64 replies to this topic

[Steve May]

Heartland: featuring players from the historical heartland

versus

Outer Alliance (name variable open to ideas): Everyone else - who like Queensland will start with a chip on their shoulder.

Why on earth would they start with a chip on their shoulder? In fact, why would they care at all?

That's the problem with almost all the suggested alternatives to a Roses match. They all depend on artificial constructs that it will be very difficult to get interested in in any kind of long term way.

It's very hard to imagine a 10 year old from anywhere proudly telling everyone he supports the "Outer Alliance"

[Dave T]

Why on earth would they start with a chip on their shoulder? In fact, why would they care at all?

That's the problem with almost all the suggested alternatives to a Roses match. They all depend on artificial constructs that it will be very difficult to get interested in in any kind of long term way.

It's very hard to imagine a 10 year old from anywhere proudly telling everyone he supports the "Outer Alliance"

I agree.

For me, the only really worthwhile England trial match is England v England A. That way you have players who already have the shirt, and 17 who want to outplay their opposite numbers.

As mentioned elsewhere, the halfback and forward battles could be very very good, as we seem to finally have plenty of options there. Play it somewhere sensible, don't worry about the crowd, use it as a trial to name the squad.

I'm sure the likes of Crabtree, Pryce, McGuire etc would love the chance to regain their spot by outplaying their opposite numbers, and it would be interesting to see the hookers head to head, as well as the back rowers where we are spoilt for choice.

[Joe Shep]

I would like to see the England manager overseeing the whole thing, with some input in selection if required.

I think this was part of the problem last time. David Waite oversaw the whole thing, and instead of having two separate squads with their own ideas and tactics etc, it looked like a pre-season trial game with players coming off to allow Waite to have a look at different combinations. This meant that the intensity dropped off in spells and it came across to the public. I can't imagine Queensland or NSW allowing a coach to oversee and provide input to both squads.

[RP London]

I agree.

For me, the only really worthwhile England trial match is England v England A. That way you have players who already have the shirt, and 17 who want to outplay their opposite numbers.

As mentioned elsewhere, the halfback and forward battles could be very very good, as we seem to finally have plenty of options there. Play it somewhere sensible, don't worry about the crowd, use it as a trial to name the squad.

I'm sure the likes of Crabtree, Pryce, McGuire etc would love the chance to regain their spot by outplaying their opposite numbers, and it would be interesting to see the hookers head to head, as well as the back rowers where we are spoilt for choice.

part of the intensity that the aussies get used to in origin is the crowd and hostitlity etc.. you woudnt get that for england v englad a.. there would be a small and not very passionate crowd.. its a case of trying to find something that is to all intents and purposes a trial but where there is a true rivalry for fans and players... players of hte same tame against each other.. crowds getting involved and passionate etc etc..

[no13benny]

Why on earth would they start with a chip on their shoulder? In fact, why would they care at all?

That's the problem with almost all the suggested alternatives to a Roses match. They all depend on artificial constructs that it will be very difficult to get interested in in any kind of long term way.

It's very hard to imagine a 10 year old from anywhere proudly telling everyone he supports the "Outer Alliance"

Kids love star wars and support the storm troopers, they dunno what they're supporting half the time.

I'd support them, cause I'm no where near the heartland. They'd start with a chip cause there's already a divide there, Queensland started with a chip because they were in the minority to New South Wales player/clubs and so would these be.

I think there's a natural bond between clubs and players who are outside the M62 as they know how difficult it is to get any respect. Maybe combined they'd get a bit of respect, well if they beat the heartland anyway. Admittedly the name is a work in progress, but you get the idea from the team sheet. Europe play America in the Ryder Cup, and we still support Europe.

For me it's either this, or England v the Barbarians (a team made up of antipodeans in Super League.) Who would again want to prove a point against the English I'm sure.

Edited by no13benny, 08 July 2010 - 10:08 AM.

