posted Oct 26, 2008

"We just send in our best times"? Didnt quite understand that bit.Unless you mean best `teams´ which everybody does anyway.
The Olympics is a completely different event.Everybody gets to compete and anybody is in with a chance to win a medal.Unlike this league RC where its only one team thats going to win it.Theres nothing more detrimental to the growth of a sport than when theres only going to be one outcome.I just cant see the point of calling it a "World Cup".

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 26, 2008

No times is the correct word, do you wish that each country just send in there best times re; swimming, running, instead of competing because of foregone conclusions.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 27, 2008

Mind you, Ireland Tonga is very well poised at half time. It's not all about the eventual winners.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 27, 2008

Unsuprising comments from the usual detractors - long live the RL World Cup and in my best Kev Keegan impression 'I would love it if England won' - all you doubters be more constructive with your feedback - this World Cup is about a long term strategy to spread the gospel of the worlds greatest game

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 27, 2008

comment by Philsterboy61 (U1809020)
posted 17 Hours Ago

...Cant really see the point of this "Australia Cup"

-------------------

I see your point, however how benefical is it to the smaller nations and the players that dont play top level rugby week in week out. They may get better for the experience, therefore take that into club rugby, equaling a better standard of club rugby.
This could be taken on further, if players from countries play at the top level it could encourage younger players to take up the game, accumulating in a better national side.
Australia are the best, but even they had to start somewhere, didnt they?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 27, 2008

Your referring to qualification times.Olympics isnt dominated by any particular team or country and theres always bound to be upsets in them.You just cant compare the two.
But have you ever wondered why is that the Union World cup which is only 21 years old has grown to the proportions it has compared to the League one.Its the third most watched event after the Olympics and Football WC.
What next? An Aussie Rules World cup? Thatd be interesting

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 27, 2008

Australia are the best.And I am in complete respect of that.They own League and will no doubt continue to do so. All the others run a very distant 2nd.But my point is,is that good for the growth of the game itself?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 27, 2008

Philsterboy61,

I'm not saying league is stronger then union or anything about union, in fact I haven't even mentioned it, my point was just your negative attitude towards league and the world cup of league.

If the Yanks can call a game of baseball a world series, what is the problem with league calling it a world cup, when the countries that are competing are spread far and wide through-out the world.
Albeit not as far and wide as union, but far and wide just the same.


If you wish to take the micky out of a sport, go and have a go at the wendy ballers and there swan dives without water.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 27, 2008

'if players from countries play at the top level it could encourage younger players to take up the game, accumulating in a better national side.'

As I said before Danny Brough from Dewsbury putting on a Scotland shirt is not going to make loads of scotish kids take up rugby league. Don't believe the hype mate.

add comment | complain about this comment