Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
deluded pom?

Lewis Blocked by Kiwis and Australia?

122 posts in this topic

I dont agree, the games between the small nations would have been just as competitive with or without aussies because both teams would have been in the same boat. I was at Parramatta for the Samoa vs. Ireland game which was agreat spectacle with a decent crowd, would it have been jjust as good without all the 'heritage players'? Yeah I think so, cos neither would have had them!!!

Big names sell tickets.

If you don't mind watching two teams play each other with no idea who is playing for each team then that is great but it is not the case with most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big names sell tickets.

If you don't mind watching two teams play each other with no idea who is playing for each team then that is great but it is not the case with most people.

Surely twenty six monkeys playing RL would draw a massive attendance in Sydney wouldn't it? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely twenty six monkeys playing RL would draw a massive attendance in Sydney wouldn't it? :ph34r:

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big names sell tickets.

If you don't mind watching two teams play each other with no idea who is playing for each team then that is great but it is not the case with most people.

Fair point, altho I didn't know half the players anyway! Although I loved the introduction of Wayne Kerr from the bench!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont agree, the games between the small nations would have been just as competitive with or without aussies because both teams would have been in the same boat. I was at Parramatta for the Samoa vs. Ireland game which was agreat spectacle with a decent crowd, would it have been jjust as good without all the 'heritage players'? Yeah I think so, cos neither would have had them!!!

the crowd wouldve been 2000 without those name players

we got good crowds for all those minor games

the idea is develop the World Cup into a credible competition which makes a lot of money, then use the money and prestige off it to develop RL in those smaller nations

what you and others like you are asking for will set international RL back 20 years.

give it 2 or 3 good world cups boosted with aussies then make the qualification rules harder.

the last world cup was the best weve ever held, largely because of the aussie imports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the crowd wouldve been 2000 without those name players

we got good crowds for all those minor games

the idea is develop the World Cup into a credible competition which makes a lot of money, then use the money and prestige off it to develop RL in those smaller nations

what you and others like you are asking for will set international RL back 20 years.

give it 2 or 3 good world cups boosted with aussies then make the qualification rules harder.

the last world cup was the best weve ever held, largely because of the aussie imports.

Bringing in a one nation rule would help the smaller nations in the long run.At first you may get a couple of players thinking twice about playing for a developing team but once they've been overlooked by the big three eventually they will play for other countries.The benifits being that if they are a late developer themselves these smaller countries could end up with a genuine world class player on their hands with no danger of the big three nicking the player back off them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd split the current full test members into two tiers

Tier 1 = Kangaroos, Kiwis, England, a future combined Pacific Islands team

Tier 2 = France, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Cooks, Fiji, PNG, Samoa, Tonga

Tier 3 = Lebanon, Russia, Serbia, USA

Tier 4 = the rest

Like cricket and the ICC's eligibility rule, I'd suggest that a player could switch to play for only one other, different national team, but could return to the original national team after another stand-down i.e. you can't play for three national teams - which players have done in international football (Alfredo Di Stefano), Rugby Union (Topo Rodriguez). Cricket Ed Joyce played for Ireland, then England, and is looking to play for Ireland again. Cricket's ICC allows that.

I am in the 'pick one team and stick with it' camp but perhaps that is too idealistic at this stage of the games international development. In that case your idea could be the basis of a compromise - one that is based upon the reality of the sport.

Forget the idea of a PI team for the moment and just have the big three at the top. Allowing dual qualified players to switch would benefit the other nations while not depriving the game's professional players from playing at the highest possible level. A Fiji/Australia qualified player could start representative life at a young age with Fiji, bringing great benefit to both himself and the team. When he is good enough to be considered for Origin, and Australian selection, then he formally switches allegiance. When he is no longer good enough for the Kangaroos, although he will almost certainly be good enough, he can play for Fiji again.

I'm sure that used to happen in union many years ago - didn't some Aussie internationals go on to play for Argentina and Italy? It just has to be presented as a necessary aid to international development, as you point out cricket gets away with it. Make a virtue out of a necessity!

The downside is that you could reinforce the gap between the big three and the rest, but that gap is likely to stay for a long time yet. And we are only talking about dual-qualified players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. And we are only talking about dual-qualified players.

But it's not just players who have dual qualification because of birth or heritage. It also includes any player who is picked up by a SL or NRL team and is in the respective country for three years or more. This would include virtuallly any decent player to come from the PI. Uate is a prime example of this even though he's not available to be selected for Australia until 2011 because he played for Fiji in the 2009 PC. The net casts far wider than you're suggesting.

