The Kangaroos risk dying out unless the ARLC commits to regular Tests

so what has changed between the 1980's and now? Mal Meninga & Wally Lewis both played in the NRL, both played Origin, & both went on tours to play GB & France where the played what - 13 games? Played after the NRL season so what is the argument about playing it now? is it the clubs using the 8 weeks off bit & it'll eat into our preseason? pretty sure any player who represents their country will come back with better skills than if he stayed home & started preseason on Jan 1 running laps around the oval

I'd argue against that. Problem here is your own point "I’d be much more interested in a sport that can point to growth in the likes of..." These already exist, in mid day TV chef parlance: there are few that were prepared earlier. If someone wants that sport in other regions then they have it. Single clubs have more capital to defend their attachment in those regions than RL has in total. If you're expanding into new markets you do so either because you have a superior product or there is limited competition. The "let's get bigger" is the comfortable strategy in a vacuum. Uncomfortable is grappling with the realisation that globalised sports media means that ship for meaningful international expansion sailed probably decades ago and we were never in the running for a ticket.

No the ARL need international matches to grow the sport. The AFL have the strongest code in the country because they have outgrown the state of origin which they created ages ago. AF is played in more states so SoO is not necessary. RL should be growing the game in WA, SA. Loosening of SOO eligibility rules to include other countries is a backward step and not feasible. You want us stuck in SoO and allow other countries to play for NSW or Qld. That's going backwards. We need an NRL teams in Perth and Adelaide at least.

Haven’t you just made my point?

Absolutely agree. Unfortunately I suspect you are a lone reed trying to stand up to the gale.

If you really want to talk irrelevance, it starts and ends with the 'All Australian' AFL team. A team that doesn't have anyone to play.

It’s pretty obvious the ARL/NRL have lost their bearings this year. They are highly reactive. The decision not to attend the World Cup has been seriously mishandled whether you believe they should have attended or not. International footy is not treated seriously by them. It’s seen as a nuisance by the clubs. Australian League is caught in its NSW/Qld markets and pays lip service to anything else. It’s a strategy of diminishing returns run by administrators with no vision.

Here he is again, the least classy of the Hopoate family.

A three quarter full Suncorp is not really all that bad, to be honest. Plenty of international teams would fail to get that many to a game, not just in Australia, but across most of the world. I doubt the Kookaburras play in front of 40k crowds to often, or the Boomers, or the Stingers, etc, etc. I follow THE World Game, but I recognise that every sport, big and small, has the right to have an international calendar. I look at all the mickey mouse sports currently being played in the Olympics, and the obvious conclusion is, well, if that sport can have an international platform, any sport can have it, regardless of perceived size, perceived popularity or capacity to draw big crowds. At the end of the day, all sport is a contrivance and not really all that important, be it big or small.

"Australia has been the world’s best for years" and therein lies the problem. That is why some reduced representation might work for Australia for example make the eligibility rule much tighter or field an 'A' and 'B' team or an indigenous team. Once we start to run a genuine risk of losing, so the World Cup will become more valuable.

Personally I don't think the ARL need international matches to grow the sport. At least domestically. The AFL play next to zero internationals and have the strongest code in the country. Same with the NFL in the US. Pre-Covid, the Wallabies would play up to 14 test matches a year against a array of nations and their code has been in reverse for over a decade. An Ashes tour to GB is a must see, but is that because much like the Olympics, the infrequency of the event creates a sense of something special? I would suspect in the not to distant future, further loosening of SOO eligibility rules will see more and more of our Pasifika brothers playing for NSW and QLD and will water down internationals even further. I mean, after watching the best 34 players in the NRL duke it out in Origin, what's the added attraction to watch the same group running around in an Australia/NZ/Pasifika comp?

Origin has always been what I value the most. When Locky or Alfie etc got hurt or stumbled I didnt think of the premiership I thought instantly about their availability for Queensland. In saying that , the Tests were always on my list to watch . There was an awe about those Kangaroo tours . The late night or early morning games were special . I loved them as a kid and would love nothing more than to be setting the alarm to be watching them again. Wally , Mal , Lamb , Sterlo , Stuart , Alfie , Locky , Sironen , Wiz , Mcracken , Schofield , Chariots , Hanely . I and my mates all have videos of old Tests , either England or NZ , they are treasured artifacts. Ive been lucky enough to be in the stands of England in 03 , 04 and 2013 . Bennett and now Mal have pushed it for a long time and I really hope they come back. I love Origin but Tests are Special . They bring all of Rugby League together , they opened up the world to us when we were kids. The unknown came into our lounge rooms and League weeks. International rules , how good were they , just hearing it made me keen. I kept cut outs from the paper. They were a big part of the reason I first travelled . We need to do everthing possible to bring Tests back. Without Tests we are no better than afl or gridiron , full of our own self importance.

I understand your point Andrew. But do internationals really offer much in rugby league world? I had a good look at the fixtures you listed for 2021 to 2025, and I don't see much there to change my view. Australia has been the world's best for years just based on the NRL standard. The Tonga test was an aberration. Apart from England (not Great Britain) and NZ, there's no competition. France hasn't been a force for years. We all expect the Kangas to beat these three sides so they aren't really "Test" matches for the Kangaroos. The Pacifika sides have a long way to go, and they may never have the resources available to England, NZ, and Oz. Some of the other sides are just a confection. Striving to grow the sport certainly has its place, but realistically, playing these so called Tests won't do it alone.

Kangaroos should be playing a minimum of 3 games per year and if they are in Aus they should be played in the Stadiums that don't get to host Origin or the GF (Canberra Stadium, Newcastle and Townsville). It's a shame we don't have a similar completion with NZ like the Bledisloe to get a fun rivalry going and make people care about IRL.

You’re wrong about coaches. They want to keep their stars happy and most want to play international games. An unhappy star either underperforms or leaves. Ivan Cleary said what he knew PVL wanted to hear because his star hooker was on the chopping block for a 3-8 week suspension that would have curtailed his clubs premiership chances. Worked out pretty well for him in the end given his star hooker only got 2 weeks.. although his other stars haven’t performed so well since he made those comments..

Having read a few comments, I think people are missing the key point of this piece which is a commitment to consistent Test footy involving a Kangaroos team. The author is not suggesting anything more than that, nor is his request unreasonable. As he rightly points out, the NRL i great when it comes to making assertive decisions about starting & re-starting the local competition, hosting SOO matches in completely different States at very short notice, etc, but becomes completely dithery when it comes to international football - except to say no when it suits them. I find this arrogant approach to this level of the sport completely wrong. The NRL does have an obligation to grow the sport, just as every established nation does. In recent years, ie for the past 3 or 4, it really hasn't cared. It's time that attitude changed.

I personally have no interest in watching international rugby league, I enjoy the NRL (although i am off it at the moment and haven't watched for the last 2 weeks). BUT. I totally understand why it exists and its importance to league across the world, including the NRL competition. As i read from an international administrator the other day, the NRL isn't sharing development material for coaches and referees with minnow nations, they've sacked multiple international Development officers in their cost cutting measures, continue to do nothing to make streaming of NRL.com easier from overseas and the flow on effect of the constant rule changes makes it harder again for developing nations. No one can say they care about rugby league internationally, and you can say it isn't in the ARLC's charter, but the NRL won't survive if everything else is becoming global and they are shrinking to a game played in Australia and no where else (particularly if Rugby get their act together in the pacfic islands). But PVL will continue to say "player welfare" without talking to the players and until he gets an offer from ESPN or someone worth tens of millions, to broadcast international games and the NRL around the world. Then all of the sudden player welfare will be a little less important and we might see more international games played..