Jump to content

B rad

Coach
  • Posts

    1,160
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

6,655 profile views

B rad's Achievements

691

Reputation

  1. He can be dodgy under the high ball. Centre would remove that problem. The Joseph Suaalii experiment at centre started off well but has really plummeted into mediocrity. Fans are screaming for him to move back to the wing, but Robbo so far is stubborn. Maybe he will bend next year and Dom Young will get a go in the centres. Time will tell. I hope he does.
  2. So copping a bit of flack for the idea. I'd just like to point out a few things. 1 How is a Great Britain team picked from the NRL less credible than an English team only picked from Super League? 2 How is a Great Britain team with players actually eligible for Scotland, Wales and Ireland in it, less credible than the English team using the name Great Britain? 3 Surely this is more relevant than the Combined Nations' All-Stars, a team created for the exact same purpose.
  3. I seem to remember the NRL was against a New Zealand vs English test in Denver. They did it anyway. Considering the number of players involved in representative rugby league due to the State of Origin they don't really have a great argument against one test match for GB-eligible and New Zealand players. They could play it on Wednesday night before Origin in Auckland which is a couple of hours behind Sydney as not to interfere too much with the Origin timeslot. Fair is fair. They shouldn't be able to have a rule for one group of players and not others.
  4. I am not suggesting the NRL go behind the England RL's back and create a non-sanctioned test. I am suggesting the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish RL create a game that will benefit themselves and the New Zealand RL who are neglected when it comes to representative opportunities compared to other nations. England is playing a test against France already, minus a large chunk of their top talent, which is fine since France will probably benefit more from playing against a weakened England than a full-strength one at this point in their development. But it's still unfair for English players in the NRL and it's always been unfair for New Zealand players who without mid-season tests are also unavailable for the State of Origin. An NRL GB is at least more diverse than the typical GB which is usually England in a different jersey. It creates a larger benefit for the Celtic nations who are suddenly more represented.
  5. While English Super League players are playing France mid-season as Australian, Samoan, Tongan, Fijian, and PNG players are playing State of Origin, New Zealand and NRL-contracted English players are twiddling their thumbs. An NRL Great Britain side vs NZ would certainly tick a lot of boxes. It would : Give NZ a much needed home game giving Kiwi fans more exposure to Rugby League as NZ Rugby Union stumbles just a little bit. : Give NRL-contracted English players a test match so they don't miss out on rep duty just because they are in a different RL competition. : Give Irish Scottish and Welsh heritage players an opportunity to continue to be associated their nation of heritage outside of RLWCs and encourage them to take part in tournaments between World Cups. : Give both nations an opportunity to build rep experience and combinations for end of season tournaments An NRL Great Britain might look similar to this 1 Herbie Farnsworth (Eng) 2 Dom Young (Eng) 3 Euan Aitken (Scot) 4 Bradman Best (Wales) 5 Campbell Graham (Scot) 6 Luke Keary (Ire) 7 Jackson Hastings (Eng) 8 Tom Burgess (Eng) 9 Josh Hodgson (Eng) 10 Luke Thompson (Eng) 11 Elliot Whitehead (Eng) 12 John Bateman (Eng) 13 Victor Radley (Eng) 14 Ryan Sutton (Eng) 15 Tyson Frizell (Wales) 16 Max King (Eng) 17 Tom Starling (Ire) 18 Jamain Jolliffe (Ire) 19 Oliver Gildart (Eng) 20 Josh Curran (Ire) 21 Bailey Hodgson (Eng) * Sam Walker if not counted as a Tier 1 game. * Players representing Celtic nations should have their test counted as Tier 2 as to not restrict them from other rep football.
  6. Completely fair enough. English fans have had it very tough for probably over a decade now with "almost got there" shots at glory. I do feel terrible for you. Sooner or later you got to have a win. This English team is strong and that win can't be that far away. There is a massive amount of silver lining for Rugby League with Samoa winning though. 1: It is a massive deal for Samoa who has never had any team of any sport make a World Cup final 2: It firmly puts the game of Rugby League in the spotlight for Samoans if they live in Samoa, New Zealand, Australia or anywhere else in the world. 3: A lot of Samoan kids, most of heritage will look at this, and create heroes of guys like Apia born Stephen Crichton and I am sure quite a few will be having conversations with their parents about which Rugby code they want to play in come next season. 4: It gives the game more scenes similar to when Tonga did what they did, throwing international RL into the faces of administrators and almost forcing them to take the international game more seriously. 5: It gives the game another international power that can compete and win competitions. 6: It makes the decision of who to represent for players like Payne Haas, Jeremiah Nanai, and Tino Fa'asumaleaui much more difficult when they see the effect this team has had on their heritage nation. Take some of these players out of Australia and they become a little bit weaker while Samoa becomes a lot stronger. It sucks that England lost for English fan's sake, but at least a lot of good came will come from it.
