Dave T
-
Posts
43,480 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
249
Posts posted by Dave T
-
-
3 minutes ago, Pulga said:
What other explaination do you need? Should I get the finger puppets out?
It's interesting the only people who have ANY problem with these games are Poms. I have never in my life heard anyone domestically raise any concerns about "heritage" games. It's telling.
So the cheapest flight I could find from Sao Paulo to Johannesburg is $800AUD return. Let's assume you could get a skeleton crew of 20 over, that's $16,000.
This is frankly a stupid amount of money to pay for a single game. And that's only travel. You could pay for a full-time development officer in Brazil for that.
Why are you talking about heritage games?
You're not really coming across well here at all.
-
I'm glad NSW scored then following what is pretty much a professional foil from Munster.
He held down on the back of a half break from NSW from the scrum to give a set restart on tackle 1. Happy to concede an extra tackle instead of a penalty. Its cynical and a professional foul to allow his defence to reset.
Try chalked off.
-
6 v 4 to Queensland now, 3m to go in h1.
-
Just now, RP London said:
Give your head a wobble a second...
I completely understand how privileged I am to be able to travel and how privileged I am to live where I do.. however, that is completely irrelevant to what is being said..
If you cannot afford it then you don't do it, that is a simple truth.. If you cannot fly in 20 people from Australia to play a game in Brazil, or South Africa or wherever then you don't do it (BTW no matter your privilege you still have to make these decisions, they are just at different levels). so you play domestic internationals with domestic based players because they are the ones that can play.. If you cannot do that then I fail to see how these matches help at all... (I am not questioning the players I am questioning the matches)
We wont agree on this so I wont go on but your skirting a very fine line, we understand the issues we just dont agree that this is a way to move the game forward.. why have an international like this which does no good but does make us look small
Playing intentional tests is what we should be supporting through the IRL, I understand funding is tight, but as you say, what is the point of just playing a random game in Oz?
I think there has to be a clear purpose. For example if a nation played a game there to view heritage players for a world cup, fair enough, but when nations play many of their games there, there is little point.
-
1
-
-
Queensland seem to be struggling to pass backwards (or not forwards rather).
-
5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
I can see why you keep going down this line but it's not the point that anyone is really making.
It's easier to argue things that people aren't saying as opposed to trying to explain why many internationals are just held in Oz because it's cheap.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Desert Skipper said:
The second part may well be true, but the first part has been confirmed as a myth. Price himself said it was nothing, I think Cooper was disappointed in the way the game was going that day.
I’m just looking forward to Powell working with the excellent bunch of young players breaking through. I think that’s where we start with this ‘new era’, and if it means a few fallouts, an exodus of the old guard, and a season of disjointed performances then so be it. It could be just what we need to brush the slate clean.
Why do we need to brush the slate clean though? If I want to improve my home I can build on it with some tweaks. I don't need to burn it down to start.
If my home was a dump then maybe, but it isn't.
The Wire team wasn't a car crash. It now is.
-
37 minutes ago, steve oates said:
Some do, like those with a very persistent and wealthy club owner example being Leigh.
Some don't like those without a wealthy and persistent club owner like Widnes.
P&R isn't a problem at all, it's highly exciting..........
Just like we need more players to play the game, we need more rich owners to chuck their money away at it...
I think it's the whole 'catastrophic and clubs never recover' point I disagree with. Widnes are still going, playing Rugby like a Rugby club does. Recovery doesn't mean they go back to being like they were in 1989.
We aren't gonna have 36 large clubs, people move up and down the ladder, Widnes have dropped down the ladder because that is where they are as a club. Somebody else has replaced them higher up that ladder.
-
2
-
-
26 minutes ago, RP London said:
But they played their home matches in Scotland in front of the Scottish crowds who accepted them as Scottish as they qualified by the rules set out.
Yup. I support Scotland RL as well as England and have watched them many times in Scotland. I have been critical when they have taken the cheaper option of just playing in England and would criticise them if they just played their games there.
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Pulga said:
Does anyone really think this was some rebel test match completely unknown to the governing bodies of each nation? Do people honestly think you can get 13 mates together and say you're the Kazakhstan national team and then the IRL will actively promote you across all of their social media and website along with the two confederations?
I'm honestly baffled.
The weird thing is it happens so often on here.
As for why in Oz? Rugby League is a massive sport in Australia. To find enough people of heritage from either nation with rugby league experience could only happen in Australia.
