Jump to content

RugbyLeagueGeek

Coach
  • Content Count

    1,188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

648 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

2,861 profile views
  1. You're showing your age now! Not sure how many other people get that reference ?
  2. I agree that getting regular games is a priority. However, I'm not sure that these home nations have much if any budget to throw at such a tournament. Getting teams in camp for a 3-4 game tournament is going to cost money in terms of paying players and staff, facility hire, accommodation, stadium hire etc. I fear that their available budgets are so miniscule that it might prove a stumbling block straight away if England aren't involved. I'm not sure if playing RL for Wales in low-profile internationals is as big a draw as you think. Check out this interview with Ben Flower that had the following quotes: “It’s difficult playing for Wales, when you know that most of the time you are not going to come up against the best opposition there is,” he said. “You don’t play in the biggest games. Playing internationally should be the highlight of your career, but for me at present it isn’t." https://www.totalrl.com/ben-flower-hopeful-celtic-players-arent-picked-for-great-britain-as-token-gestures/ Also, Morgan Knowles and Regan Grace both sat out the 2018 Euro Championships and WC qualifiers, opting to rest instead. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/45895314 I love your optimism and enthusiasm, but I just can't see the top players putting their hands up to play in a tournament unless it's of a sufficiently high profile. And currently in the NH, England are the only really high profile team.
  3. I think that if England aren't involved in a Northern Hemisphere tournament, then it won't be of sufficiently high profile to attract players to play in it or generate any money. We've got quite a lot of evidence now that tells us if one of these weaker nations is involved in a big tournament (e.g. 4N or World Cup) then a higher standard of player will put their hand up to play. But if they're involved in a low profile comp (e.g. Euro Champs or WC qualifiers) then many of those same players opt not to play. So we're left with a vicious circle, in that England doesn't play these teams because they're not competitive enough, but they'll never get a chance to become competitive because they never play England.
  4. But the attacking side doesn't need to push, because they're guaranteed to win the ball anyway if the defensive side breaks quickly. Personally, I'd be happy to see the scrum go. Currently, it's a legitimate stick for people to beat the game with, in that it isn't really contested and looks a bit of a farce. If scrums become contested, then you risk ending up at the other end of the spectrum where RU spend 10 mins re-forming scrums. The bits of RL that I enjoy most are the running, passing and tackling - not the contest to see who wins possession. I find that deathly dull, and is one of the reasons I get bored to tears watching RU. In terms of the argument about the scrum creating space by getting all the forwards together, what's to stop us implementing a rule whereby we use the lines on the pitch for a re-start and have to put X players between given pitch markings? I.e. like they do in cricket where they are only allowed X fielders outside the ring for certain overs. Personally, I wouldn't be bothered about this, but it would solve the issue of how the scrum creates space on attack.
  5. That is a moronic response to a quality post
  6. There's no point is there if you're not going to actually try and answer the questions posed to you. I'm comfortable that my views on this are entirely consistent. Yours are completely hypocritical, and the only conclusion that I can come to is that your views are based around what happens to your club. So all of your views are biased because of this, and your wider opinions on what is best for the game as a whole therefore lack credibility.
  7. Is that because they can't survive without a 75k handout? If so, then they aren't a strong enough club to be playing semi-pro. I don't want to see any clubs go out of existence, but in the same breath f they offer nothing above paying a few players a few quid to play every week, then what would the game actually miss if they did disappear? You can't on one hand claim that these clubs are strong enough to be in a P&R system, and then simultaneously argue that they will go out of existence if they get relegated out of it. There's no consistency in your argument. If we replace "L1" with "SL" in your quote above, then suddenly your argument flips rounds and you're quite happy to see clubs put in financial strife if it means your club can get promoted. Hypocritical.
  8. With respect, that doesn't answer my question. And yes, you may have the better of me... But then again you may not...
  9. But loads of those semi-pro clubs haven't got enough money either. So why are you advocating that they should be in a P&R system? There's no consistency in your argument.
  10. And still no answer... I'll leave it there. You can put the bucket back on your head now.
  11. Well that shows that maybe you don't know as much about the amateur game as you think you do. And you still haven't answered my question... It's ok - take your time.
  12. I've named a few. And you dismissed them all. You didn't like my answers, but at least I provided some. So do you have an answer to my question?
×
×
  • Create New...