great Britain in a 3 test series.. thats not a proper tour.. a tour is showcasing and touring throughout GB play England in Wigan/Leeds, Ireland in Limerick, Scotland in Edinburgh/Glasgow and Wales in Wrexham and vs Great Britain in London. Probably play France as a warmup game. Many ideas then this stupid one you came up with!
Jz
Guest
On what planet dose a self confessed Rugby League fan write this kind of crap ! in stead of celebrating a great tournament that had most sitting on the edge of our seats. you James Ditchfield are what i like to call a Negatron, a negative robot who is here to suck all goodness out of Rugby league achievements, firstly the four nations helps to bridge the gap between the big three and smaller nations as we have seen, you can argue that a lot of the Samoans where not born in Samoa but so what alot of the Australian team are not even Australians id be surprised if James tamou was even an Australian citizen, tony Carrol, Craig smith, willie Mason. Australia dosn't want them for Australian rep but Origin. once we put international rugby league up on top where it belongs SOO will be in its place as the selecting process it should be. give some positive solutions to grow international rugby league and stop ripping it down. Ditchfield sounds very private school perhaps this is why
hutch
Guest
Such a boring, negative article. I'm glad you're not in charge of international rugby league, the 30 plus nations which have taken up the greatest game of all wouldn't have bothered. Rugby league doesn't pretend to be the biggest sport in the world or overstate its international importance like the other rugby code does, but it is a small, growing international sport that is starting to get things right. Long live international rugby league!
Swamprat
Guest
We recently had a European tournament here Involving Scotland , Wales , Ireland and France which Scotland won. It was only the Monday before the competition begun that it was announced the winner would qualify for the next 4Nations . Bad .
The eye
Guest
Player participation suggests the World Cup is still absolutely revered,but I worry about future 4N ones..17 or so top picks were unavailable for the Aussies and a host of top liners missed it from the Kiwis..some for genuine reasons,but many seemed like they just didn't want to play..and by the end of this one I'm sure many of those that did play,in particular from Australia,regretted it..Inglis,Cherry,Cronk,Smith,Hoffman,Guerra,Cordener just didn't produce the games we know they can..and came out less prestigious brands than when they went in...almost like an ill fated gamble ..some performances may lead to the end of their Rep careers..Sam T. Dylan W. Daniel T.... So for fans,great concept of entertainment..which will probably continue to be closely competed due to the Aussies and to a lesser extent Kiwis fielding 2nd tier teams
Realist 1975
Guest
Disagree respectfully to the one off tests and really think that the clubs could just lessen their training sessions - particularly preseason and trials if they truly want to neutralise the player burnout. The answer is there in front of everyone but no one wants to acknowledge it for some reason. IMHO I feel that Origin overtook International footy circa Super League days (1995+) as players became more aware of the riches available to them. As a result the generic public mindset changed slowly from country loyalty to becoming $$$ driven. With Origin rising in popularity around the world coupled with Australia's dominance home and abroad, the media latched onto the "competitiveness and rivalry of Origin plus the fact that overall games and points scored since inception won is similar" as opposed to "yet another dominant display by the Kangaroos since the 1970's". Just listen to the commentators and the dialogue communicated to the viewer. Whilst the above (Roo dominance since mid 1970's) is generically true a lot of the international games were however close but that didn't bother the media. In the mid to late 1980's (NZ beat The Invincibles of 1982, could have whitewashed the Roos in 1985 and then beat the 1986 Unbeatables in 1987 after they had whitewashed the Kiwis in 1986). Also in the late 1980's and early 1990's GB were particularly competitive as they possessed many star players and had the Kangaroos worried on many occasions. However their inability to win a series (either in 1992 or 1994 and then later 1997) was detrimental to the International scene albeit the games were entertaining. Origin in the meantime flourished in the late 1980's (Winfield Cup exposure whereby outsiders supported a club team and then followed successful players from their clubs to the origin scene) and continued to rise as the contest appeared faster and harder than anything International rugby league could offer. Additionally what also assisted in lowing the public profile of IRL was the tight contested battles in IRU particularly between the All Blacks and Wallabies in the late 1990's where players such as Larkham, Lomu, Cullen, Gregan, Eales and Zinzan Brook's were playing. Realistically however the difference between wins/losses between the Union countries were and remain close to the kiwis win percentage versus the kangaroos - albeit no one really points that out. Essentially when compared to its rival the International rugby league scene of say 2000 at the time was thereby just not appealing. If I recall correctly this was a time when Origin was in danger due to NSW's dominance and NZ and GB didn't have the talent pool at the time the Wallabies & All Blacks did. Nowadays the talent pool and depth in league is starting to even out particularly between NZ and Australia with England a little back. Origin which use to be the main domain of competitive footy needs to be careful as certain superstars are going to retire soon and the talent depth is just not as high as it has been for the last 30 years and therefore contests are a chance to become less attractive but with more wrestling to negate speed. IMHO NSW losing Jarryd Hayne is huge loss for the game but more importantly the Origin series and thus good luck beating the Maroons next year NSW. Given recent wins by the Kiwis in the last 10 years permits that International footy focus needs to become a greater focus now and thus I feel the 4 Nations contest should continue as it is. However as always league stuffs it up by including Scotland in the 4 nations mix which will just stop any momentum unless a miracle happens. Next thing the Kangaroos will then take players such as Josh Maguire to strengthen up their squad whilst diminishing a less talent pool in Samoa. Until this thinking and action changes league will never reach nor maximise their potential which is a pity as the Rugby League product offered can appear to be more attractive to the average joe as evidenced in overall audiences particularly television. Having a connection with Touch footy was a good move as the latter is really league without the scrum, tackle and kick and thus people who play the latter (particularly women) can understand the subtleties of the game as opposed to their more technically orientated corporate and religious based and internationally superior product named Rugby Union.
Jay C
Roar Guru
It's a bit harsh saying 72 was Englands last world cup ever. They might win it again some day. I don't think that was the main talking point after the 4 nations, to me it seemed like the main talking point was what a success the tournament had been and how high quality all but one game was. Also the 4 nations isn't every year it's only every couple of years. It's a cool story and the sort of stuff I like reading but I disagree with your core argument. Tournaments are more interesting and involving than stand alone Test Matches. Just ask whatever they are calling the ANZAC test nowadays...
melbourneterrace
Guest
No the rubby league World Cup serves a purpose beyond just finding the best team. It's a celebration of the game and gives smaller countries the opportunity to connect and showcase their talent on the bigger stage. Smaller nations will only get better with these opportunities to play against bigger countries. No The problem is having tournaments held a year or two after each other and not providing qualification pathways for smaller nations. The fact that Samoa don't even get an opportunity to compete in the next 4nations is a farce. The 4 nations should become the 5 nations with the big 3 and a qualifier from both Europe and Asia pacific and no final and only be played once every four years, halfway in each World Cup cycle. This keeps the tournament exciting and something of note rather than and annual exercise.