[Dave T]

part of the intensity that the aussies get used to in origin is the crowd and hostitlity etc.. you woudnt get that for england v englad a.. there would be a small and not very passionate crowd.. its a case of trying to find something that is to all intents and purposes a trial but where there is a true rivalry for fans and players... players of hte same tame against each other.. crowds getting involved and passionate etc etc..

TBH I'm past caring about wanting to get something to emulate the State of Origin for the fans. The miserable bastards don't want it, as has been seen time and again. People can moan about lack of intesnsity all they want, but that isn't the reason they didn't turn up, it is because fans are so obsessed with their own club and not the actual game that they can't see the past their own town.

I do think you would get a crowd of 7-10k and played at Warrington or Widnes would have scope for some growth. I do think it would be an interesting game, and whilst it wouldn't have the passionate rivalry, so what, most fans are only bothered about their local derby anyway.

Imagine a game between:

Widdop 1 Wellens
Briscoe 2 Riley
Bridge 3 Gleeson
Shenton 4 Atkins
Hall 5 Fox
Tomkins 6 McGuire
Eastmond 7 Myler
Graham 8 Crabtree
Roby 9 Lunt
Peacock 10 Lynch
Burgess 11 Westwood
Ellis 12 J Tomkins
O'Loughlin 13 Sinfield

Pryce 14 Moore
Morley 15 Carvell
Scruton 16 Fielden
Wilkin 17 Burrow

That for me would be a far better game than against France, or an All Stars team, and would be a meaningful trial, with 34 top English players up against each other. There would be some great battles there and would give the likes of Fielden and Crabtree a real chance to win their place back, or for Carvell to show he deserves a chance. The halves would also be a great battle.

In terms of the crowd, we only got 7k against France, so it couldn;t be much lower IMHO.

[no13benny]

^But if you're gonna do it, you might as well find a reason to split them on either side, to help sell it, and if it is a great contest, with one team or the other having to show their metal to win, people will find affections naturally, for one or the other, and people are loyal next time around, if they are allowed to be (ie. given some consistency to enjoy/support)

So even if it's all England, lets split them somehow, even if it's East and West, City and town, whatever you want, but to do nothing will make this game as worthwhile commercially as a trial behind closed doors.

[RP London]

TBH I'm past caring about wanting to get something to emulate the State of Origin for the fans. The miserable bastards don't want it, as has been seen time and again. People can moan about lack of intesnsity all they want, but that isn't the reason they didn't turn up, it is because fans are so obsessed with their own club and not the actual game that they can't see the past their own town.

I do think you would get a crowd of 7-10k and played at Warrington or Widnes would have scope for some growth. I do think it would be an interesting game, and whilst it wouldn't have the passionate rivalry, so what, most fans are only bothered about their local derby anyway.

Imagine a game between:

Widdop 1 Wellens
Briscoe 2 Riley
Bridge 3 Gleeson
Shenton 4 Atkins
Hall 5 Fox
Tomkins 6 McGuire
Eastmond 7 Myler
Graham 8 Crabtree
Roby 9 Lunt
Peacock 10 Lynch
Burgess 11 Westwood
Ellis 12 J Tomkins
O'Loughlin 13 Sinfield

Pryce 14 Moore
Morley 15 Carvell
Scruton 16 Fielden
Wilkin 17 Burrow

That for me would be a far better game than against France, or an All Stars team, and would be a meaningful trial, with 34 top English players up against each other. There would be some great battles there and would give the likes of Fielden and Crabtree a real chance to win their place back, or for Carvell to show he deserves a chance. The halves would also be a great battle.

In terms of the crowd, we only got 7k against France, so it couldn;t be much lower IMHO.

i disagree i think it could and would be less than 7k if there was nothing whatsoever riding on it an it was no more than a trial match.. even if th other option is a glorified trial match there is still some glory.. and it could take years for the potnt grow (as origin did) but it is somethign to stick to once decided upon..

[deluded pom?]

