: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:01 pm  

What would it mean for the game over here?

Probably f*ck all - certainly nothing on the scale that accompanied the England World Cup win of 2003 or run to the final in 2007.

There would be a short-lived rise in publicity and recognition which would tail off again once the Six Nations and the business end of the football season came around.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:02 pm  

dally messenger wrote:

which is more likely to happen in our lifetimes :

1. cure for cancer
2. 2nd coming of christ
3. man traveling to mars
4. england beating australia in a test series

thoughts

Funnily enough, I've just purchased seats on the next flight to Mars from a man with a beard wearing a long gown

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:08 pm  

Disco wrote:

Number 2's rather dependant on whether or not you believe there was ever a first coming.

those comments could apply to england beating australia in a series as well.

did it really happen?

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:09 pm  

ExiledWool wrote:

Funnily enough, I've just purchased seats on the next flight to Mars from a man with a beard wearing a long gown

and on the seat in the next aisle is the RLWC trophy with England winners 2169 etched in it

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:10 pm  

r4yne wrote:

Sorry to be pedantic but its 4 nations this year not tri nations, france are involved too

if we are talikng about nations that can win it, it should be called the dual nations

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:11 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

ahh, so its only finals that australia can't beat NZ over 80 mins

anyone would think they were chokers

the answer is never.

it also featured a 50 point blowout.

one off wins are fine and dandy but being regularly competitive with australia is tough for NZ, let alone england.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:12 pm  

to improve the format of the Quad nations i suggest it copy the RLWC format of a Super Pool to avoid blowouts

Pool 1 can be the NRL pool - Aus vs NZ
Pool 2 can be the SL pool - France vs England

avoids blowout scores and also improves englands chances of making the final

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:31 pm  

dally messenger wrote:

the answer is never.

it also featured a 50 point blowout.

one off wins are fine and dandy but being regularly competitive with australia is tough for NZ, let alone england.

well when your best players arent playing and arent released by australian clubs what do you expect?

one off wins are very good when they are in finals, and the facts are Australia have failed to beat NZ over 80 mins in a final since the 2000 world cup

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:29 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

well when your best players arent playing and arent released by australian clubs what do you expect?

one off wins are very good when they are in finals, and the facts are Australia have failed to beat NZ over 80 mins in a final since the 2000 world cup

yeah and its not as if aussie sides have had their best players out for years either.

not winning any games for 3 years is normally considered a sign of failure

but compared to the "achievements" of the english team they are clearly above that

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:25 pm  

dally messenger wrote:

yeah and its not as if aussie sides have had their best players out for years either.

not winning any games for 3 years is normally considered a sign of failure

but compared to the "achievements" of the english team they are clearly above that

whereas winning a tri-nations, taking the other to extra time and a world cup shows them as the more successful team,

are australia the st helens of international RL?