We played them in a series in 97 too, and 2001, and 2003.

We did. But the 97 series was a bit mediocre. It was the Super league test series that didn't take off. In 01 and 03 it wasn't a tour as such but it was a tough, competitive 3 game series (which is why it should exist) by then though, Robinson had seen the light and moved to Union to progress his career, as had the other star player, Harris.

Willie Mason speaks fondly of that 03 Ashes on James Graham's podcast. Great Britain didn't win a game, however I think it's the most competitive Ashes of my lifetime, and I saw 1990 and 1992. We were close to winning all three games, but didn't win any (i think we were infront going into the last five minutes of each test, one of them with twelve men from the off). And then the scraped it.

So why don't the rugby union clubs worry about their players playing in the International arena?

It's pretty much encouraged in the code that is winning the battle of codes.

Was a pretty under strength Aussie side IIRC.

Not sure what Robinson choosing to leave has to do with it, but you're right....the profile of the international game is what elevates them above us

How under strength was it? It had Lockyer, Minichiello, Gower, Kimmorley, Webcke, Buderus, Fitzgibbon, Civoniceva. That's pretty strong. We had Cunningham missing as well as Richard Horne on the wing. And Morley missing from the first tackle of the first test.

That's a good question, and one I don't know the answer to.

If I had to hazard a guess, it would be that the international calender is too established and steeped in tradition to disrupt. The Six Nations (formally Five Nations, and Home Nations before that) and the British Lions tours have been a part of Rugby Union for well over a hundred years, and the governing body want to keep them. The clubs probably have little say in the matter as the RFU have complete control.

RFL have already disbanded the Ashes, which ran infrequently anyway, and will struggle to revive it now.

I can remember the RL Ashes, the Tri-Nations, the Four Nations, and the War of the Roses. Its a pity they have gone, but clubs want to keep the players fit and available for the League and Challenge Cup games only these days.

Hopefully IMG look at the Union models and emulate them to some extent. But that would need co-operation with the the Australian, New Zealand, and other countries governing bodies. Who aren't really interested anymore. Anything closer to home wouldn't make sense - there isn't enough talented players outside of England - apart from the War of the Roses/County of Origin series, but that hardly grows the sport outside the M62 corridor due to the lack of interest from anyone else.

Well there's a start. A war of the roses series. If at the moment the only interest is in the M62 corridor, then give those interested people in the M62 corridor a representative competition.

The reason there is no interest in places like Scotland Wales and Ireland is because besides a World Cup every four years, there is no incentive for youngsters to have dreams of achieving.

An annual home nations championships would be a starting block, granted England would probably win it for the first 10 - 20 years, but in time the following generations pool of kids from those nations will improve as there will be an outlet to represent their nations at elite sport. Look how many World class players Scotland used to produce in Football when there was the annual home nations championships and the decline in that number to pretty much zero since its demise.

If I had it my way there would be an annual War of the roses series. An annual home nations championships (probably include France in that) There would be a World Cup every four years. An Ashes series every two years and the other year would have a four nations tournament with the top two of the Northern hemisphere and the top two of the Southern hemisphere.

Club rugby would take a back seat in having their star players available to them when the representative competitions are being played. That would give more players the opportunity and the platform to play Super league thus creating a bigger playing pool playing top rugby league whilst at the same time getting representative games where the best players take on the best players.

Or we can just go on the way we are and look forward to Bill Arthur calling a game between Warrington and Wigan again next season and the season after that and the season after that one?

giddyupoldfella wrote:How under strength was it? It had Lockyer, Minichiello, Gower, Kimmorley, Webcke, Buderus, Fitzgibbon, Civoniceva. That's pretty strong. We had Cunningham missing as well as Richard Horne on the wing. And Morley missing from the first tackle of the first test. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/ ... ugbyleague

giddyupoldfella wrote:How under strength was it? It had Lockyer, Minichiello, Gower, Kimmorley, Webcke, Buderus, Fitzgibbon, Civoniceva. That's pretty strong. We had Cunningham missing as well as Richard Horne on the wing. And Morley missing from the first tackle of the first test. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/ ... ugbyleague

After the disaster which was the last lions rebrand I am amazed anyone would call for that to come back.

Also the days of a kangaroo tour are well gone in the modern game. Not a chance the NRL would allow that and I genuinely don't think the players would sign up to it.

The players union in the NRL already complain about the amount of games there members play for what they get paid.

The traditional tours where they play club sides and invitational sides are definitely long gone, but no reason why we can't play them in a 3 test series every 2 years home and away. Surely it's good for both nations financially? I think we definitely get 25-30k crowds and maybe more at OT, Anfield or St James'