Exiled Wiganer

NZRL signed a Participation Agreement. They then joined A/NRL in the 4 minutes notice announcement. I am not sure they have made their own minds up, to be honest.

Are you sure you are neither for or against? To recap, the A/NRL want to cancel this year’s World Cup, and gave the organisers 4 minutes notice that was their intention, bringing NZRL with them. They had asked for a set of COVID protocols, which have been given to them: there is ample precedent for these measures working (particularly when allied with the offer of vaccines). They did not ask the players. They have idly suggested that maybe 2022, lolz, without addressing the pretty much insurmountable barriers. They know the impact that cancelling the event will have on the rest of the world game, because their directors have spent the last 5 years sitting through monthly board meetings on the subject. This is all in the public domain. It is purely us and them - they unilaterally announced their withdrawal in a manner which they knew would cause the maximum damage to the international game, with no Plan B, and having had their concerns specifically addressed. They aren’t even bothering to address any of those points. Their behaviour by any measure is actively hostile to every other rugby league playing nation, and seemingly many of their own players.

“It’s not us and them” the sooner he packs his bags and takes his idiotic moaning home with him the better.

But they are suggesting something which looks impossible, unless much more money is stumped up, and they must know that. Oh, and they can’t even be bothered by now acknowledging the calamitous knock on effects for the rest of the world. For years the Oz papers have referred to the pro game as NRL rather than rugby league. This is the natural endpoint of that. They are literally a law to themselves.

What still amazes me about the NRL’s statement and indeed the entire Australian me me me approach is that there is no suggestion as to how a 2022 World Cup would happen, or any acknowledgement of the efforts other sports are taking when faced with the same challenges and the costs and vast wider impact associated with any rearranged tournament. Or are they offering to pay for the delay, and I missed it? It seems to me that NRL is now a rival sport intent on destroying anything it can’t control.

Les mots justes.

And that is a massive question. Or, looking at it another way, why would anyone - individual, government or sponsor -invest money, time and effort in preparing for a World Cup if that is completely wasted because NRL go “nah”?

At this stage, the only thing that matters is getting the World Cup on this year (or genuinely postponed with a genuine plan which everyone is happy with). The people least affected by the cancellation are the NRL, but there are a host of other people directly affected. The players, of course, and the women’s comp and the wheelchair comp, the RLWC, the IRL, ERL and APRL, who all rely on income from this. Every developing member nation will be harmed, every initiative across the game will be harmed. Our reputation as a sport with broadcasters and with sponsors and with host towns and communities will be destroyed. Nobody will touch us as a sport when we come selling the next European championships or World Cup. The French Government are being asked to underwrite a potentially large investment in an event which the NRL can veto on no notice for no good reason. And these are all initiatives which have been made possible by the efforts of thousands of people spending millions of hours for little, if any, reward. Many of whom will have been crushed by the NRL’s betrayal. VLandys and co will be pretty much completely insulated against this, and worse, wilfully oblivious. If we get the Indigenous team and the Maoris we can move forward and salvage enough to make this a celebration of our game. If we have to live with an asterisk, so be it. That is a small price to pay for the benefits of having any competition.

The NZ Maori team from the 2000 World Cup is an even better precedent.

Perhaps Hill has done his own cost benefit analysis?

Good article on the BBC from the players’ union. It is worth bearing in mind that the NRL has attempted to dictate to not just the Pacific Nations but also the RLPA. Both of those bodies have more power now than in the past, and their interests are not directly aligned at all.

I am not sure pressure is the right word. The Government are doing all they can to make sure a competition can go ahead, and are prepared to pay more for that to happen.

A week on and we still have some hope. It could have been all over by now.

Beattie’s quote is interesting up to a point (and only up to a point). I have seen or heard nothing at all to suggest that the World Cup can be postponed without major trauma being caused to the game. If he believes this is “common sense” then either he is an idiot, he is lying or he should be able to frame a proposal for how that postponement could be achieved. It is one thing to pull his own team out, but it is something else entirely to demand that the whole show be shifted. It is progress to get at least a quote from him. I guarantee that, had the players and Pacific caved by now, we would not have heard a peep. Troy Grant has played a legendary hand on this so far.

JT = Tonga JT = Legend If we have another child, they will be called Taumololo.

