Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 401 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, full colour, in-depth coverage from the grassroots through to the international game.
Click here for the digital edition or just download the Rugby League World app from Apple Newsstand or Google Play now.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 401
/ View a Gallery of all our previous 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 401
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Bring Back GB / Ashes Tests etc (Merged Threads)


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#81 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,632 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:18 AM

In terms of future tours of Australia I have this crazy idea that instead of having a 3 Test series with Australia, which people could soon lose interest in

 

So you want tours and 3 match test series to return, but you think the Australian public might lose interest in them?



#82 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,632 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:36 AM

If the Aussies were such big champions of the international game then why did they drop the French tour down to only one Test prior to the advent of SL. They also rarely welcomed the French to Australia. I can recall, off the top of my head, a Test in the early eighties and Mal Meninga's  last game on Australian soil for Australia. I can't remember France playing Australia in Australia outside of those two instances in the last thirty years. Do you seriously believe that Australia only developed an insular attitude since 1996?

 

To be fair, the French were due to tour down under in 1987, but they cancelled the tour. Money problems, I think?



#83 Duff Duff

Duff Duff
  • Banned
  • 717 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 10:47 AM

So you want tours and 3 match test series to return, but you think the Australian public might lose interest in them?


Well I am would stick with the 3 Test format in England but in Australia there would be a danger of the public losing interest if England/GB were battered in the first two tests. However interest could be better maintained if England/GB faced the two State of Origin teams before a one off Test Match. Three different opponents but all at or near international level.

Would people go and watch England v Queensland at Lang Park? Or England v NSW at the Sydney Football Stadium? I imagine they would. I would certainly want to watch it.

#84 Duff Duff

Duff Duff
  • Banned
  • 717 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 01:25 PM

I find it odd that you seem to blame us for the Super League War when it was an Australian idea and it was they that suffered civil war. we were just a pawn in their internal struggles. Maybe you know more than I do but we actually toured Australasia in October 1996, why didn't we play Australia like we usually would have? I can't imagine (but I'm willing to be proven wrong) that it was because we didn't want to play them.It would be madness to completely disregard the effect of the switch to summer and the Super League war on internationals but they are a convenient and easy excuse for a decline that is far more complicated. There have been a number of other changes in the world that would still have happened such as an increase in globalisation and professionalism of sports. I think it's naive to think that the Australians would still be willing to effectively stop their season in June, including moving State of Origin to accomodate an uncompetitive GB side.The tours in the UK since the switch to summer have all taken place when they did previously but we've seen a reluctance from Australian players to take part at the end of a long hard season. This is because of a lack of prestige involved in beating a side you've beaten for the last 40 years rather than a mass opinion change after the Super League War.The reality is that if we could guarantee a competitive and vibrant tour like the current Lions RU one, they'd be begging us to come over.The penultimate point is just wrong I'm afraid. The significant numbers of British playing in Australia is purely down to monetary factors. In 2005 the NRL salary cap of $3.3m dollars worked out at around £1.32m. At the time the British cap was around the same as now, £1.65m. However now, the NRL cap is $5.85m and due to the exchange rate this works out at £3.5m, more than double ours. In the past any British RL player had to take a risk and a pay cut to move to Australia, now they can do so whilst earning significantly more than in the UK. Tomkins is rumoured to have been offered $1m a year or £600k. This is easily double any Super League player.


The Super League War was an attempt to usurp the legitimate governance of Australian Rugby League by Rupert Murdoch and News Corps. Unfortunately rather than showing solidarity with the ARL the RFL and the NZRL aided and abetted Murdoch in his scheme. They froze the ARL out. From a moral viewpoint that was a despicable thing to do and it was motivated by short term greed. The RFL were not passive pawns in this. They would have known full well the consequences of their actions of betraying the ARL and the NSWRL.

This act of betrayal ripped the international game apart and would have exposed the bare faced self interest of the RFL. An organisation I might add that was regularly embarrassed at meetings of the old International Board when BARLA were praised by the ARL for spreading the game internationally in the face of RFL inactivity.

In terms of seasons the point I was making was when the Australian game was reunited and the season was being planned again the international game was merely an after thought. All good will towards the New Zealanders and British had gone. The British had stabbed their Australian friends in the back and they were not going to go out of their way to help British rugby league for the greater good of the game.