Edited by deluded pom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypocrisy of the highest order. So why wasn't Costigan blocked from playing for QL in the SoO when the ARL knew full well he had played for PNG in the new WC cycle? Instead they let him play citing that SoO players have to commit to Australia to be able to play SoO when he shouldn't have been allowed to play. It's their cock up but they expect Costigan to carry the can for them.

Edited by deluded pom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the crowd wouldve been 2000 without those name players

we got good crowds for all those minor games

the idea is develop the World Cup into a credible competition which makes a lot of money, then use the money and prestige off it to develop RL in those smaller nations

what you and others like you are asking for will set international RL back 20 years.

give it 2 or 3 good world cups boosted with aussies then make the qualification rules harder.

the last world cup was the best weve ever held, largely because of the aussie imports.

I dont recall the crowd being massive for the game, they were giving away free tickets even with the 'big names'!. I also think the idiot Samoan fans who were invading the pitch and fighting each other would have attended regardless who were in their side!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont recall the crowd being massive for the game, they were giving away free tickets even with the 'big names'!. I also think the idiot Samoan fans who were invading the pitch and fighting each other would have attended regardless who were in their side!

13,000 - 15,000 ish for the game at penrith is a brilliant result

there were some 10,000 crowds for ireland / scotland too

these are fantastic crowds tbh

i was fearing 5000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,000 - 15,000 ish for the game at penrith is a brilliant result

there were some 10,000 crowds for ireland / scotland too

these are fantastic crowds tbh

i was fearing 5000

11,787 for Samoa v Tonga, while all the other group B and C games were below 10,000. Not quite as fantastic as you make it out to have been. Having said that they were very good crowds considering the standing of the international game in Australia. Indeed the crowd for the Samoa v Tonga game is excellent when you consider Australia only attracted 16,000 when they played PNG at Townsville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,787 for Samoa v Tonga, while all the other group B and C games were below 10,000. Not quite as fantastic as you make it out to have been. Having said that they were very good crowds considering the standing of the international game in Australia. Indeed the crowd for the Samoa v Tonga game is excellent when you consider Australia only attracted 16,000 when they played PNG at Townsville.

or 25,000 odd for the semi australia vs fiji in sydney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PNG vs England - 10,780

Scotland vs France - 9,287

Tonga vs Ireland - 6,165

Samoa vs Tonga - 11,787

France vs Fiji - 9,213

PNG vs Kiwis - 11,278

Ireland v Samoa - 8,602

Scotland v Fiji - 9,720

NZ vs England - 15,145

France v Samoa - Penrith - 8,028

PNG v Australia - Townsville - 16,239

this shows the games between the smaller nations got very good crowds considering the lack of proper RL in these nations, and also in comparison to games between the big guns eg png / england, png/kiwis, nz / england

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this shows the games between the smaller nations got very good crowds considering the lack of proper RL in these nations, and also in comparison to games between the big guns eg png / england, png/kiwis, nz / england

I think the problem RL has is selling international football as an event. The semi between Aus and Fiji showed that. This was a game where the winner would go through to the WC Final, yet only 25,000 turned up because everyone knew what the outcome would be. Other sports do this much better. RU's WC is the perfect example, where ridiculously one-sided mis-matches are played out in front of massive crowds because RU has perfected the art of selling these matches as important events. RL internationals, even in the WC, are seen as less important. The $64,000 question is, of course, how do we change that preception?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the problem RL has is selling international football as an event. The semi between Aus and Fiji showed that. This was a game where the winner would go through to the WC Final, yet only 25,000 turned up because everyone knew what the outcome would be. Other sports do this much better. RU's WC is the perfect example, where ridiculously one-sided mis-matches are played out in front of massive crowds because RU has perfected the art of selling these matches as important events. RL internationals, even in the WC, are seen as less important. The $64,000 question is, of course, how do we change that preception?

There was actually less than 16k for the Aus v Fiji semi final, which was dire tbh. Especially considering the good Fiji following and the fact that there were plenty of English there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there were some 10,000 crowds for ireland / scotland too

As you have since posted there were not 10k at these games. The one I was at got over 8k and that was with the addition of some freebies! I dont think this is great for the supposed biggest city in the world of RL (altho you could argue Brisbane now holds that status) and I dont think the crowd would have massively been affected had the teams not had the NRL/SL boys playing. But, we'll probably not agree on it, just two different sides of an argument which I guess is half the fun! Overall it was a good tournament and a step in the right direction after the 8 year gap since the 2000 one. Hopefully we can build on that in 2013.