  7. It's not that different from a 4 nations tournament. It's a 5 nations with a pool B + promotion-relegation. When the 4 nations were happening there was a Euro and a Pacific qualifier in the same years. So it shouldn't be that hard.
  8. World Cup winners/World Champions Why does it have to be different or why does it have to be determined every 4 years? If the Kangaroos go on a tour of England and beat them or the other way around they are not world champions because they only beat one nation that year. If New Zealand wins the Pacific Cup then they are not World Champions because they did not beat England or Australia if they did not participate in that Pacific Cup tournament. But if there is a tournament with all the top nations, like the one I am suggesting then whatever nation beats the other top nations is the best in the world for that particular year. They are the World Champions are they not? Being recognized as the World Champion would be a massive boost for so many nations if they won it, and they would have an opportunity every year rather than wait and hope every 4 years they are not hamstrung by injuries or suspension for that particular World Cup year. How long has it been since England won a tournament? When has Samoa or Tonga been the World Champion in any team event? Those nations would go crazy if they won the tournament and it would go a long way toward promoting the code. How good would it be for the Kiwis to be World Champions at the moment while the All Blacks are having trouble and, If Australia wins it year in and out, well they deserve their title, don't they. If any of those top nations have a really strong team and beat all the top nations they should be officially recognized as the World Champions it doesn't matter if it's a world cup year or not.
  9. It's the World Championship because whoever wins are the "World Champions" for that year. It's a title that adds prestige and motivation. Who doesn't want to be recognized as a world champion?
  10. The reason is they have a gun forward pack and they were trying to fit him in.
  11. Every year there is a discussion about what the game should be doing between World Cups. Tours, 4 nations, and Pacific and European cups are all thrown up. A lot of the time International RL administrators go with those, chopping and changing as time goes by. It's at the point a casual fan doesn't know what international games are coming up. We just had a situation where the winners of the last RLWC Australia still haven't played England the runners-up since 2017 and may not yet if Samoa wins the semi-final this weekend. Kangaroo/Kiwi tours ignore the Pacific nations, and Pacific Cups ignore England and France. There are more than 4 nations that are competitive since those tournaments use to take place. The game has evolved, there are new nations that are strong now and the international calendar needs to reflect that and give everyone an opportunity to grow and build their brand. Players need to be motivated to represent these newer nations. If they can tour Europe with the Kangaroos but only play a couple of games with Samoa in New Zealand against non top 3 nations players will go with the Kangaroos. The calendar needs to be even for all nations involved and not promote one nation over another. There can't be an advantage in playing for one nation over another. That goes for payment and facilities as well. We need something consistent, something inclusive of all the top nations, something that makes sure the best nations get a chance to play each other each and every year and we need something that has a title players and nations want to win. We can't predict what is going to happen in the world (Covid for example) and we can't predict which teams are going to have injuries, lack of form, or withdrawals of top players just like we can't predict which teams are going to have a window of excellence where all their top players are available and in top form. That's the advantage of an annual tournament featuring the top nations. They all get to play each other no matter what. It works for 6 nations in Rugby Union, and it can work for Rugby League but a little bit bigger and a little bit better. The format is really simple. Two pools of five nations. A Gold pool for the top 5 and a Silver pool for the next 5 with promotion and relegation each year. The winners of the gold pool are the World Champions for that year. We have 5 because