British players playing in Australia is not just due to the salary cap and the bigger money on offer. It is also about wanting to play the highest standard of rugby league possible. When the UK still had a Winter season lots of the top players went and had stints in Australia to prove themselves as players and test themselves. If you look at the top British players in the late 1980s and early 1990s nearly all of them went and played in Australia during the off season. Hanley, Edwards, Schofield, Offiah, Davies, Lydon, Connolly etc. That had a huge positive impact on the British game. British players realised they were the equals of their Australian counterparts and when they played them in Test Matches they weren't awe struck. Also the exchange of experiences and ideas meant that the British game kept up to date with Australian developments.

However with the switch to a Summer season hardly any of the subsequent generation of players, apart from Adrian Morely, played in Australia. Andy Farrell, Sean Long, Jamie Peacock, Kieron Cunningham, Keith Senior, Kevin Sinfield etc. all missed the rugby education that is playing in Australia. No wonder the British international teams declined and no wonder the British players were star struck when it came to playing the Aussies.

You even see on this forum over debates about whether top British internationals could "make it" in the NRL. Of course they would. So would the the top 30 or 40 players in the UK if they were given the opportunity. The Australians are not super men they just happen to play in a more competitive competition that hardens their skills and their character.

The only way for the British international teams to improve is to get as many of our top players playing in Australia as possible. The British season moving to the Summer has made doing so much more difficult and has limited the connections with the Australian game. New Zealand offers a case in point, New Zealand's international chances were revolutionised when the majority of their players started playing in The NRL. The same would be true for the British too.

#85 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,023 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 03:29 PM

So I found this...

 


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#86 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,701 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:01 PM

France had home and away games with Australia regularly until the Super League split.

http://www.rugbyleag...lts.html?page=2

There has always been a self interested tendency within Australia but the people who at the top of the ARL did have a genuine interest in fostering the international game and growing it. The key issue is that when the Australians reunited and started over again in 1998 the needs of the international game were low down the list of the priorities in terms of the structure of the season. As it was there wasn't much sympathy with the RFL or NZRL over how they had behaved or the French for that matter! There wasn't a designated window or an agreed global structure and schedule.

It wasn't just the Ashes that stopped but 3 Test series between New Zealand and Australia. The fact they haven't returned is a massive shame. Instead the State of Origin became the pinnacle. What better way of promoting League in New Zealand than having a 3 Test series against Australia. It would be headline news like the RU Lions are. The same would be the case for the Kangaroos touring the UK too. The best and probably the only way for Rugby League to attract the attention of the general public in the UK is for England/GB to be playing against Australia.

In terms of future tours of Australia I have this crazy idea that instead of having a 3 Test series with Australia, which people could soon lose interest in, England/GB should play NSW and Queensland with a one off Test against Australia as the finale. You could throw in a warm up game against Canberra if you wanted. Any thoughts? I think it is quite a good idea.

 

Australia have played France in Australia just once in the last 31 years. This was in 1994 and came a whopping 13 years after playing them previously. They had stopped because they weren't competitive anymore.

 

The problem you have us that you jump to conclusions without evidence. I find it strange that you blame the British game for the insular nature of Australia with nothing to back it up. It was the Australian's that had a civil war that hugely disrupted the international calendar and despite this we have continued to play them with more regularity than we used to. The games aren't as prominent as before for a number of reasons.

 

The Kiwi test series were hardly enormously successful series, from recollection I think the Kiwis only ever won 3 series and crowds were pretty average. The 1989 series averaged 19,000 in NZ. It's hard to see how they would create anything like the buzz of a Lions tour. People get carried away with the three tournament victories by NZ in the last decade. Without playing down their achievements, they have played Australia 29 times in the last 10 years with just 5 victories, 2 draws and 22 defeats.

 

We still play Australia pretty often and it doesn't grab the attention of the media, making it 3 games again wouldn't magic up interest. Plus, nowadays even the 1990 tour would barely register in the media's presence. 57,000 at Wembley sounds amazing to us but it still means 20,000 (now 33,000) empty seats something that doesn't happen for routine international Union and Football matches.

 

The last idea is actually one of the reasons a real tour to Australia would struggle. We used to play representative teams and club sides and largely beat them, I would dread to think how we would compete against Queensland or NSW and think we would struggle against a standard NRL side. Even in the 1992 tour we were beaten by Parramatta. It wouldn't do our game over here any favours to see us battered by Queensland. I remember when we beat a reserve grade side (Burleigh Bears) in the last few minutes!



