Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

Why a GB tour in 2015 is deeply flawed


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#61 roughyedspud

roughyedspud
  • Coach
  • 4,092 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 12:48 PM

But Wales producing more players of their own has got absolutely nothing to do with GB being disbanded. The 2 semi professional teams and partnerships with the likes of Wigan are driving that. That would still have happened if the GB team was still going.

 

would it?

would the welshRL have partnered up with sports wales to open the welshRL performance centre?

would it have happened if GB was still seen as the "principle national team"???


no it would'nt or it would have happened while GB was around....getting rid of GB forced the welsh,scots and irish governing bodies to step up,to implement development plans and seek funding from their own national sporting bodies

Edited by roughyedspud, 24 April 2013 - 01:03 PM.

OLDHAM RLFC
the 8TH most successful team in british RL


#62 MOT

MOT
  • Players
  • 28 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 12:54 PM

 

would it?

would the welshRL have partnered up with sports wales to open the welshRL performance centre?

would it have happened if GB was still seen as the "principle national team"???


no it would'nt or it would have happened while GB was around....getting rid of GB forced the welsh,scots and irish governing bodies to step up,to implement development plans and seek from their own national sporting bodies

I'd say the answer is a combination of both your points



#63 roughyedspud

roughyedspud
  • Coach
  • 4,092 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 01:05 PM

i think none of it would have happened...

OLDHAM RLFC
the 8TH most successful team in british RL


#64 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 01:58 PM

But Wales producing more players of their own has got absolutely nothing to do with GB being disbanded. The 2 semi professional teams and partnerships with the likes of Wigan are driving that. That would still have happened if the GB team was still going.

 

What is does raise is the question of where Ireland and Scotland are going in terms of development. It's all well and good holding Wales up as a shining example of RL development, but the Ireland and Scotland teams in this years WC will be exactly as they were when they first appeared back in 1995 - full of heritage players. And unless someone decides to plant semi pro or pro sides into those countries sometime soon, and to really back development in those countries, I genuinely can't see that changing in the next 18 years or so.

 

In terms of development, Ireland and Scotland are going as far as is possible given the resources they have to work with. The strength of their world cup/full international squads will, of course, depend on the level of football their heritage players are playing at. So, if there are a few more Super League players this year, the squads may be stronger - development in both countries won't really affect that. (In 1995, Scotland and Ireland played in the Emerging Nations WC and Scotland, at least, had just 3 professional players; in some ways a more representative team).

What are improving in standard are the teams just below the full side, the so called 'A' teams. These probably better reflect the real strength of the domestic game, and Scotland 'A' will have 7 players who have played at full international level. This team is underpinned by the ongoing development efforts with the under 16s and 18s development squads, but the problem both Scotland and Ireland have is that of relative isolation. The excellent developments in both Championship One and the Southern Conference would be ideal for placing entry-level semi-pro or elite community sides in but for the travelling (have the length of Britain in Scotland's case, and an overseas journey in Ireland's).

So, progress is being made but is limited by the monies available. The last thing either of them need is the reinstatement of GB (especially in Ireland's case).


"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#65 roughyedspud

roughyedspud
  • Coach
  • 4,092 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 02:16 PM

RLi have said in the past,post brian carney,that they want nothing to do with GB....and want to be a stand alone test nation

OLDHAM RLFC
the 8TH most successful team in british RL


#66 Just to be clear

Just to be clear
  • Coach
  • 330 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 02:34 PM

But the RFL will continue to persist with London?

Just to be clear, what do you mean by "London"?

Just to be clearer, that England side were effectively the England Knights. 5,500 for a reserve fixture isn't that bad!

Which is why the game is at the level it is. The only international rugby being played on these shores, against fully fledged international nations, who we never see outside of hosting world cups, and they are written off in the game's hotbeds for being just a reserve fixture. And if Tonga and Samoa did tour Wales, Scotland and Ireland they will be similarly written off as being "just rugby league" in those countries.

#67 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,790 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 02:46 PM

According to a link given on Twitter by Andy Wilson to the Australian Daily Telegraph, it seems that what had been planned for 2015 was a centenary match at Gallipoli, with GB facing an Anzac team.  A stadium holding 15,000 speccies had been found.  However, the Turkish authorities didn't want the added number of people such a match would attract and so said no.  Plans for a similar contest are now being discussed between the NRL, NZRL and RFL but to be based somewhere in Australia:

 

http://www.dailytele...r-1226628975422



#68 MOT

MOT
  • Players
  • 28 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 02:46 PM

Just to be clear, what do you mean by "London"?Which is why the game is at the level it is. The only international rugby being played on these shores, against fully fledged international nations, who we never see outside of hosting world cups, and they are written off in the game's hotbeds for being just a reserve fixture. And if Tonga and Samoa did tour Wales, Scotland and Ireland they will be similarly written off as being "just rugby league" in those countries.