the NRL has stated they want 4 games a year for the end-of-season representative period. They have the money so they will probably have to foot some of the bills as they have done in the past with the Pacific Nations tournaments. If the demand for more international games gets bigger in the future and the brand of the nations grows then the IntRL will be in a position to extend it to more games or add more pools. So it might look like this by the end of the RLWC depending on rank. Example Gold Pool New Zealand, Australia, England, Samoa, Tonga Silver Pool Fiji, PNG, France, Lebanon, Ireland Other nations play regionals and win the right to challenge the last-place Silver pool nation to gain promotion. This system also reduces the chance of blowout scores keeping the very top away from the rising nations until they are ready. Depending on who is in the pools determines where games are played. One year England might have all its games at home the next they might have to play all their games in the Pacific/NZ/Aus. New Zealand, Tonga, and Samoa are a good chance to fill out Eden Park with 50 thousand capacity. When they play each other they should play there. Fiji and PNG traditionally don't draw big crowds outside of their home nations. Most of their games should be played at home. If France have to go to the Pacific one year they could play some of their game in New Caledonia. If its safe maybe one year Lebanon might even get a chance to play a home game. Be strategic, look for where the biggest crowds can be created, and don't neglect nations leaving them without a home game for years on end. This tournament boasts what other annual rugby league tournaments cant. It IS the best of the best each and every year. Tommy Makinson vs the Fox, Joey Manu vs Tedesco. It is the only way to create a rivalry between players and nations on a regular basis.
  12. He can't do much if he doesn't get much game time. The thing is if he gets opportunities he can do things other players can't do. Most of the time he can't do it all himself (though sometimes he does). He is going to get tackled more times than not but on occasion, he will push off 5 guys and score tries. He destroyed France and did well vs PNG. Samoa had him fairly well covered with a lot of guys hitting as he got the ball. He got 35 minutes against Samoa. He needs more than that. After the big bash and barge opening 20 minutes Woolf should have put him on and left him on. The problem with Fifita is people expect him to break 3 tackles every time he touches the ball. Thats unrealistic.
  13. This whole system is just so ridiculously flawed to me. Apologies to English fans who use it in Superleague and are defending it but I need to ask (and I think you need to ask yourself as well), do you like it because you are use to it or because you genuinely think its superior. Lets look at a comparison below. So what is the starting pack for Samoa? Can you tell me with out guessing? The game is a few days away. Is it really ideal that we won't know who the starting pack, reserve bench and players on standby are until a short time before they run onto the field? Do prefer that to knowing what the team is? Why? What if we want to put a bet on and find out our first try scorer isn't actually in the team. Not only that it removes conversation around the team that hypes the game up. Who is coming off the bench and what kind of impact they will have. If one player deserves his starting spot over someone else. How will they use their rotation? I've already said on twitter lucky I know Young and May are wingers otherwise it might be confusing. Its Tyrone May, Taylan Mays brother, but he is wearing the same jersey as the opposition winger and is opposite him in the line up. Mistakes that would never have been made if they were just numbered in their position rather than semi random squad numbers. But its easier to identify them if they were the same number over the tournament! Here is a crazy concept. You could do that by just learning their name like we do in every other facet of our existence. Is learning a name actually that much harder than learning a number? And of course squad numbers take away the ability to make it easier to know where someone is playing and their role in the team. It takes away the reward of earning that jumper and it removes players from the legacy of other players who have worn that number before them. If Cleary becomes the halfback he is in a group of players like Langer, Johns, Cronk who have worn that number before, but now that prestige is gone. Cleary is stuck with 14 as his debut jersey if he was starting or not. I think the Australians made the issue worse by using the insane number system they chose to, but they were right on by pointing out that positional numbers have so many advantages over squad numbers which in essence is an attempt to sacrifice a part of the games identity to be like other sports.
  14. France had a good last 15 minutes. Had all the ball.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.