#87 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,632 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:07 PM

Australia have played France in Australia just once in the last 31 years. This was in 1994 and came a whopping 13 years after playing them previously. They had stopped because they weren't competitive anymore.

 

Australia played France in Parkes, NSW in 1990.



#88 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,701 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:21 PM

The Super League War was an attempt to usurp the legitimate governance of Australian Rugby League by Rupert Murdoch and News Corps. Unfortunately rather than showing solidarity with the ARL the RFL and the NZRL aided and abetted Murdoch in his scheme. They froze the ARL out. From a moral viewpoint that was a despicable thing to do and it was motivated by short term greed. The RFL were not passive pawns in this. They would have known full well the consequences of their actions of betraying the ARL and the NSWRL.

This act of betrayal ripped the international game apart and would have exposed the bare faced self interest of the RFL. An organisation I might add that was regularly embarrassed at meetings of the old International Board when BARLA were praised by the ARL for spreading the game internationally in the face of RFL inactivity.

In terms of seasons the point I was making was when the Australian game was reunited and the season was being planned again the international game was merely an after thought. All good will towards the New Zealanders and British had gone. The British had stabbed their Australian friends in the back and they were not going to go out of their way to help British rugby league for the greater good of the game.

 

I'm sorry but I just don't believe this. If they were so annoyed they wouldn't send squads over at all, why would they play more often now than they used to. It seems bizarre to imagine that they are doing it half-heartedly because of some sort of vendetta. They had to reunite their own game with clubs and players that had 'betrayed' the ARL, they managed to get over it with them. Like I said earlier, if we could guarantee a tour as competitive as the Lions tour they'd be begging us to come over SL War or no SL War.

 

On a separate note, I don't think it was despicable to take an unprecedented amount of money that safeguarded the future of the game for the next generation. They'd have been crazy to turn that amount of money down and we'd be in a much worse state now if they had.

 

British players playing in Australia is not just due to the salary cap and the bigger money on offer. It is also about wanting to play the highest standard of rugby league possible. When the UK still had a Winter season lots of the top players went and had stints in Australia to prove themselves as players and test themselves. If you look at the top British players in the late 1980s and early 1990s nearly all of them went and played in Australia during the off season. Hanley, Edwards, Schofield, Offiah, Davies, Lydon, Connolly etc. That had a huge positive impact on the British game. British players realised they were the equals of their Australian counterparts and when they played them in Test Matches they weren't awe struck. Also the exchange of experiences and ideas meant that the British game kept up to date with Australian developments.

However with the switch to a Summer season hardly any of the subsequent generation of players, apart from Adrian Morely, played in Australia. Andy Farrell, Sean Long, Jamie Peacock, Kieron Cunningham, Keith Senior, Kevin Sinfield etc. all missed the rugby education that is playing in Australia. No wonder the British international teams declined and no wonder the British players were star struck when it came to playing the Aussies.

You even see on this forum over debates about whether top British internationals could "make it" in the NRL. Of course they would. So would the the top 30 or 40 players in the UK if they were given the opportunity. The Australians are not super men they just happen to play in a more competitive competition that hardens their skills and their character.

The only way for the British international teams to improve is to get as many of our top players playing in Australia as possible. The British season moving to the Summer has made doing so much more difficult and has limited the connections with the Australian game. New Zealand offers a case in point, New Zealand's international chances were revolutionised when the majority of their players started playing in The NRL. The same would be true for the British too.

 

The guesting of players is something that is over-played. Firstly, it didn't happen for that long and only for a relatively short window during the late 80's and early 90's. Secondly, the players weren't nearly as successful at it as is often made out. Some of them struggled to make the grade, I recently read about how Garry Schofield apparently struggled.

 

Even if we hadn't switched to summer it would have likely dried up with full-time professionalism. Clubs are so concerned with player burnout these days, especially in such a physically demanding sport. Look at Union, we don't see European players guesting in the Super 15's despite the difference is seasons. Also, we had something similar over here for a brief time before it was outlawed. It devalued the competition.

 

Getting British players in the NRL is clearly important but the reason for the drought in 1995 compared to now is purely financial. Players that had to test themselves in Australia had to do so whilst taking a pay cut. Adrian Morley will have taken a pay cut to go and play for the Roosters. The players that tried like Thorman, Mathers etc were often taking huge risks or doing so to increase the earning potential upon returning to the UK. If you are Cunningham, Sinfield or Long for instance you had the choice to stay at your club or put your reputation on the line for less money in Australia. Sam Tomkins is looking to go for £600k a season, you'd be barmy to think that he'd be doing the same for maybe £150k whilst putting his reputation on the line.