You are quoting me but ranting about stuff I haven't said, you clearly are baffled.
If discussion is beyond you, we can leave it.
-
4 minutes ago, Pulga said:
What do you mean? Nations can't put on officially sanctioned test matches without the involvement of their respective governing bodies....
I'm not sure what kind of disinformation you've been fed. I'm a little dumbfounded.
Or maybe just chill and see that people are asking genuine questions.
You clearly get very easily dumbfounded.
What was it that made the Brazil and SA governing bodies arrange and stage a game in Oz?
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, Pulga said:
God there is some absolute ignorant drivel that pops up every time a developing nation plays a game.
I'd LOVE to see anyone point out any "shortcuts" being taken by playing games in Australia. It's an absolute slap in the face to the hard working volunteers that almost entirely fund these things. The IRL rule is you need at least one grandparent born in the nation to be able to represent said nation. It's very simple. If you have a problem with that you should email the IRL. All nations have the same rule.
It's also not as black and white as these idiots think. Take for example my ex Mother-in-law. She was born in El Salvador. She had two kids in El Salvador then war broke out. She fled on foot to Honduras where she had two more kids in a refugee camp. She flew to Australia pregnant and had her 5th child there. All kids grew up together in Australia speaking 80% Spanish at home.
They could all represent El Salvador and Australia if they wanted. Only the third and 4th could represent Honduras additionally.
These immigrants and refugees often find little communities of their own where they are living a completely different lifestyle to the rest of the country.
Imagine telling my youngest brother-in-law that he's not Salvadoran enough to represent El Salvador.
Stop telling anyone to feel a certain way about their heritage. It's not up to you. As long as you meet the IRL rules it's all good.
I'd be very surprised if anyone making these comments isn't a white boomer from a politically stable nation.
The heritage point wasn't really the point here tbh.
What involvement did the SA and Brazil governing bodies have in staging this game?
Why are SA and Brazil playing in Oz? What made them choose that venue now?
-
3
-
-
16 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
You may have to find out first hand very soon
Very close to being the first on my ignore list there......
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
No Dave, I've listed the 5 clubs that have gone down since Relegation was reintroduced and demonstrated their financial woes following that. Can it be any clearer?
If Wakefield or Cas went down it would be catastrophic to their future plans. Salford may only just survive because of the shoestring they are currently ran on. It isn't clear whether Catalans would continue to exist in the Championship. The rest of Super League would struggle too.
How historic do you want to go with Bradford. 2 years before they went down (closest I could find on a quick search) they averaged 12,800 odd. That is still bigger than St Helens now I believe, who themselves are 3rd in the average attendances. Widnes weren't exactly small either.
Relegation helped neither these clubs, nor rugby league in most of these areas particularly imo.
Very happy to disagree with your view here that relegated clubs do not recover from it.
-
6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
Widnes and Bradford were relegated in normal circumstances, both either went bust or at least went into administration; Oldham likewise.
Only the 3 expansion examples didn't follow the "finish in the relegation spots and go down" model. I included them only to demonstrate how the wider effect of relegation of a club can impact the sports position.
Of the 5 different clubs relegated from Super League since the reintroduction of Relegation in 2014, all but Hull KR have had some pretty serious financial difficulties following. That has stretched from London slashing their playing budget, to Leigh's well documented cutting of its cloth mid season, to Widnes administration and Bradford being liquidated. Even at Hull KR I don't think it was a secret to anyone that if an immediate return to Super League wasn't achieved
When I say that the system should be set up so that every club can be the best version of themselves, that doesn't mean keeping clubs in or forcing clubs into Super League when they are in no way capable of performing at that level. A really good semi pro club might be the best for some.
All we are doing though are listing clubs that hit huge difficulties when in SL and added little to the comp. Bradford is probably the outlier in the historic value they brought, but that isn't the club that exists now, and it's not relegation that has done that.
I don't think P&R is the optimal solution for RL, but I see little evidence that it is so catastrophic that most clubs don't recover from it as you claimed.
-
8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
You can't ask for examples and then say "oh they're horrendous examples" Dave! I accept there have been the examples you cite, though admittedly only Hull KR are an in the past 13 years.
Oldham could well be just like Leigh if their council had built them a stadium. Fev were never forced out of their home by anyone, inside RL or at a LA level.