You have matter of factly included Widdop, Burgess and Ellis in your selections Dave. I doubt very much that their respective NRL teams would allow them to play in such a match.

[roughyedspud]

England v Other nationalities is the nearest thing,intensity wise, we'd have to state of origin..



it would be a bloody good hit out too for us....far better than putting 50 or 60 on france or wales..

[Dave T]

^But if you're gonna do it, you might as well find a reason to split them on either side, to help sell it, and if it is a great contest, with one team or the other having to show their metal to win, people will find affections naturally, for one or the other, and people are loyal next time around, if they are allowed to be (ie. given some consistency to enjoy/support)

So even if it's all England, lets split them somehow, even if it's East and West, City and town, whatever you want, but to do nothing will make this game as worthwhile commercially as a trial behind closed doors.

But everything suggested just sounds fake.

England v Other Nations is probably the best, but then we get 17 English players playing, which is slightly different to my proposal.

Yorks v Lans has failed time and again.

England v France - people don't turn up and complain about it when they do.

The draw is that it is the England team playing.

[Dave T]

You have matter of factly included Widdop, Burgess and Ellis in your selections Dave. I doubt very much that their respective NRL teams would allow them to play in such a match.

If this was as a replacement for the France game, perhaps as a trade off that they wouldn't be selected for that, then it is something that could be worked through.

[Dave T]

i disagree i think it could and would be less than 7k if there was nothing whatsoever riding on it an it was no more than a trial match.. even if th other option is a glorified trial match there is still some glory.. and it could take years for the potnt grow (as origin did) but it is somethign to stick to once decided upon..

Tbf, there is nothng riding on the England v France game apart from will England get 40,50 or 60. BTW there is no bigger fan of the international game than me, so I am not suggesting we sack that off, just that we look at all options.

You know with the England v England A game you are getting the best 34 players available to England on one pitch. If it is split by East v West or Yorks v Lancs, that isn't the case. We could have 4 or 5 options at halves who play for Lancs and none for Yorks.

Personally I'd like to see us stop worrying about emulating Origin, and get some proper Test matches against some of the other teams, PNG, Tonga, Samoa etc.

[HappyDave]

Imagine a game between:

Widdop 1 Wellens
Briscoe 2 Riley
Bridge 3 Gleeson
Shenton 4 Atkins
Hall 5 Fox
Tomkins 6 McGuire
Eastmond 7 Myler
Graham 8 Crabtree
Roby 9 Lunt
Peacock 10 Lynch
Burgess 11 Westwood
Ellis 12 J Tomkins
O'Loughlin 13 Sinfield

Pryce 14 Moore
Morley 15 Carvell
Scruton 16 Fielden
Wilkin 17 Burrow

Surely Sinfield is currently is the first choice Hooker? He definitely should definitely be in the England squad due to his play-maker and kicking abilities (I'd actually like to see him as Captain). I'd go with Morely rather than Peacock. Peacock just doesn't seem to do a lot at International level these days whereas Morley can still drive in the Big Hits.

The only problem is unfortunately England 'A' may not end up with any supporters and they may get beaten by 30-40+ points.

Edited by HappyDave, 08 July 2010 - 01:52 PM.

[Dave T]

Surely Sinfield is currently is the first choice Hooker? He definitely should definitely be in the England squad due to his play-maker and kicking abilities (I'd actually like to see him as Captain). I'd go with Morely rather than Peacock. Peacock just doesn't seem to do a lot at International level these days whereas Morley can still drive in the Big Hits.

The only problem is unfortunately England 'A' may not end up with any supporters and they may get beaten by 30-40+ points.

Yep, was just a quick team from the top of my head. TBH I see no reason why there would be such an inbalance. We only beat France by 30odd or whatever it was in the 4N, and that England A team I have named would beat France well.

[HappyDave]

Fair enough. But would anyone support an England 'A'/'potentials' Vs the currently England RL squad? Or would everyone be neutral? Then who would they cheer for? Both teams? If you're jeering the England squad wouldn't that be detrimental to the National game?

