arcticchris

Seems decent but probably makes sense all round as a bench spot at Wigan is more likely for Farrimond/Taylor Kerr and Clark is getting on in age so there could be a starting role at Saints in a years time.

I get what you are saying and can understand it. In this case I feel it is negated a bit by Samoa simply never looking like they felt they could win. In contrast Tonga looked like they felt they had it in them to beat NZ.

Essentially yes

Samoa put in an embarrassing display. It was clear from very early on that they didn’t believe they could win and they showed very little composure by getting into spats all over the field and poor line discipline in defence. It should be noted that Australia got 90%+ of the marginal decisions although they would have won easily with or without that help.

Perfect move if you want to impact the final statistics with a 0% chance of making a meaningful impact on the game.

Don’t like this move as it feels far too tenuous. what could be a realistic tweak to the rules is allowing descendants of those who have played for a nation to be eligible up to the same 2 generation qualifying criteria.

For 55 minutes it was one of the best games of Rugby League I have seen in a long time but after that New Zealand simply played the conditions far better. They had the run of the ball at times but showed greater composure and took full advantage.

Hardly surprising considering the geography of the two places. I was just highlighting that Utah wasn’t quite as bizarre and WTF a choice as it would first appear, though I would still say it’s a very bold/brave/stupid move (delete as per personal opinion).

There was a big reaction in Utah to the Tonga win against Samoa last week that was widely covered on social media so likely a strong diaspora community there. Likewise Hawaii has a significant Polynesian population.

In some ways it will now be nice to fully lean into the rivalry, colour, noise, history etc of this island clash between two very good teams without having the distraction of wanting a particular outcome due to what England needed to happen to stay alive as that is now dead barring something bad like a first 10 minutes red card for Samoa.

That was a weird game. We were utterly woeful for 20+ minutes, looked dangerous striking at pace from deep with the back 5 but in the final 20 metres when heeding creativity from the halves we looked deeply ordinary. Hard to understand how we scored 80 points while still looking laboured. Welsby nearly getting run down on the support line when fairly new into the game was shocking and surely he can’t be picked again with that lack of pace.

What do we need to win by to ensure that even a single point win for Tonga is enough to go through?

One big flaw is is using H2H as a determining factor when the teams all play only 3 games. It’s too big a proportion of things. At first look Tonga had the roughest draw as they were the least likely of the big 3 in groups B/C to win all 3 of their matches based on the fixture lists but at the same time they have the least jeopardy as winning either the England or the Samoa game would guarantee their place in the semi finals due to H2H record.

As a neutral who favoured the kiwis as underdogs it was always wryly amusing how, whenever a mid season transfer-Tasman clash loomed, a key NZ player would find themselves in front of the disciplinary committee on a spurious charge and given a magic ban exactly long enough to rule them out of the test match.

I don’t know how the rules are drafted but surely logic would dictate that to be able to serve a ban you have to actually be selected in the squad. To be able to run down a ban and have a replacement player in the meantime is absurd but this is rugby league administration we are talking about. I have never thought that domestic league bans should be carried forward to international games or Origin.