Both London Broncos and the development of the game down South, the attendances are dire but IMO there needs to be a SL presence there.



#69 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,081 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 03:01 PM

Which is why the game is at the level it is. The only international rugby being played on these shores, against fully fledged international nations, who we never see outside of hosting world cups, and they are written off in the game's hotbeds for being just a reserve fixture.

But that's what they are! You can put a dog in a stable, but you can't call it a horse. The test team was playing in Australia. If you had Hull KR and Hull FC both playing abroad, you wouldn't expect the reserve side to suddenly be attracting the same numbers.

And if Tonga and Samoa did tour Wales, Scotland and Ireland they will be similarly written off as being "just rugby league" in those countries.

By who?
Posted Image

#70 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,081 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 03:04 PM

But Wales producing more players of their own has got absolutely nothing to do with GB being disbanded. The 2 semi professional teams and partnerships with the likes of Wigan are driving that. That would still have happened if the GB team was still going.

This has been explained well by Rouyedspud. Funding for a proper test nation is easier to come by than a feeder side to a full test team that never plays there.

What is does raise is the question of where Ireland and Scotland are going in terms of development. It's all well and good holding Wales up as a shining example of RL development, but the Ireland and Scotland teams in this years WC will be exactly as they were when they first appeared back in 1995 - full of heritage players. And unless someone decides to plant semi pro or pro sides into those countries sometime soon, and to really back development in those countries, I genuinely can't see that changing in the next 18 years or so.

They need investment. There's no denying that. Until it comes, not much progress will happen. That doesn't mean there isn't any, or that the investment won't come.
Posted Image

#71 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 03:08 PM

 

would it?

would the welshRL have partnered up with sports wales to open the welshRL performance centre?

would it have happened if GB was still seen as the "principle national team"???


no it would'nt or it would have happened while GB was around....getting rid of GB forced the welsh,scots and irish governing bodies to step up,to implement development plans and seek funding from their own national sporting bodies

 

That's merely your opinion, but there's nothing to suggest that Wales RL wouldn't have done it.



#72 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,081 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 03:10 PM


That's merely your opinion, but there's nothing to suggest that Wales RL wouldn't have done it.


The funding wouldn't have been available if GB were the main test team.
Posted Image

#73 RugbyLeagueGeek

RugbyLeagueGeek
  • Coach
  • 735 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 04:30 PM

Ireland have never made the RLWC semi final.
Picking and choosing stats is one thing. Making them up is another.

Apologies - I was referring to the 2000 WC quarter final (but I suspect you knew that...). Either way, the point I was trying to make still stands.

How does it? Your proposal doesn't rely in GB being in place. It also doesn't have any logic seeing that no Celtic players would even get into GB.

My logic has never been concerned with Celtic players getting into GB - it is concerned with players of dual heritage opting to play for these Celtic nations as opposed to opting for England.

Your proposal basically relegates the home nations to B status (ala England Knights) and leaves us with one test nation, GB (which is effectively England as it is now).

Why would the home nations be 'B' status? That's your terminology and viewpoint, not mine. I'm pretty sure that Queensland and NSW are not looked upon as 'B' status teams...

The way we are now, we have four test nations.

Three of whom are light years away from ever being competitive, unless they rely on 'heritage' players in the short term.

I really cannot see any logic in having GB come back full time, nor can I see the logic in having them split up back to four home nations for the most important competition (the RLWC) if we're meant to be supposedly stronger as GB!

Australia splitting into Queensland and NSW every year doesn't seem to do them any harm...

I've provided my reasoning several times before - you just happen to disagree with it, which is fine. It doesn't look as though I'm going to convince you I'm right, just as you're not going to convince me you're right. Wouldn't it be boring if everyone agreed all the time?

#74 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,081 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 05:20 PM

Apologies - I was referring to the 2000 WC quarter final (but I suspect you knew that...). Either way, the point I was trying to make still stands.

Not really, as Ireland also made the quarter finals in 2008 in a completely different and more challenging format.
8 teams can make the quarter finals. It's hardly a barometer for the success of Ireland pre-GB split. It was a far bigger achievement that they made the quarters in the last RLWC when only 6 teams had the chance for the remaining spot.

My logic has never been concerned with Celtic players getting into GB - it is concerned with players of dual heritage opting to play for these Celtic nations as opposed to opting for England.