[Dave T]

Fair enough. But would anyone support an England 'A'/'potentials' Vs the currently England RL squad? Or would everyone be neutral? Then who would they cheer for? Both teams? If you're jeering the England squad wouldn't that be detrimental to the National game?

Yep, would see them supporting both, in reality I would expect the fans to cheer for the team with their players in!

As I said, I don't see this as a kind of Origin for the fans, they have had chance to support Roses games, or even full blown tests and haven't really got behind them so this is more about exposing more English players to the higher level of intensity that people cry out for.

[bendyas]

Yep, would see them supporting both, in reality I would expect the fans to cheer for the team with their players in!

As I said, I don't see this as a kind of Origin for the fans, they have had chance to support Roses games, or even full blown tests and haven't really got behind them so this is more about exposing more English players to the higher level of intensity that people cry out for.

What were the attendances for the last 20 origin games?

[Gruff]

Personally I think a Yorkshire vs Lancashire would be a fantastic idea, and be based on who players played their first SL game for, which is I believe quite similar to the Aussies (i.e. not the area you were born in)

This will mean everyone apart from those who have only played for Quins/Crusaders will have the chance to participate.

Whilst I am a massive "Expasionista" we cannot forget where the game comes from and its heritage, and we should play on this a bit.

The last "War of the roses" occured for 3 years, with sod all organisation, and at a time when the Rugby League was on its ass, trying to recover from the disasterous WC, mainly under a previous regime (Lewis only got involved with RL after the 2002 series).

We not only need a series of games of higher intensity than normal SL games, but we need our English players getting used to the idea of playing with players from other sides in SL and having to gel instantly if they want results. A SoO idea gives not just 17 players the chance to do this, but a pool of 34, from which a national squad can be devised.

And as for people outside of Yorks/Lancs not caring, I don't see why this would be the case? How many sports fans watch games/teams that aren't "their" team? Were the viewing figures for all non England games in the WC zero? When France/Italy/Ireland play on the BBC/Sky in the six nations are their viewing figures zero? No, because people will watch sport if its on, and will watch a game if they know it is going to be a good one.

If something like this does happen it needs marketing well and being stuck with, not canceled after 3 years. The Aussie SoO crowds weren't that good for the first 10 years or so, on average about half what they have now, even going down to 16k, but they stuck with it and look at them now.

Finally, a "prestigious events" calendar like this would suit me down to the gorund

Feb - Magic weekend to kick the season off in either London/Dublin/Cardiff/Edinburgh

May - 3 series SoO played mid week - same set up as the aussies. One in Lancs (CoM/JJB), one in Yorks (ER/Galph), finale in London (Stoop/AN other)

August - CC Final - London

October - GF, with Wales vs France as curtain raiser (if neither of them are in GF)

Oct/Nov - International window

[Dave T]

What were the attendances for the last 20 origin games?

Buggered if I know. I have seen 7-8k in the JJB and Odsal though after an initially promising 10k at Headingley.

I have in my head that the crowds were very low, although many were played in midweek, so not sure they have been given major prominence.


Edit: found these on wikipedia:

1980 Lancashire 17-9 1,593 Widnes
1981 Yorkshire 21-15 1,222 Castleford
1982 Yorkshire 22-21 1,738 Leigh
1985 Lancashire 26-10 6,743 Wigan
1986 Yorkshire 26-14 5,983 Leeds
1987 Yorkshire 16-10 9,748 Wigan
1988 Yorkshire 24-14 8,244 Leeds
1989 Yorkshire 56-12 10,182 Wigan
2001 Lancashire 36-24 10,253 Leeds
2002 Lancashire 22-18 10,000 Wigan
2002 Lancashire 36-28 9,283 Leeds
2003 Yorkshire 56-6 8,258 Bradford

The 2002 Wigan one was not that high, and was less than 8k IIRC.

Edited by Dave T, 08 July 2010 - 03:54 PM.