I fear it would take a monumental effort to get International RL back to where it was (which in itself was only ever average compared to RU anyway).

We desperately need an end of season test series against the Kangaroos. Played in the heartlands to ensure decent attendances: Etihad, DW and Elland Road.

We had a 25k attendance against Penrith arranged over a few months so the appetite for RL is obviously still there. Tour details home and abroad, dates and venues need to be set in stone 5-10 years in advance, with tickets sales 12 months in advance.

I can't believe we had better organisation in 1982 when the Invincibles came over and blitzed us. Subsequent tours and tournaments (86 tour, 90s World Cups) were incredible compared to today.

i've been saying for a while we need a long term international calendar that all RL playing nations buy into and by saying that i'm aiming it mainly at the Ozzies, and have often referred to the same period that you have. My 1st ever game was at Central Park GB V Oz in 1982, and i love the international game, but believe we need to focus on GB, but equally in the background have home internationals to develop the game alongside what we all want to see GB v OZ, GB v NZ etc etc

The sign of where we all think our international game is currently at is the stadiums you mention, as we used Wembley and Old Trafford during those late 80s to early 90s. We should be able to sell out a 3 test series v Tonga / Samoa etc and use Wigan, Huddersfield and Hull for those (approx 25k), these nations are now packed with NRL and SL stars and we should back the game against them with good crowds. However, we should be aiming for 50-60k v the Ozzies and should be disappointed if we get nowhere near that

the international plan should include growth of lesser nations to help build them internationally, for me a home nations as a development path to GB etc, regular series between GB, Oz, NZ, Tonga, Samoa as well as a long term commitment to the RL world cup (not just trying to fit it in if anyone can be arsed as it feels today)

The lack of long term planning is criminal and ultimately much of it comes down to the whole sport being in a choke hold by the NRL. They call the shots on what can and cannot go ahead. We're meant to be going on an Ashes tour at the end of 2025 and if they want that to be a success and for people to travel from over here, the dates and venues should be set in stone. It isn't a cheap trip and people will need to plan ahead but they'll likely not get that opportunity. I wouldn't bank on it even going ahead tbh, as the NRL is likely to throw out their 'duty of care' line. That's the same league who will let players play Origin on a Wednesday night and then turn out for their clubs on a Friday night. They will then say lads cannot play in a WCC fixture because they've not had the minimum number of months off. They're a joke and I hold zero hope that International Rugby League has a chance of thriving going forward due to the money in the NRL.

to compound the problem further, the Tongan, Samoan players are all being pulled into the NRL mindset (being told they cant play)

it should be an honour / privilege for Pacific Ocean sides to tour to GB, but given that Tonga have declined this year, and we've squeezed a 2 match series in with Samoa, just shows who is running the show

i like to watch test cricket and they have such a well defined cricket calendar. I can see now up the the ashes tour in 2027/8 so know exactly when or where they are playing for the next few years. we are winging a schedule if someone remembers about it i.e. i know lets play France and then let see if we can get someone to come over here and play us in a post season test series

rugby union can manage the autumn internationals, 6 nations and then summer tours / world cups, but again a well defined international calendar

Just bouncing this one to check poster's views now. Smith more important than French?

Bounce it all you want,I know he hasn't played his best but he still is very important and his kicking is still very good.
He also needs someone like French to take the pressure off him regarding controlling the game etc (Hampshire doesn't).
I also feel kind of privileged that you have decided to bring a post I did (others agreed) for your 7th post over 16 years,I await your reply in 2 yrs time,hopefully Harry is playing better by then.

In how we play the game, yes. In terms of individual brilliance, no.

I would have thought that was self evident and hasn't changed since this post was first made so I'm not seeing why you felt the need to "bounce it"? Did you believe you were somehow being clever and proving some point?

So you would choose Smith and Farrimond over French and Farrimond if you had a choice to make?

No, I'd choose Smith and French. As would Matty Peet.

I agree, but that isn't what I was quoting.

You said Smith was more important than French - So if you had a choice, you would choose Smith over French?