Sorry, but the Rugby League World Cup doesn't mean anything to me

The rugby league world cup is about showcasing and growing the game worldwide. It's good business more than anything else. Anyone who can't understand that... well, obviously doesn't know much about good business and growing the international game. No offense...

.......Soccer is on the cusp of dominating the footy sporting culture here as well if it hasn't already, certainly at the GR & courtesy of immigration. NZ Union will also struggle for the same reasons, down the track I believe............

......& the NRL are selecting Nz'ers in preference to domestic GR options at an alarming rate, i.e. going off shore to scout. I believe this is a bit of the chicken and the egg dilemma really but the bottom line is that League appears to be struggling here in Australia. The code remains relatively niche in NZ, yet the elite tier of the code in this nation, i.e. the NRL, are recruiting from there increasingly, in preference to there back yard........

You sound more like a rugby fan having the hyphenated name- Don't know how you expect countries to play qualifiers as when do they play them?? - during the year - meaning players will be absent from their NRL/Super league clubs for instance- what wrong with some of the minnow countries competing in the RLWC - Very soon they will have 64 countries competing in the Football WC for instance- a few minnow countries will be competing in the that world cup for the first time

What's wrong with Kabbadi? I mentioned it as it, too, is a niche sport, but has a passionate fan base and a growing world cup.

Well nerval, I’m afraid you not getting it is on you and your unfortunate ability to comprehend and make relevant comparisons between simple facts. After this running over 10 more posts than it should have, it’s clear nobody can help you in this regard. You now crying foul is the biggest doozy you’ve dropped and speaks volumes about who’s on the other end of this. Yes, unfortunately this has become quite distasteful but a very quick recap through the posts above and it’s clear as day that it’s been flying thick and fast in both directions. Believe me, I’m more than happy to engage in respectful debate with people as I have done in other parts of this very thread. But if you’re honest with yourself and care to take a look through what’s actually been said, this probably went south when you effectively labelled me an ‘ignorant rugby union fan’. Learn to get what you give, sunshine. And to top it off you’re now putting words into my mouth too. Where have I said there are only 2 nations competing for the world cup? If we’re talking about the current world cup, the instability in the Kiwi camp probably has England in a better position to challenge Australia (who are still a clear favourite for the cup). Looking over the past 20 years, of course England have been there abouts, but the history books show (and try as you might, not even you can change them nerval) that England haven’t done any time as the world’s best. The world’s second best? Absolutely yes at times! But while New Zealand has spent some time on top, England has not in this 20 year period. Do these comments sound like they’ve come from someone who’s ignorant or ‘concerned’ about the NZ v England/GB record?: “I’m well aware England/GB have a good record over the kiwis in recent times” “Since 97’ I have NZ 13 wins to England’s 4. The NZ/GB record is a bit more evenly matched” Not really do they? Actually I’d say they’re a pretty good reflection of the reality which is England 4 wins to 13 losses and GB 9 wins 2 draws and 7 losses. And if you actually start reading and comprehending what’s put in front of you, you’d stop wasting your time dishing up meaningless posts that don’t reflect well on you. The ‘stuff about the All Blacks’ isn’t ‘confused, partial and irrelevant’. Nor is the fact that this is a snapshot of 20 years into the past. What you again fail to comprehend is that these elements were established in the discussion before you rode in on your high horse to provide us with your infinite parcels of wisdom around NZ’s record against England and GB. Johnno brought the AB’s into this at the outset; I simply provided further context and a relevant comparison. Put whatever spin on it you want, the reply was relevant to the post it was in response to, fair and an example of the engagement this site is all about. It was clear that Johnno was referring to recent history so my response applied a recent history context. I can accept that it might not fit your bounds of what ‘recent history’ might be and I can live with that. But can you understand how a 20 year snapshot of a game that has existed for 110 years could be defined as ‘recent history’?

Not really. The World Cup is an attempt to take advantage of the existing international reach of the code. Rightly or wrongly, it uses the eligibility rules in an attempt to ensure reasonably competitive matches between tiers as part of its effort to promote the code. Rugby league does not need to 'keep up with other sports'. It is already there, it just hasn't done anything about it yet.