 

From an NRL point of view, it's much easier to take a risk on a British player. Take someone like Ryan Bailey. For arguments sake imagine he is on £100k. In 2005 to offer him the same money would have meant 1/13th of your salary cap, so you either offer him less than he's on or you risk a big chunk on an unproven player. Nowadays to match his wage is just 1/32nd of your cap, why not take a risk when he could end up adapting well to the NRL.



#89 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,701 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:26 PM

Australia played France in Parkes, NSW in 1990.

 

Flicking through Rugby League Project, I didn't recognise that one! Shows the prestige that they played it in SA!



#90 Duff Duff

Duff Duff
  • Banned
  • 717 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:31 PM

Australia have played France in Australia just once in the last 31 years. This was in 1994 and came a whopping 13 years after playing them previously. They had stopped because they weren't competitive anymore.
 
The problem you have us that you jump to conclusions without evidence. I find it strange that you blame the British game for the insular nature of Australia with nothing to back it up. It was the Australian's that had a civil war that hugely disrupted the international calendar and despite this we have continued to play them with more regularity than we used to. The games aren't as prominent as before for a number of reasons.
 
The Kiwi test series were hardly enormously successful series, from recollection I think the Kiwis only ever won 3 series and crowds were pretty average. The 1989 series averaged 19,000 in NZ. It's hard to see how they would create anything like the buzz of a Lions tour. People get carried away with the three tournament victories by NZ in the last decade. Without playing down their achievements, they have played Australia 29 times in the last 10 years with just 5 victories, 2 draws and 22 defeats.
 
We still play Australia pretty often and it doesn't grab the attention of the media, making it 3 games again wouldn't magic up interest. Plus, nowadays even the 1990 tour would barely register in the media's presence. 57,000 at Wembley sounds amazing to us but it still means 20,000 (now 33,000) empty seats something that doesn't happen for routine international Union and Football matches.
 
The last idea is actually one of the reasons a real tour to Australia would struggle. We used to play representative teams and club sides and largely beat them, I would dread to think how we would compete against Queensland or NSW and think we would struggle against a standard NRL side. Even in the 1992 tour we were beaten by Parramatta. It wouldn't do our game over here any favours to see us battered by Queensland. I remember when we beat a reserve grade side (Burleigh Bears) in the last few minutes!


In terms of try Super League War the RFL under Maurice Lindsay took Murdoch's cash and shafted the ARL. The ARL was the legitimate governing body of Rugby League in Australia, had been since 1924 and had one of the five seats on the International Board. Instead of supporting a fellow member that was under attack the RFL and the NZRL ripped the international governance of the game apart and went into bed with Murdoch. That treachery had consequences.

I am in favour of three match series because they would guarantee three high profile and high value fixtures against Australia rather than just one as per the Four Nations. They are also better at focusing media attention and capturing the public imagination. The last time you had anything like that in British Rugby League was the 2004 Tri Nations when Great Britain narrowly lost to Australia in Manchester, beat them at Wigan and then lost the final in Leeds. The narrow loss and the subsequent win got people excited and engaged.

Three games series have an ebb and flow, the chance for the losing side to put mistakes right and to gain revenge. Personal feuds and rivalries can develop and carried over to the next matches. The media love that sort of stuff.

#91 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,632 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:46 PM

In terms of try Super League War the RFL under Maurice Lindsay took Murdoch's cash and shafted the ARL. The ARL was the legitimate governing body of Rugby League in Australia, had been since 1924 and had one of the five seats on the International Board. Instead of supporting a fellow member that was under attack the RFL and the NZRL ripped the international governance of the game apart and went into bed with Murdoch. That treachery had consequences.

 

I remember reading Ken Arthurson (ARL Chaiman at the time) was quoted as saying he understood why the RFL took the SL deal given the finances of the game here at the time, even if he didn't agree with the decision. The NZRL's decision was perhaps more questionable as I think they only got a couple of million for their troubles, although apart from the Kiwi team they didn't really bring much to the table anyway. Given the circumstances, I doubt the anyone would've turned down the cash on offer.



#92 Duff Duff

Duff Duff
  • Banned
  • 717 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:10 PM

Well you seem to conveniently dismiss a lot that was good about the game in the early 1990s and which came to a shuddering halt with the Super League War. Great Britain didn't play Australia for a five year period from 1994 to 1999 because of it.