Personally I think the system should be designed to support clubs being the best version of themselves.
Well for starters you didn't even give examples of relegation being catastrophic for anyone. In fact you gave examples of licensing, mergers and hand picking harming clubs.
We have loads of clubs who have been relegated, found their level and cracked on. Some stronger clubs rose back to SL, some sunk further, some hovered around the top of the Championship around where they have always been.
Would the game have been better had we held Oldham and Workington in SL?
I'm OK with licensing as our approach but not because it is catastrophic for teams getting relegated. History doesn't support that.
-
Just now, dkw said:
It was relegation, coupled with not having contract clauses etc. Workington were poor, but were also shafted by the RFL ensuring Paris got a lot of help, including diverting players town were signing.
Relegation doomed the club, though it was also partially self inflicted by the boards decisions.
I suppose it was old world relegation, as you say without clauses.
And you won't get me disagreeing on the farce that was Paris.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, dkw said:
Workington dropped like a stone, barely won a game for 3 or 4 seasons and almost went out of business.
Was it relegation that did that or was it that Workington were poor at that time? Their season in SL was disastrous, as much as I personally enjoyed visiting there and had a soft spot for the club because of the likes of Rowland Phillips and Kevin Ellis playing there, and more recently hosting Scotland.
-
9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
In the modern era Dave?
Back when Wigan were relegated, just as when Manchester United were relegated from Football's top flight, it was a sporting punishment not a financial one. Now that financial gap is much bigger. Relegation from Super League is very hard to recover from even for strong historic clubs like Bradford or Widnes; both of whom have been to the brink or beyond as businesses following relegation. The lack of Super League status doomed Oldham post Watersheddings. For expansion clubs like Newcastle/Gateshead, Sheffield and North Wales, relegation from Super League effectively set the sport back decades in those areas.
I see the argument in clubs "finding their level", but equally, can the sport afford so many clubs struggling in that process?
Those clubs are horrendous examples.
Only Oldham were relegated normally and they were a weak club.
The others were evicted or resigned from SL as failures - without going into the nonsense of the 'mergers'. But they certainly weren't victims of P&R.
Hull, Salford, Hull KR, Wakefield, Cas all suffered relegation.
I'm not saying I support P&R, but I find the claims made about it over the top.
It really is a case of clubs finding their level. If Oldham were a strong club surely they'd be battling with Fev and Leigh, if they weren't in already.
-
15 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
I agree to an extent. Some clubs have however been lucky that financial circumstances, Super League "requirements" and local councils support or the opposite have been manageable at just the right time for them.
Oldham found themselves victim of aspects of those in a way say Fev, Cas or Wakey have not. Fax likewise.
Equally, relegation on Wakefield, Salford or Cas (for most clubs frankly) could be catastrophic if the right steps aren't taken. Leigh, even with an unprecedented level of parachute payment and central funding still struggled. I can only think of Hull KR who have gone down from Super League and lived to tell the tale in anything like the same way.
Relegation is often not just the result of a poor on field performance (save for a newly promoted side) I will admit. Hull KR going down was a bit of a shock, but most of the others looked doomed from kick off at the start of the season because of their off field scenario anyway. Even Wakefield in Million Pound Game 1 against Bradford had essentially binned off the entire season by round 3 for that 1 fixture.
Relegation is often a catastrophic punishment for a club which most never recover from.
Of course there will always be circumstances, call it luck or whatever, but I'm just not sure history supports your last line.
All but Wire, Leeds, Toulouse and Catalans have been relegated from the top flight in their history.
Sometimes clubs just find their level.
Which clubs have suffered catastrophically and not recovered? Because Oldham, Bradford, Widnes etc are not good examples of that.
-
8 minutes ago, Jughead said:
Multiple audiences do. There’s enough evidence across Super League of this. Enough of them? Well, no.
12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:Not really and not enough of them.
Multiple audiences isn't the issue. The issue is those that we under-index in are those that are attractive to broadcasters, sponsors and pack out your corporate boxes etc,
-
4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
Indeed, but they they were also quite dour too if the complaints were to be believed - and by the looks of things they also had a squad that got the very highest result out of it possible.
Powell hasn't been brilliant, but Warrington's squad isn't brilliant either. As I said, win a couple of games and it all looks a bit more rosey.
apologies, i pressed submit too early, have edited and address the dour point.