Nope, still don't get it. Not even a little bit. But I think you do - if I may so address you? - "Sunshine." You realise that your ignorance of New Zealand's 13 - count 'em - defeats to England/GB in the "recent history" of the last 20 years defeats your intention of trying to persuade others to believe that there are really only 2 nations seriously competing for a World title. You realise that your notion of "recent history" might not coincide with anybody else's. You realise too that my pointing out New Zealand's markedly inferior historical record v the English places your feeble attempt to diminish this competition in a clearer light. You now realise that the Kiwis' record v the Kangaroos is far inferior to the English record against the world's number one team. Your arguments, filled as ever with personal insults - especially in the posts responding to Johnno above - amount to little more than a whole heap of "rubbish." What, after all, is so concerning for you to learn that the Kiwis are "often" beaten by the English? Just as I said. Even in the last 20 years' time-frame of your own devising? It happens to be the truth. Learn to accept it. And ease up on the personal abuse. Sunshine. All the stuff about the All Blacks is confused, partial and irrelevant. I have made no claims about any of that. Save it for Johnno - but maybe without the personal abuse next time around?

You didn't. What you did do was laughably to mention kabbadi in the first place.

Where did I compare Kabbadi's history in England to league's? The world is global now - it doesn't just centre on Engand or the US. People passionate about Kabbadi have probably never heard of league and vice versa.I was commenting on League fans claim that the RLWC has passionate followers - so do a lot of other niche sports - it's hardly unique.

I agree that viable domestic and international structures don’t have to be mutually exclusive. But I don’t believe having an international presence serves any purpose in maximizing a codes potential domestically. The AFL aren’t going to suddenly uncover a substantial fan base that didn’t exist before cause the All Australian team can play games against x, y and z. Any significant structured international competition threatens to eat into the domestic season which is the engine room behind their multi billion dollar tv deal and enormous crowds. If you want to talk about leagues that turn their noses up at international competitions look at those in the States. Different scales but similar concepts, it’s no mistake that they by enlarge ignore opportunities to engage internationally. They recognise that their bread and butter is their domestic season which is the overwhelming source of fan engagement and revenue. Appreciate the discussion SA. It’s clear we both have different views on the international game and how it should be resourced from Australia and what its potential is. While I don’t agree with you on these points and I understand you don’t see it how I do either, I can appreciate your position and know you’ve got the games best interests at heart. Although I’m a disinterested international league fan, hopefully you can see the same on my end.

You may have missed the sarcasm...

Excited about Australians and Kiwis playing for all the nations? Its an absolute joke Warriors. The NRL is the only thing exciting about Rugby League. A made up World Cup tournament is an attempt to keep up with other sports

Rugby league's domestic strength is not going to disappear because AFL is sometimes number one or because rugby union went too far in its pursuit of the international dollar. In fact, it is because league has a strong domestic and viable international scene that it can go beyond AFL in what it offers its fans and avoid the mistakes of union with its problematic domestic scene. Soccer, the sleeping giant as you said, improved once it moved beyond the tiny tribalism of suburban soccer and channelled that into a state/city A-League. This allowed it to integrate more with the world of soccer. League may very well integrate the world with the NRL, fair enough too, as long as the potential for global involvement is realised. A viable international and domestic scene are not mutually exclusive and through something like the World Club Series (in whatever format it eventually takes) seems like a very good idea. In any case, thanks for the dialogue.

Andrew I think you will find Sleiman was being sarcastic. If you cant get excited about the games between Samoa, Tonga and the Kiwis or the Poms and the Kangaroos then you will be a hard man to please. You or the author may not be excited about it but hundreds of thousands of fans will be going through the gates and millions will be watching on their tvs.

I’m sorry, I should have clarified, I know some people are passionate about the international game and have their reasons for attempting to grow its presence beyond Australia. I (and I believe a significant chunk of rugby league fans), don’t get much enjoyment from the international game and don’t judge the codes current performance or future potential based on how many markets it has a presence in or how competitive the world cup is. And although these sentiments may run counter to the feelings of many posters here, it’s a completely fair and logical position to have (and while I disagree with it, as is yours). Instead of throwing money at trying to build a park presence in faraway lands (yes I know this is a generalisation and there are examples where the game has gone beyond this), I’d prefer to focus our attention internally where there’s threats to our heartlands and still significant gains and improvements to be made. Take a very quick look at three local case studies: Firstly, the AFL is top dog on Australia’s landscape and as the figures suggest, it continues to put space between it and rugby league. This hasn’t come about on the back of an international presence. It’s the most internally focused code we have. At the other end of the spectrum is rugby. It pains me to say as a fan of the game, it is in struggle street. It hasn’t been in this bad a position in my 34 years of life. There’s a strong argument to suggest that this has come on the back of being too internationally focused. Dragging ourselves into a competition played around the globe, in markets that the average punter has no connection with while chasing money in emerging markets such as Japan. Finally Soccer, the most international code of all. The sleeping giant in this country woke on the back of the creation of the A League.