Also in terms of the RFL and Maurice Lindsay's behaviour it was far from upstanding. Sure take Murdoch's money for UK TV rights and maybe even a move to a Summer season but the signing of exclusivity contracts that actively discriminated against the ARL was pretty unforgivable. Shafting your partners and friends since 1907 for a bit of extra cash. That was pretty low.

Also I wouldn't underestimate the benefits of players playing in Australia back in the 1990s either. There is no better way to get rid of an inferiority complex than to play with a and beat Kangaroos on weekly basis. Guesting might not have continued but if the seasons didn't clash it would be much easier for British players to go and play a season in the NRL and then come back to the UK. There was a strong correlation between British players having Australian experience and Great Britain being competitive.

Contrary to what you say you do get players moving pretty freely between the Hemispheres in Rugby Union. 3 or 4 of the Springboks starting XV play in Europe. The whole of Argentinan team play in South Africa or Europe too. All Blacks and Wallabies take sabbaticals in Japan and Europe before returning back to the international fold. Even a few English players have taken the trip South to play in the Super 15. The main limiting factor is that the Provincial teams in the Super 15 are Union owned and don't usually employ foreign players. Also Union runs a 12 month International season which means unless you are willing to give up international rugby you are too busy to take a busman's holiday.

#93 Duff Duff

Duff Duff
  • Banned
  • 717 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:17 PM

I remember reading Ken Arthurson (ARL Chaiman at the time) was quoted as saying he understood why the RFL took the SL deal given the finances of the game here at the time, even if he didn't agree with the decision. The NZRL's decision was perhaps more questionable as I think they only got a couple of million for their troubles, although apart from the Kiwi team they didn't really bring much to the table anyway. Given the circumstances, I doubt the anyone would've turned down the cash on offer.


That may well be but why was British Rugby League bankrupt by the early 1990s? The irresponsible behaviour of Maurice Lindsay and co at Wigan perhaps? If Lindsay was trying to solve a problem he was one of the chief architects of the financial problems in the first place.

It is the signing of the exclusivity contracts that I have a problem with. It was getting involved in Australia's domestic problems and getting involved on the wrong side.

#94 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,549 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 06:06 PM

Flicking through Rugby League Project, I didn't recognise that one! Shows the prestige that they played it in SA!

Parkes is in NSW.


rldfsignature.jpg


#95 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,549 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 06:14 PM

France had home and away games with Australia regularly until the Super League split.

http://www.rugbyleag...lts.html?page=2


 

So France played two games in Australia in 1981, one in 1990, one in 1994 and probably would have played one game in 1987 as a 1985-1988 WC qualifier. That's really, really regular. Five possible games in thirty two years.


Edited by deluded pom?, 26 June 2013 - 06:14 PM.

rldfsignature.jpg


#96 Duff Duff

Duff Duff
  • Banned
  • 717 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 06:24 PM

So France played two games in Australia in 1981, one in 1990, one in 1994 and probably would have played one game in 1987 as a 1985-1988 WC qualifier. That's really, really regular. Five possible games in thirty two years.


In the 15 year period from 1980 to 1995 France played Australia 11 times. Considering they weren't very competitive that wasn't bad going.

#97 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,549 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:04 PM

In the 15 year period from 1980 to 1995 France played Australia 11 times. Considering they weren't very competitive that wasn't bad going.

I said that Australia weren't keen on hosting France because they were a hard sell to the Aussie public. You said Australia were international champions who played games against the likes of France because of their (Australia's) benevolence. How many of those eleven games were in Australia? They only play France a s a sense of duty not any philanthropic reasons. It also helps that France is on GB's doorstep.


Edited by deluded pom?, 26 June 2013 - 07:04 PM.

rldfsignature.jpg


#98 Duff Duff

Duff Duff
  • Banned
  • 717 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:28 PM

They have to though did they? No point getting into a bickering match.

 

I just think that rugby league could have professionalised itself with having to get involved with the Super League War which then ripped the international game apart. Whether the Summer season was necessary is a question too. Personally I am not a fan. Cold and wet weather doesn't necessarily equal bad rugby.

 

Anyway I don't think the positive signs of growth in the international game in the 1990s were built upon properly. In the British context the international game is the best way gain media and public interest so the problems with the international game have a serious impact. 



