Keep with what we have got a Four Nations with a possible new team every year. We have played the 4 Nations now year on year with France, PNG and Wales making up the 4th. Granted none have ever won a game but give them chance to grow. Wales could of done a hell of a lot worse on Saturday if it was say 2009.



Saying that, I'd love America in a few years down the line to become involved.

regularity is how rivalries develop.



I agree that we get a fair bit of overkill, its something i think the 4 nations suffers from at the moment. Which is why I would want to see it move to every two years, one in each hemisphere every 4 years. With the world cup and a tour inbetween. I think that would give us a fair bit of variation.



But we would still lack the bread and butter of international competition. In football they get it through qualification tournaments, in RU the 6 nations and a 5 nations tournament would do that.



Its very very difficult for the general public to build up affiliation and recognition for a team and players who play only 3 or 4 competitive games every year. We need to be playing 7-10 games a year so people get to know who the players are and build up the affiliation with the team (and to build up rivalries with other teams)

Agree with what you're saying here, but just need to clarify by what you mean by a 5 Nations tournament. Do you mean a mid-season tournament between Eng, Ire, Sco, Wal and Fra? Because I don't think regular stuffings against Scotland and Ireland would be good at this stage.

Well wouldn't that be overkill?



You called the 8 Nations idea ridiculous by trying to say that it would be an annual WC, though I never said it should be a yearly tournament...



Anyway, it is at least a way to ensure the second-tier nations are getting more exposure to the top nations so that they too can improve by the next WC. Having only a select 4 Nations every year then closing the door on the rest is like helping the rich get richer and making sure the poor get poorer...

No

We should be looking at something like:



Year 1: European Cup and Pacific Cup, England tour of Southern Hemisphere/Australia test series/whatever

Year 2: 5 Nations with winners of European and Pacific Cup, rest of teams begin WC qualifying

Year 3: WC Qualifying concludes. Possible test series between England/NZ/France/any other nations that are want to play, pretty much what will be happening next year

Year 4: World Cup



Repeating the same competitions on a four-yearly basis doesn't mean overkill, football has been doing that for 50 years.

Pretty similar to what I said then.



I don't like the sporadic year 3 though. There's no structure to it.

What about:



Year 1: Series between England, Australia and New Zealand in England (Australia also play half of the other nations, New Zealand the other half), European Cup and Pacific Cup also for other nations.

Year 2: 5 Nations, winners of Pacific Cup and European Cup, WC Qualifiers for other nations to give other nine slots for world cup.

Year 3: Series between England, Australia and New Zealand in Australia, (England play half nations, New Zealand half)

Year 4: World Cup



and then year 1 it goes to New Zealand and Australia and England play half the nations etc. Just an idea

Yeah, i do.



But I also think that having a GB touring/four nations side, will encourage more players to play for, and stick with the home nations which would narrow the gap. Of course England will dominate to start with, but its also an opportunity for experimenting for the England squad, so i doubt the coach would learn a great deal from playing his best 17 every week, again narrowing the gap.

You could make it the 500 Nations, Aussie or Kiwi would still win it.

Thanks for your contribution

The one thing that Mr Lewis and Mr Wood have got spot on is the revision of the International calendar , until we have more competitive 4 nations competitions , it should not change , it is fine as it is , it is a genuine competition with other genuine competitions feed it

No problem. Just stating the obvious.