But I really don't agree with that as a reason at all. If anything, we should be aiming to get away from the plastic Paddy model as much as possible. It's something that people use to deride the international game (as well as those jumping ship when they see fit) and I'd never agree that we should use it as a reason to keep GB. If anything, I'd say it's even more of a reason to keep them split!

Why would the home nations be 'B' status? That's your terminology and viewpoint, not mine. I'm pretty sure that Queensland and NSW are not looked upon as 'B' status teams...

Because they aren't B teams. They are first choice teams. Wales, Ireland and Scotland would be feeder teams to GB as if any player was good enough (Carney, Cunningham & Harris for example) they wouldn't represent their home nation. That's why they're B teams and SoO sides aren't. It's not a viewpoint, it's what they actually would be.

Three of whom are light years away from ever being competitive, unless they rely on 'heritage' players in the short term.

As are France, but no one is suggesting we combine with them to form "Europe". Heritage and history shouldn't overcome logic.

Australia splitting into Queensland and NSW every year doesn't seem to do them any harm...

Because it's a legitimate competition between first choice sides in front of huge crowds an both sides feed into one side equally.
The Home Nations would be a complete one sided affair, with only one if them feeding into the main team after.

Not to mention QLD/NSW aren't even nations, and if they were then I'd probably trump at the likelihood that they'd stay split for internationals anyway to give the game more competitive nations (as well as the fact they get bigger crowds than Australia!).

I've provided my reasoning several times before - you just happen to disagree with it, which is fine. It doesn't look as though I'm going to convince you I'm right, just as you're not going to convince me you're right. Wouldn't it be boring if everyone agreed all the time?

I'm fine with people having a different opinion, and am happy to agree to disagree as long as the logic is there, but I just can't agree with your logic argument at all.
Posted Image

#75 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 05:22 PM

The funding wouldn't have been available if GB were the main test team.

 

Is there anywhere that categorically states that the likes of Sport Wales wouldn't put money into RL if the GB team was still going?



#76 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,081 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 05:37 PM


Is there anywhere that categorically states that the likes of Sport Wales wouldn't put money into RL if the GB team was still going?


I recall a press release by Richard Lewis stating that one of the ideas behind splitting the home nations was because they'd get more funding from the separate sporting bodies. I'll try and dig it up.
Posted Image

#77 RugbyLeagueGeek

RugbyLeagueGeek
  • Coach
  • 735 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 08:26 PM

Because they aren't B teams. They are first choice teams. Wales, Ireland and Scotland would be feeder teams to GB as if any player was good enough (Carney, Cunningham & Harris for example) they wouldn't represent their home nation. That's why they're B teams and SoO sides aren't. It's not a viewpoint, it's what they actually would be.

No - it's your viewpoint. Stating your viewpoint as fact doesn't make it so.

I'm fine with people having a different opinion, and am happy to agree to disagree as long as the logic is there, but I just can't agree with your logic argument at all.

Just as I disagree with your logic. So in this instance I'm afraid you'll have to be unhappy to agree to disagree. I, on the other hand, am happy to agree to disagree.

#78 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,081 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 08:45 PM

No - it's your viewpoint. Stating your viewpoint as fact doesn't make it so.

It's not an opinion though. If GB and Wales play at the same time, one isn't a test team and the other is. One feeds into the other.

Just as I disagree with your logic. So in this instance I'm afraid you'll have to be unhappy to agree to disagree. I, on the other hand, am happy to agree to disagree.

I'm happy with that.
Posted Image

#79 RugbyLeagueGeek

RugbyLeagueGeek
  • Coach
  • 735 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 09:08 PM

It's not an opinion though. If GB and Wales play at the same time, one isn't a test team and the other is. One feeds into the other.

You've misunderstood my proposal in one of my earlier posts. I'm suggesting that the home nations play their internationals during the summer, and then come together to play as GB in the Autumn (excluding World Cup years). That way they would always have first choice of their players in the Summer, and said players would also have the opportunity to play at the highest level in the Autmn.

#80 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 09:34 PM

I recall a press release by Richard Lewis stating that one of the ideas behind splitting the home nations was because they'd get more funding from the separate sporting bodies. I'll try and dig it up.

 

http://www.guardian....gbyleague.sport

 

I found this article quoting Richard Lewis in 2007 as saying "The idea that we've had to do it for Sport England funding is a myth. They've always said it's irrelevant whether we play as England or Great Britain. It's purely about strategy for the international game." This of course doesn't state whether Sport Wales or the Scottish or Irish equivalents would think the same, but I genuinely don't remember any comments from RFL officials stating that the motivation behind the move was to get more funding. Happy to be proved wrong though.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users