#99 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,831 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:01 AM

The Super League War was an attempt to usurp the legitimate governance of Australian Rugby League by Rupert Murdoch and News Corps. Unfortunately rather than showing solidarity with the ARL the RFL and the NZRL aided and abetted Murdoch in his scheme. They froze the ARL out. From a moral viewpoint that was a despicable thing to do and it was motivated by short term greed. The RFL were not passive pawns in this. They would have known full well the consequences of their actions of betraying the ARL and the NSWRL.

This act of betrayal ripped the international game apart and would have exposed the bare faced self interest of the RFL. An organisation I might add that was regularly embarrassed at meetings of the old International Board when BARLA were praised by the ARL for spreading the game internationally in the face of RFL inactivity.

In terms of seasons the point I was making was when the Australian game was reunited and the season was being planned again the international game was merely an after thought. All good will towards the New Zealanders and British had gone. The British had stabbed their Australian friends in the back and they were not going to go out of their way to help British rugby league for the greater good of the game.

British players playing in Australia is not just due to the salary cap and the bigger money on offer. It is also about wanting to play the highest standard of rugby league possible. When the UK still had a Winter season lots of the top players went and had stints in Australia to prove themselves as players and test themselves. If you look at the top British players in the late 1980s and early 1990s nearly all of them went and played in Australia during the off season. Hanley, Edwards, Schofield, Offiah, Davies, Lydon, Connolly etc. That had a huge positive impact on the British game. British players realised they were the equals of their Australian counterparts and when they played them in Test Matches they weren't awe struck. Also the exchange of experiences and ideas meant that the British game kept up to date with Australian developments.

However with the switch to a Summer season hardly any of the subsequent generation of players, apart from Adrian Morely, played in Australia. Andy Farrell, Sean Long, Jamie Peacock, Kieron Cunningham, Keith Senior, Kevin Sinfield etc. all missed the rugby education that is playing in Australia. No wonder the British international teams declined and no wonder the British players were star struck when it came to playing the Aussies.

You even see on this forum over debates about whether top British internationals could "make it" in the NRL. Of course they would. So would the the top 30 or 40 players in the UK if they were given the opportunity. The Australians are not super men they just happen to play in a more competitive competition that hardens their skills and their character.

The only way for the British international teams to improve is to get as many of our top players playing in Australia as possible. The British season moving to the Summer has made doing so much more difficult and has limited the connections with the Australian game. New Zealand offers a case in point, New Zealand's international chances were revolutionised when the majority of their players started playing in The NRL. The same would be true for the British too.

When the UK still had a Winter season lots of the top players went and had stints in Australia to prove themselves as players and test themselves. If you look at the top British players in the late 1980s and early 1990s nearly all of them went and played in Australia during the off season. Hanley, Edwards, Schofield, Offiah, Davies, Lydon, Connolly etc. That had a huge positive impact on the British game.

 

Agree entirely,even though it left the likes of Hanley and Edwards with long term niggling injuries. It also added the international news dimension that we lacked and though a causal link might be hard to establish, it did coincide with a few years when we were relatively competitive at international level, with reasonable Wembley crowds.

 

The problem with  Maurice Lindsay was that there was no one else in the UK game with the vision, drive, power, capability etc to keep up with him and he was disliked by many because he WAS such an achiever . Martin Offiah was transferred from Widnes for  I think £440,000 and he'd persuaded Norweb, the north west electricity company, to pay. The signing press conference was on UK national TV news. 

 

Of course, in true  UK rugby league fashion, the reactionary forces that have held our game back (and still do- you've read some of their posts on here), those who claim to want success but then do everything to prevent it , preferring to restrict it to a small town semi pro  north country game



#100 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,313 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:10 AM

There are too many people in RL who give reasons as to why we can't do something, this holds us back.

 

Sports have grown through more international comps - whether it is the growth of the UEFA Champions League or the Heineken Cup - yet we constantly look at reasons why we can't expand the WCC. The fact is we can - we need to decide to make the financial investment and make the commitment to either reduce the number of regular games to allow this (or simply accept that teams will be hampered in the regular league).

 

Similar thing with International Tours - I'd love the RFL and Clubs to say 'sod this' and have a tour during the months of May. You can take 40 players out of the Super League and do you know what, the game won't die. We probably have that many out injured at any one time. Other sports do it and get on with it, we give so much focus to our club game and then wonder why people aren;t interested in Warrington playing Wigan on a Monday night.

 

Sport as a neutral is nowhere near as much fun as being able to root for a team.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users