Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

roughyedspud

Why a GB tour in 2015 is deeply flawed

94 posts in this topic

Like you've said, why can't Scotland, Ireland, Wales etc tour or have PNG, Samoa etc come over here and tour as part of there own comp and or a curtain raiser to the four nations?

Wouldn't know for definite, but I suspect money (or lack of) is a big limiting factor. Also - and this is in no way intended to be disrespectful of the likes of PNG and Samoa - but the attraction for a player to tour these pacific nations will probably be a lot less than playing Aus or NZ, so those eligible will still opt to play for England as it offers them more opportunity. Not only that, but I suspect the attraction for a player to tour these pacific nations (and remuneration) may not outweigh the benefits of a longer off-season in terms of recovery and training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equally I could throw back that Ireland played England in a WC semi final (and pushed them close) before GB had disbanded, and therefore played in more 'proper games' than they currently do... I don't think that picking and choosing selected stats really makes either argument conclusive.

Ireland have never made the RLWC semi final.

Picking and choosing stats is one thing. Making them up is another.

What I'm getting at is that very little has changed since GB disbanded, despite folk saying that now is a far better scenario for these smaller teams.

How much do you expect to change in 4 years? It's long term we're looking at. Wales are producing more if their own players than ever.

What has definitely changed is that the likes of Danny Brough and Michael McIlorum have now opted to play for England instead of Scotland and Ireland, respectively.

Come this World Cup, do you think they'd have stuck with those nations if GB were still around? Surely they'd rather have a shot at winning the World Cup with their actual nation than sticking with their heritage nation? Has nothing to do with GB really.

I know that people argue that we need 'home grown' players representing these other home nations - and I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment - but the reality is that will be years away from making these teams competitive on the international stage.

Yes, and? Is that a reason to give up and bring back GB? Absolutely not.

In contrast, if you look at NSW and Queensland, then they will look to recruit whatever players make them more competitive, hence the controversies over NZ-born players opting to play Origin.

I don't see how State of Origin is relevant at all?

My proposal would see the celtic nations playing more high profile games than they currently do, whilst also allowing their players to play for GB against Aus or NZ in the autumn internationals.

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.

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).

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

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't know for definite, but I suspect money (or lack of) is a big limiting factor. Also - and this is in no way intended to be disrespectful of the likes of PNG and Samoa - but the attraction for a player to tour these pacific nations will probably be a lot less than playing Aus or NZ, so those eligible will still opt to play for England as it offers them more opportunity. Not only that, but I suspect the attraction for a player to tour these pacific nations (and remuneration) may not outweigh the benefits of a longer off-season in terms of recovery and training.

 

I'd assume the same regarding financial restrictions but surely that could be reduced if the home nations toured together. England were in South Africa 'bonding', they could have had a run out against the South African side (Rhinos is it?) If the England academy can tour Australia then why can't the full side for Scotland, Ireland and Wales do similar?

 

Equally if you're new to RL, say for example as a Welsh fan, would you rather see your team compete/beat Scotland and Ireland or get trounced by England, Aus and the Kiwis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like you've said, why can't Scotland, Ireland, Wales etc tour or have PNG, Samoa etc come over here and tour as part of there own comp and or a curtain raiser to the four nations?

Just to be clear, money. In 2006 when the Tri-Nations, featuring GB, was held in Australia and New Zealand, Samoa and Tonga came to Europe to play England and France in the Federation Shield. It was a good idea, the only chance to see live international rugby league at home that autumn when it had become an annual fixture.

The double header at Headingley only attracted around 5,500, an England game at the KC similar, and the final at Widnes was about half of those. Only France's home games did a bit better. People write-off the attendance for Roses matches, but they were more popular than that series.

There is no reason to expect the other home nations to even do that well. While last year Sky were not interested in a series featuring the full England team without Australia or New Zealand. So with little fan and TV interest any tour would make a loss unless the Pacific Islands can afford to invite European teams to come on a tour. So even if it would be a worthwhile investment in improving the international game we are unlikely to see any such tours.