But back to the original point I still hate Nation swapping!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but Uate and Williams have both played for Fiji and Tonga respectively since the last WC so in theory should be locked in to either them or be stood down till 2011.

i thought there was no stand down period as the rule had changed to world cup cycles and no change inbetween...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As you have since posted there were not 10k at these games. The one I was at got over 8k and that was with the addition of some freebies! I dont think this is great for the supposed biggest city in the world of RL (altho you could argue Brisbane now holds that status) and I dont think the crowd would have massively been affected had the teams not had the NRL/SL boys playing. But, we'll probably not agree on it, just two different sides of an argument which I guess is half the fun! Overall it was a good tournament and a step in the right direction after the 8 year gap since the 2000 one. Hopefully we can build on that in 2013.

But back to the original point I still hate Nation swapping!

those crowds are fantastic for sydney and those standard games, as the semi aus vs fiji showed.

lets get a good run of world cups going before we make the criteria harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the problem RL has is selling international football as an event. The semi between Aus and Fiji showed that. This was a game where the winner would go through to the WC Final, yet only 25,000 turned up because everyone knew what the outcome would be. Other sports do this much better. RU's WC is the perfect example, where ridiculously one-sided mis-matches are played out in front of massive crowds because RU has perfected the art of selling these matches as important events. RL internationals, even in the WC, are seen as less important. The $64,000 question is, of course, how do we change that preception?

its not a perception, its the truth

international RL has decades of development ahead of it to get really good crowds

for now im more worried about competition between the top tier ie nz, australia and england as thats where we can have some good close games

the rest is going to take a long time ie decades and hence why i dont mind these sides being padded with aussies

until scotland, ireland have SL teams, and even PNG an nrl team they will never get close to the big guns

edit union do a good job of selling ######, i dont know how we can match it tbh. union has many fans who dont go regularly but go to an international as its an event. RL fans are more discerning and in general wont pay hard earned to watch cr&p

Edited by dallymessenger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its not a perception, its the truth

international RL has decades of development ahead of it to get really good crowds

for now im more worried about competition between the top tier ie nz, australia and england as thats where we can have some good close games

the rest is going to take a long time ie decades and hence why i dont mind these sides being padded with aussies

until scotland, ireland have SL teams, and even PNG an nrl team they will never get close to the big guns

edit union do a good job of selling ######, i dont know how we can match it tbh. union has many fans who dont go regularly but go to an international as its an event. RL fans are more discerning and in general wont pay hard earned to watch cr&p

Don't agree that PNG needs an NRL team to become competitive, a QLD Cup side and a system that gets the best juniors into NRL clubs would do nicely. The fact that there's only a n handful from a RL mad country of 6million is simple laziness.

As a fair compromise for giving them an NRL team the NRL could set up a salary cap exemption for PNG developed players and enforce a quota of 1-2 PNG juniors per Toyota Cup squad. This would make clubs search for the talent that is clearly there waiting, in 5-10 years it would make PNG competitive with the big 3 IMO. I think this is the best way to do it, as opposed to taking a massive risk in giving them an NRL team they could help the growth of the National team and give the country more local hero's.

I would start all this ASAP along with an annual mid-year game against NZ at origin time.

As for the rest, the goals for the next 5-10 years should be:

France - Getting a second SL side (maybe a third) and making them competitive without a load of Aussies.

Wales - Getting Scorpions into Championship, Getting Welsh born and bred players into the Crusaders line-up and into other SL teams.

Scotland & Ireland - Getting a Championship 1 teams mostly dependand on local players, having a few of these player progress to SL.

Rest of Europe - Getting strong domestic comps running, in some cases maybe a semi-pro team in a pre-existing League (Italy & Spain being the only likely candidates sparing something major)

USA - Introducing regional championships and having a top tier comp for the best clubs. Playing more internationals against local rivals (Canada, Jamaica etc) and stronger teams (Wales, PNG etc).

South Africa - Continue growing the game domestically, bringing NRL/SL trial games to the country. Also getting some juniors signed up by NRL clubs (solely on the clubs themselves to go looking), Du Plessis didn't work out but once one sticks alot of people will sit up and take notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.