So because you’re starting to finally realise that your whole argument is hopelessly irrelevant to any comment before you rode in, you’re now turning your attention to why the comment was made in the first place. Well sunshine, let’s see how you go at connecting these dots. This was Johnno’s comment that I replied to: You could say the same about the rugby union World Cup, All blacks vs the rest unless a stunning upset and the ab”s have a rare off day… I mean didn’t the All Blacks put 50 on the Boks one of the so called rugby powerhouses… Two things from this: Firstly, I’d suggest looking at the purely rugby league fans with regards to bringing up rugby union on a rugby league article. I’m a lover of rugby league and made my original comment on this article some time before this and it had nothing to do with rugby union. That said, others do comment about rugby union and often times it’s misguided (as it is with johnno here) and as a rugby union lover to, I’ll set the record straight. Secondly, given how Johnno frames the AB’s dominance at the RWC, one can assume he is referring to ‘recent times’. I’m sure even he and you can recognise that prior to 2011 the AB’s went 5 RWC without lifting Bill. So my question to you is now this nerval, why wouldn’t a reply to such a comment make comparisons that refer to recent history? To roll your 3 rubbish questions together and answer them in one: because when you put together the answers of my original three questions, anyone with even the most basic comprehension skills realises that this isn’t and never was a discussion about comparing individual team records against each other. It was a comment about teams that have been on top of the world over the last 20 years. Simple as that. It’s astounding that you can’t separate the two. By comparison, Ireland have had the wood on the Boks recently. That doesn’t mean they could have been judged as being the best team in the world in the last 20 years whereas the Boks have achieved that status. I’m well aware England/GB have a good record over the kiwis in recent times, that doesn’t mean they’ve climbed to the top of the tree in the last 20 years. Like Ireland have had teams like NZ and England in their way in union, England have had Australia in their way in league. Starting to get it? Just a little bit??

Im glad you agree Sleiman. It's the same old International Rugby League gang trying to defend it. It will never be taken seriously because the international part of the sport is a joke

If only 20 years ago the body organising the 2017 Rugby League World Cup had been able to foretell that NZ would have their time in the sun - they might then have cancelled the competition altogether - if only to deter meaningless "points" made by posters such as your good self below the line of an article headed "SORRY BUT THE RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD CUP DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING TO ME." What on earth has this period of "recent history" to do with anything at all? How does it differ from the recent history of any other sport? Some teams' fortunes improve while other teams see theirs decline. So what? This phenomenon is not peculiar to rugby league, is it? Even in this same time-frame, NZ's 13 losses to England and GB might suggest that there is a possibility of their being defeated again. And yet if they win again, that's alright too... Here's my response to the three questions demanded of me - answers incorporating questions of my own: 1 - yes, but so what? 2 - yes, but so what? 3 - no, but so what? By answering my questions please be aware that the realisation of the pointlessness of your contributions in this thread might at last dawn upon you.

‘The point’ was in response to a comment well above and it was valid. You just continue to ignore or fail to comprehend it. I’m well aware England have almost exclusively populated the GB team. I’ve just separated their records (because technically speaking they are 2 different sides) while still alluding to the fact that they are essentially one and the same. Hence referencing both teams at the top when this mind numbing exchange began with you. Again, you’re happy to refer to both as simply ‘England’. Fine- as said both teams essentially are. Move on! What you continue to fail to comprehend is that this was never a discussion about the better team between England/GB and NZ over the last 20 years or throughout history. And if a 20 year timeframe referencing ‘recent history’ is ‘strictly limited’- what period of time would you define as ‘recent history’? I’ll have one last crack at this. Don’t bother replying unless your comment includes explicit answers to these questions: 1. Has Australia not been the almost exclusively dominant force in world rugby league throughout the last 20 years? 2. Have there been any periods of time in the last 20 years where NZ could be regarded as the best team in the rugby league world? 3. Have there been any periods of time in the last 20 years where England/ GB could be regarded as the best team in the rugby league world? I suspect your answers will read like this: Yes Yes No By all means, proceed carrying on about England/GB’s dominant record over NZ and creating an argument that was simply never there to begin with. It’s becoming quite comical. But by answering these questions, hopefully it is now that you should finally be arriving at ‘the point’.