It sucks, but until the fans are willing to support such matches it is difficult to make the case to those running the game that they are worth a large proportion of the limited development money the games has to spend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, money. In 2006 when the Tri-Nations, featuring GB, was held in Australia and New Zealand, Samoa and Tonga came to Europe to play England and France in the Federation Shield. It was a good idea, the only chance to see live international rugby league at home that autumn when it had become an annual fixture.

The double header at Headingley only attracted around 5,500, an England game at the KC similar, and the final at Widnes was about half of those. Only France's home games did a bit better. People write-off the attendance for Roses matches, but they were more popular than that series.

There is no reason to expect the other home nations to even do that well. While last year Sky were not interested in a series featuring the full England team without Australia or New Zealand. So with little fan and TV interest any tour would make a loss unless the Pacific Islands can afford to invite European teams to come on a tour. So even if it would be a worthwhile investment in improving the international game we are unlikely to see any such tours.

It sucks, but until the fans are willing to support such matches it is difficult to make the case to those running the game that they are worth a large proportion of the limited development money the games has to spend.

But the RFL will continue to persist with London?

 

Thanks for the facts and figures but surely running at a loss is worthwhile if (hopefully) it is for the benefit of the international game.

 

In an ideal scenario England's/GB's international games would be on a par with England RU/The Lions and the money that comes with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, money. In 2006 when the Tri-Nations, featuring GB, was held in Australia and New Zealand, Samoa and Tonga came to Europe to play England and France in the Federation Shield. It was a good idea, the only chance to see live international rugby league at home that autumn when it had become an annual fixture.

The double header at Headingley only attracted around 5,500, an England game at the KC similar, and the final at Widnes was about half of those. Only France's home games did a bit better. People write-off the attendance for Roses matches, but they were more popular than that series.

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

There is no reason to expect the other home nations to even do that well. [n]While last year Sky were not interested in a series featuring the full England team without Australia or New Zealand[/b]. So with little fan and TV interest any tour would make a loss unless the Pacific Islands can afford to invite European teams to come on a tour. So even if it would be a worthwhile investment in improving the international game we are unlikely to see any such tours.

Any evidence? Or just an assumption? Because the very reserve series you talked about earlier had some games on Sky.

It sucks, but until the fans are willing to support such matches it is difficult to make the case to those running the game that they are worth a large proportion of the limited development money the games has to spend.

It's up to the game to make the product for the supporters to come to, not the supporters to make the product for the game to sell!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ireland have never made the RLWC semi final.

Picking and choosing stats is one thing. Making them up is another.

How much do you expect to change in 4 years? It's long term we're looking at. Wales are producing more if their own players than ever.

Come this World Cup, do you think they'd have stuck with those nations if GB were still around? Surely they'd rather have a shot at winning the World Cup with their actual nation than sticking with their heritage nation? Has nothing to do with GB really.

Yes, and? Is that a reason to give up and bring back GB? Absolutely not.

I don't see how State of Origin is relevant at all?

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.

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).

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

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!

Spot on, you talk a lot of sense and agree with most of what you say on RL forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Money is obviously an issue - as has been pointed out though, we see plenty of tours by youth teams, so I suspect it is not impossible.

 

If Fiji toured with a fixture list like this:

 

1) Wales (Wrexham) - 5k

2) Scotland (Edinburgh) - 800

3) Ireland (Limerick) - 1500

4) England Knights - (London) - 5000

5) England - (Warrington) - 10k

6) France - (Avignon) - 10k

7) France - (Perpignan) - 8k

 

Whilst this may still lose money (or investment), then this kind of tour could certainly become attractive over time, if consistent and featuring the Pacific teams in particular who are exciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much do you expect to change in 4 years? It's long term we're looking at. Wales are producing more if their own players than ever.

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Are there plans for semi pro sides in Scotland and Ireland and if not, why not?

 

Have we given up on Scotland after the magic weekend? A magic weekend in Ireland would be good!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/combined-australia-new-zealand-anzac-team-to-take-on-england/story-e6frexnr-1226628975422

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017