Sign in to follow this  
DoubleD

USA announce 23 man squad

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

http://www.rlwc2017.com/news/team-usa

Strong domestic contingent. They'll do well to get close to matching last tournaments achievements 

Not so many ringers, no, but I think that may earn them some more support from neutrals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Futtocks said:

Not so many ringers, no, but I think that may earn them some more support from neutrals.

Yep, and nice to see a good spread of players amongst the USA teams, good luck to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done USA. Also gives the players a chance to put themselves in the spotlight and move. I don't think they will be as bad as many are predicting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best news for a long time. 12 actual Americans. Brilliant. One day we will look back and cringe at the "Heritage" nonsense that has led International Rugby League down a dead end street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Frog said:

Best news for a long time. 12 actual Americans. Brilliant. One day we will look back and cringe at the "Heritage" nonsense that has led International Rugby League down a dead end street.

I'll look back at it as pragmatism, in order to get things going for emerging nations.

In those countries where it actually did get things going, that is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

I'll look back at it as pragmatism, in order to get things going for emerging nations.

In those countries where it actually did get things going, that is.

I understand that. I regard it as a failed experiment. Of course a lot of people would disagree with me. This is a forum after all. For evidence I suggest the example of Scotland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Frog said:

I understand that. I regard it as a failed experiment. Of course a lot of people would disagree with me. This is a forum after all. For evidence I suggest the example of Scotland.

For counter evidence I suggest the example of Lebanon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Frog said:

I understand that. I regard it as a failed experiment. Of course a lot of people would disagree with me. This is a forum after all. For evidence I suggest the example of Scotland.

Failed? On the contrary.

Up from ZERO Americans in 2013 to now 12 from 23. Lebanon and Italy are likely to have increases in their domestic contingents. And even Wales has benefited from the 'experiment'; have a look at their 2000 WC roster, with only three Welsh-born players in the squad, the same number as were born in Oldham!!!! Yet their stirring Semi-Final performance against Australia went a big someway to re-kindling interest in RL in an otherwise bleak period for the sport in the Principality.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit of which came first here. The chicken or the egg. I doubt I'm not the only one that sees heritage teams as counterproductive. I would enjoy watching genuine Lebanese or Italian players playing for their Country than any contrived Australian made up team  in the World Cup. Sure it would make for a less competitive event but so what. A World Cup is primarily supposed to be a competition between nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Frog said:

Bit of which came first here. The chicken or the egg. I doubt I'm not the only one that sees heritage teams as counterproductive. I would enjoy watching genuine Lebanese or Italian players playing for their Country than any contrived Australian made up team  in the World Cup. Sure it would make for a less competitive event but so what. A World Cup is primarily supposed to be a competition between nations.

Would the still modest yet very encouraging progress being made in South America have happened without the kick start by Latin Heat in Australia. The initial Internationals fielded teams made wholly of heritage players, but it's been through the efforts of these guys that the game has been launched back in their nations of origin.

Without the Heritage start I seriously doubt we'd have small domestic comps in Argentina and Chile.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Frog said:

Bit of which came first here. The chicken or the egg. I doubt I'm not the only one that sees heritage teams as counterproductive. I would enjoy watching genuine Lebanese or Italian players playing for their Country than any contrived Australian made up team  in the World Cup. Sure it would make for a less competitive event but so what. A World Cup is primarily supposed to be a competition between nations.

Or a high level competition, see. 
Homegrown Lebanese and Italian players are being called and picked to play lots of International football season by season, so I can't see how picking heritage players when it comes to the pinnacle of the sports is stopping them from emerging. 
Btw, how do you think this Emergin' Nations are financing their local game/development? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok . The consensus here might be the RLWC is a vehicle for promoting the game. That's ok up to a point but it still needs to be "International". A difficult balance to achieve .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

Past tense I notice.

Pedant😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

and proud.

And proud isn't a full sentence. Bad practice to begin a sentence with "and". Pedantry obviously isn't for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, deluded pom? said:

Past tense I notice.

Doesn't necessarily exclude the present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/09/2017 at 4:21 PM, Frog said:

And proud isn't a full sentence. Bad practice to begin a sentence with "and". Pedantry obviously isn't for you.

If we're being pedantic, you didn't finish your sentence with a full stop, so he was just continuing yours (hence the lack of capitalisation on "and".

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

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  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



100 Days That Shook Rugby League

League Express - Every Monday

Rugby League World - Oct 2017