On your last line, I was optimistic about that before last week, but the problem is that the other teams will be picking up the odd win too.
Whilst the quality of the squad is subjective, any squad that has Ashton, Ratchford, King, Widdop, Williams, Cooper, Clark, Currie in it should not be lying in 10th over halfway through the season.
-
18 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
The Hundred and T20 are both already longer than a rugby league game that plays out two periods of golden point extra time.
If 9s is the answer (or some variant like 9s) then it is an answer to a different question.
What's interesting - insofar as anything about The Hundred is interesting - is that in this second season a lot of big name players who were available have not been signed. Instead, some of the biggest money has gone on players who might struggle to be recognised in their own living room but who can be pretty much guaranteed to be consistent and not likely to have any sudden last minute demands on their time from elsewhere.
So there's not a lot being put into it (and the marketing reflects this) about star names but there is, again, a huge amount about match day experience, value for money, and diversity.
16 minutes ago, gingerjon said:I think this oversimplifies something that cricket often, not always, does well.
It has multiple different audiences going to the same event.
Most grounds now have very distinct and obviously separate sections for the beer snakers versus the families, for those who are there to watch the cricket all day and not move versus those who are going to get up and check out the eateries and drinkeries behind the stands ...
I think these two posts are right.
We need to be very clear about what question we are answering. Thinking we can add a new format of the game like Cricket did is an odd concept to me, I see zero benefit in that. T20 solved a genuine problem - it provided a shorter format of the game with a more family friendly and fun atmosphere against the stuffiness of County Cricket.
Your point about different audiences is key for me - and this is the problem we should be solving. Diversifying our audience is key - we already have bigger numbers than some of the sports who get praise - but we do struggle for sponsors, investors, hospitality sales etc. when we have been one-dimensional in our aims - cheap and cheerful. That leads to the situation we find ourselves in where we cant increase our salary cap.
The packaging/presentation of the regular game is key on a week by week basis - our offering needs improving and to appeal to wider groups of people, and I don't mean on the field which imho is nowhere near saturation point.
We then need to supersize that for our events to maximise them and make them showpieces for the game.
We need to focus on internationals. More of them, in better grounds, as bigger events.
And we need the infrastructure behind the scenes to be right - first class digital offerings, content and broadcasting packages.
I think most of that can be done without changes to the game of Rugby, and probably within the existing competition structure.
I'm not against new formats, comps etc. (expanded WCC would be the thing to fight for, but think its not happening), but I don't think a new format would fix the problems we have.
-
2
-
-
41 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
To be fair Dave, win 2 games or so (which hasn't been impossible) and you're in that 6th place with what is clearly a poorly performing side. Win a couple more and you're in 5th!
That said I didn't think Wire looked great when they scraped past a 12 man Rhinos team in the season opener tbh, nothing since has changed my opinion.
I think there are a number of teams who are just not very good all round this year in Super League, or at least aren't consistently good. We're seeing that from basically Hull FC in 5th down it is almost entirely down to form and a coin toss who wins games between that group of clubs. That makes form crucial as slides and rises through the table are exaggerated even more by how close things are.
Last season Leeds and Warrington both managed to finish in the top 5 despite neither looking particularly brilliant all season.
Add to that mixture how Price to Powell is a major culture and coaching style change and it's bound to be a difficult transition in a single off season. Its going to be difficult for Powell too because this is the first real coaching job where he and his team have had money to play with and higher expectations with that. This hasn't been a Holbrook's St Helens style transformation nevertheless; and perhaps that is the critical failure.
I don't think this is true and is part of the rewriting of history that seems to be going on at Warrington when people try and equate this to when Smith took over a basket case of a team who had won zero for almost two decades, or Huddersfield who had finished 10th and 7th when they brought Watson in.
Wire were a strong team who lost only 6 regular season games last year. They beat Catalans in France, Saints in St Helens, Wigan at the DW and Leeds at Headingly. They were 1 point behind St Helens in the table. Wire's problem wasn't that they were a poor team, it was that they played the kind of RL that made you consider going watching Rugby Union.
To tear up everything good about that team has been reckless self-harm by Powell and team imo. They should have been building on that platform.
International: Brazil 0-82 South Africa
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
I'm afraid it does matter how you are coming across. Arrogantly dismissing everyone else's view doesn't lend itself to being very self aware.
People have engaged in discussion in good faith, you have just been rude, arrogant and borderline racist.