MatthewWoody

You're just justifying the incoherence of being against heritage players and being excited for England playing Tonga or Samoa. I can assure you sponsors from down under have helped the game in some European countries. It hasn't worked? Ok, I'd like to see who'd manage without government recognition and funds. A lot of people put their personal money in it. This, if you want to talk about Italy. This, about you Italy claim, which was disrespectful to say the least. About the thread - long before my comments in defense of this kind of fixture and against some forumers agenda against players representing their family - the thread derailed because people were attacking the use of heritage players instead of talking about the game itself. Ignoring, in addition to this, that having playable oppositions in Europe helps the likes of Wales too. But I'll tell you this... you won. I'll stop commenting. On this forum, you must be against the NRL and against heritage players. You simply must. Let's hope International Rugby League forbids the use of heritage players for European countries (while allowing for those from the Southern Hemisphere, God forbids England not having any team to play in test series) and lets the game magically flourish with bona fide local players.

Sydney Roosters prop Spencer Leniu believes an annual three-Test series between Samoa and Tonga could become State of Origin-like and sell out stadiums.

Maybe only after the NRL defines its new structure and calendar (after expansion). With a window only for Origin, you can have tests there. Am I a dreamer? Now saying England should go down under every year midseason, but say once every two years... Given the interest people don't have in International RL in Europe, the only chance to make it profitable is exploiting the popularity test games have had within the Pacific diaspora in Australia and NZ.

Maybe. But I'll tell you this: lots of RL fans in non RL "heartlands" are RU fans too.

I even conceded this sport has been lazy sometimes. But still, you can't deny: ▪ test RL in Europe and in general need strong team with strong (and professional) players, which can be helped achieving through heritage players. They're doing it in the Pacific Championship, but there... it's ok. ▪ funds come often from the diasporas in England and Australia. ▪ some of these funds should go to domestic development. Asking all of it is utopia (and is not right, imho). ▪ the idea if you suddenly stop having heritage players involved then domestic players become magically good enough for test RL is simply untrue. ▪ staging domestic RL competitions in football and RU dominated countries is very close to impossibile, especially without government funds. In the short term, what you can actually try to achieve is a short (maybe summer) season attracting RU players, who often appreciate RL (especially forwards, who enjoy actually touching the football). But RU unions often forbid players from doing so. ▪ More should be done? Well, do it. Let's do it. But heritage players are necessary for the International game (would the idea of a European competition with the best heritage players, à la Pacific Championship this year, be so repulsive? I know it's impossibile every year, but imagine Ireland with the 2017 RLWC roster, they were, or Scotland with the roster with they drew the Kiwis with. It'd work every four years and maybe would give consistency with the Int career of those players who play test football only in WC qualifiers and WCs). ▪ As long as they work on their territory too, an under 19s international between Ireland and Scotland cannot harm. If they're not doing anything in their territory, well they should. I'm criticizing this idea (often prejudice) against heritage players, while supporting at the same time England against an heritage team in this season test series.

I think we can reach the conclusion that - as strange as it may seem here- a lot of people actually love rugby union.

Yes only by beating them next year England can make the Ashes become rilevant to the Australian public. Let's hope.

It's your dystopia, isn't it?

On this forum there's this axiom that says if you make players representing their families play... you're damaging the game. At the same time, people want to see a RLWC with more than 10-12 teams. Helping players from areas where rugby league is strong isn't taking anything away from developing the domestic game in "small" RL countries. People and sponsors involved are almost always "heritage" people from Australia/England wanting to keep the diaspora alive and connected to the homeland. Asking them to invest and give every penny to the local game is utopia (and it wouln't be right, as their commitment to their diaspora communities is genuine and deserves respect). In addition to this, we often saw test teams made of domestic players playing with a shirt with an English or Australian sponsor, so heritage people actually helped the local game in RL developing countries. Both things can happen. About games like this thread, having young players representing their family's origin is not wrong and can help create a test team with the same players for the next 5-10 years. We often say - in World Cup - "this players has never and will never represent this country again" and that non tier 1-2 teams are often not used to play together, etc. Of course the likes of Scotland, etc. should keep both options available: players from England/Australia/France representing their family heritage + local domestic players. As long as you keep doing both, I see no problem. Money is and should be invested in domestic developlment too. I'll tell you more, we need to invest and work on connections between "domestic" and "diaspora" test RL. Coaches from RL developed countries could travel to their homelands and train local coaches; "domestic" players could use the opportunities given by these connections and seek RL club opportunities in England or down under, etc. Have we - as a sport - sometimes been lazy and took only the "heritage" way? Maybe, maybe not (in my opinion, we did it less often than what some people believe). But still, we need to work with both options if we want top competitions being actually worth watching (e.g.: 2016 Four Nations Scotland gave us a good and watchable tournament, drew with the Kiwis, were they the first European team except for GB/England/France?; Italy beating England in a World Cup warm up match in 2013 is a good story; Pacific teams being competitive and beating tier 1 nations with players who actually became RL players in Australia is helping the game) and local game growing. I'm sorry for my English, I tried my best.

Nothing wrong with representing your family heritage

@Father Gascoigne you should compare it to Champions League football

I'd prefer a referee from a professional top level league, regardless of the country

Where do you get them from?

https://www.theroar.com.au/2024/11/07/nrl-admits-kiwis-robbed-of-match-winning-penalty-goal-by-ref-blunder-in-frenetic-tonga-finish/

We'll see