England

Australia

New Zealand

France

Wales

PNG / Samoa



I'd prefer it because it would give the 4th team a better chance and they'd have a chance at doing well. The only downside is that it would be a longer competition but that would generate more sponsor/ TV money.

We'd have to cut the regular season down as we couldn't have it in the middle of the season.

Keep it as it is. The Pacific Cup and European Cup are competitive

Agreed. The carrot of winning the European or Pacific Cup make those competitions important.

Two strong, one average and 3 very poor sides is a bad idea in ANY tournament.

Better than 1 strong, 3 or 4 average and the rest awful like the RU WC though!

Maybe not 6 but I'd be tempted to make it 5, so when it's the northern hemisphere it would be:

Australia, NZ, England

France & Wales (assuming they reach the final of the European Cup)



And when it's in the south:

Australia, NZ, England

PNG & Fiji? Isn't there a Pacific islands equivalent of the European Cup? So the finalists of that.



It'd only add 1 game to the schedule but would give the "lower" teams a chance of winning a game in the competition.

I didn't watch much of it but New Zealand, South Africa, Wales, England, France, Australia and Ireland are all capable of beating any of the others on a good day. The same can't be said for the line up mentioned above. Sides like Wales, France, PNG and Samoa will NEVER beat a side like Australia in a competitive match. The gulf is too wide and will never narrow enough

If the WC qualifiers and 4N qualifiers have shown us anything, it's that meaningful lower-tier internationals bring a lot more interest. I think the RFL/ARL/RLIF/RLEF/(whoever it is that can make a difference) should take this on board and come up with a meaningful progressive structure on the field.



Something like:



2013:

RLWC



2014:

Tri-Nations (featuring the top 3 from the WC, meaning a 3rd place play-off has meaning).

Five Nations Qualifers (NH and SH groups of 4, these being the top 4 placed teams from each hemisphere in the WC).



2015:

Five Nations (featuring 3N teams and two qualifiers).

European and Pacific Cup qualifiers (featuring whoever is left outside the 5N).



2016:

European Cup (featuring top four European teams, including England)

Pacific Cup (featuring top four Pacific teams, including Australia, New Zealand)

World Cup qualifiers.



2017:

RLWC (featuring 8 teams in EC/PC and 8 qualifiers).







Structure. Progression. Variety. And as more nations play the game, the structure doesn't need to change at the top.

I like that

I mentioned this idea a while ago, which at first sounds even nuttier than a 6 Nations, 8 Nations. Hear me out...





There is no group stage, it begins as a knockout competition, and it could go something like this:



Week 1:

Aus vs Samoa

NZ vs Wales

England vs PNG

France vs Ireland



Week 2:

Aus vs France

England vs NZ

----------

Wales vs Samoa

Ireland vs PNG...the week 1 losers are playing off for 5th spot



Week 3:

GF

3rd place playoff

5th place playoff

7th place playoff





PRO's:

- It only lasts 3 weeks...

- yet EVERY team is playing a match each week

- It can be used to give the world rankings some credibility... (hence a 5th place and 7th place playoff)...

- Only one week of 'mismatches'



CON's:

Who'd want to watch a 7th place playoff???

You killed it when you said Ireland

Just an example... Ireland, Scotland, Tonga, take your pick....

How do you sell tickets and schedule these matches if you don't know who's playing where 2 of the 3 weeks?

As soon as they've lost their first game, the rest of the fixtures will be total non-sellers. That's why we have group games. They are a fixture at a set venue that you can sell for weeks.

Non-starter for me.