I think (on balance) we will have a World Cup, and that it may well include an Indigenous team. And if it does go ahead, I think it will be a fantastic success. The UK Government’s response has been superb - not just holding the line but directly supportive. It can’t do any harm that we are already emerging from our exit wave, and that even gloomsters on SAGE are being optimistic in public. By now, Vlandys and Gould expected the whole thing to have folded, but they have under estimated their ability to dictate to the world. You cannot over state the significance of Tonga’s staying on board. With PNG solid, that may well be enough for all of the Pacific Nations to hold the line. The ARL and NRL have also effectively treated the Pacific Nations with complete contempt, as well as the NH and the rest of the world, and that looks to have failed. It is one thing announcing that they’re not going, and everyone caving in, but to prevent this taking place may well require them to effectively force players not to go who could play for other countries. If there is one thing that could unite the Pacific nations it would be being dictated to in that way. This has not panned out as they expected, and there is a lot still to play for. Choosing Gould as the ambassador to make their case is something of a godsend to us, as he is so obviously a fool.

It’s not that they won’t play for the Roos, as they don’t want the Roos ever to play again. It’s the clear implication that SoO is no longer the pinnacle.

You’re still watching the NRL? After this week?

Deleted toollish comment from me.

I don’t know how long you have watched the game, but it is based on purely logical reasoning. I have seen lots of players selected to play for England based on their form in the Australian competition, and cannot recall a single one whom I had not seen over here who made me think that the NRL was producing better England qualified players than our competition. Hence my argument is simple - I would counsel caution in assuming that Sutton, say, has become a better player than the middle of road squad player that we see. We can call this the Josh Hodgson Principle if you like.

I had watched the game with the sound off, and saw that he had 1 on his back I fast forwarded to when Brisbane had the ball, so saw his taking it out of defence I assumed they had an odd formation for kick returns. Edited to remove toollish comment from me.

I thought Farnworth was good in the game I watched against the Raiders, in a really poor side. Not great, and not in the top 5 NRL fullbacks I have seen in the last week, but not hopeless by any means. He may develop in time to be a really good player, or do a Sutton, and cement his place as an NRL top 17 player. I remain unconvinced that he is a better 1 than Tomkins or Hardaker or a better centre than Percival, Gildart, Newman or King, but he may be as good as those centres. Again, everything I have seen over many years makes me doubt the assumption that any NRL starter is bound to be better than the best of SL.

I really don’t mean to offend the Farnworth fan club. You love him, I get that. I am sure there are still annual reunions of the Reed and Heighington fan clubs as well, where they can swap stats all day. As I don’t pick the side, you will be pleased to know, whether he is selected or does well for England is out of my hands.

It is not a lazy comparison at all, it is directly relevant because he was 1) an NRL starter but not an NRL star, 2) played for Brisbane and 3) was a centre. It would be impossible to find a more like for like comparison. I would pick all of the 4 SL players - Gildart, Newman, Percival and King - on what I have seen of the 5 of them. I have yet to see an answer that addresses the Jack Reed precedent/comparison, simply “you’re a nutter for doubting him”. To show that I do not have a closed mind when it comes to players plying their trade in the NRL - which is a very good competition, don’t get me wrong - if I were looking at NRL players who could make a difference, then Burgess, Thompson, Whitehead and Radley (though I think he has said he isn’t British) would be in my squad. I accept that Burgess played no top level rugby over here, but I can, I’m afraid, be hypocritical when it suits me...

My god, it’s the Farnworth Inquisition. My comment around hyperbole was a comment on my own comment, which was originally light hearted but seized on in a self righteous rant. I don’t mind the group think, and am not personally attacking anyone (at least as far as I recall, and if I have I apologise), I simply believe that we would be wasting our time picking him ahead of the 4 SL players I have named above, based on having spent many hours watching all of them (thanks, Sky) and seen ourselves repeatedly mistaking average NRL players for the way forward for the national team. I don’t mind swimming against the tide, and would likewise be an outlier on whether Sutton was now worth a place. I am surprised by the assumption behind the praise that 1) he is more than a Jack Reed standard player, and 2) that a Brit who holds down a place at a lower level NRL side should be considered ahead of SL stars. The first is from having watched every minute of every NRL game they have shown over here in the last 18 months and the second is from overwhelming evidence.