Jump to content

The Great Dane

Coach
  • Posts

    1,166
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Great Dane

  1. Yes it is shown in the US. The NRL should leave the PI's and NZ to themselves and worry about it's own backyard. For all intents and purposes RL basically doesn't exist outside of NSW, Qld, and the ACT in Australia (i.e. half the country), and because of mismanagement and neglect it's badly struggling within the ACT, large parts of NSW (particularly south of Sydney) and some parts of Qld. In other words RL isn't in great shape in Australia and the NRL's focus should be on changing that less they watch the goose that lays the golden eggs slowly be stolen by the AFL and other competitors. Frankly the club's willingness to source talent cheaply by poaching it from NZ rugby and the PI's instead of developing it themselves in Australia is a contributing factor to those struggles, but that is a whole other discussion.
  2. Firstly, there's next to no chance that this game gets off the ground. It'd be a very expensive exercise with little hope of a return for the investment, and the broadcasters will be dead against it. Secondly, people keep saying there needs to be a 'plan' or a 'follow up', but having a serious crack at the US/NA market would cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars just to build a significant niche audience. The NRL simply doesn't have the resources to attempt such a venture, especially when things are as bad as they are back home. Finally, any talk of the NRL supporting the NARL, USARL, etc in any substantial way is just fantasyland nonsense. It's not within the NRL's preview, they'd get nothing tangible in return for their investment, and the last thing RL needs is another nation that is totally reliant on the NRL subsidising their existence.
  3. Hate to be the bearer of bad news but I haven't seen anything that suggests that any of those guys would be anymore than middling hookers in the NRL, and aren't even close to being in the echelon of guys like Smith, Grant, even Mahoney for example. Sure one of them could surprise me, but there's no reason to believe that's the case. Firstly I never said that the Raiders wouldn't suffer from Hodgson's absence. Of course it makes things more difficult, but it isn't the end of the world because at this point they can cover him. Meanwhile they've been absolutely crippled by inconsistency in the halves since George Williams left. But getting to the point, what I was saying was that in a strong competition you need depth in every position. The Raiders have about as adequate depth at hooker as can be expected by NRL standards, at least for what is realistically achievable for them this season (all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others). On the other hand I'm not so sure that England have that depth at hooker now that Hodgson and Roby are out, at least not of the same standard that other big nations can draw from. It is what it is I guess.
  4. To be fair, I'm not sure what can actually be done about that problem. It's my experience having in the past volunteered at local clubs for years (both League, Union, and briefly soccer), that mothers that are worried about such things have no intention of ever letting their kids play contact sports that they deem dangerous. The 'Polynesian kids are too big' thing is just another excuse in a long line of excuses, and even if it could be adequately addressed in a fair manner (which it can't be mind you), it won't make any difference as they'll just move on to another excuse. My time was pre-CTE as well. It must be a nightmare now that CTE is a widely recognised phenomenon.
  5. So it's no concern whatsoever that effectively 0% of NRL players, and only a tiny percent of broader participation numbers, are from Asian ethnicities despite them making up not quite 10% of the population and ever growing? That RL has totally failed to have significant growth within middle class and upper class demographics despite decades of attempts? That with the exception of a tiny pocket in WA and an even smaller one in Melbourne (both of which are mainly made up of expats anyway) RL has utterly failed to grow the sport outside of NSW, Qld, and the ACT despite that representing half of Australia's population? That it's participation rate in the most important sex demographics, boys and men in the full contact version of the game, has been in decline for years, particularly in urban areas? I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the point; the problem isn't that PI's and Indigenous people are participating (again not that that is anything new) it's that the NRL and RL has totally failed to engage so many other demographics of all kinds, and doesn't seem to be even trying in most cases. At the end of the day being big with 4% of population isn't going to mean much if RL is totally outcompeted in the other 96%, which though obviously being a little hyperbolic isn't totally unreflective of what is happening in most demographics across the country, and that ain't good.
  6. Who. Not that I'm claiming Starling is a superstar, but I can't think of one young English hooker currently running about that is significantly better than him. Lots that are of a similar standard in so much as they can be compared, but none that are genuinely great players (not yet at least). Roby is probably the only exception, and at 36 years old he's still a great player, but like Hodgson definitely not what he once was. The reality is that though there're some great players in England your depth is like a puddle in most positions, particularly in the spine positions, and not having Hodgson available will hurt England badly even if you can replace him as starting hooker (and to be clear I'm not saying that you can't).
  7. It's a bit of a double edged sword though isn't it. I mean it's great that people of diverse backgrounds are getting involved (which isn't anything new BTW), but on some level it's also concerning that roughly 4% of the Australian population (3% Indigenous and 1% Pacific Islander) are so disproportionately represented in the NRL and general participation statistics. That fact has to say something about RL being totally outcompeted in many demographics (both ethnic and class), and utterly failing to appeal to other larger demographics, and will inevitably have unforeseeable impacts on the sport in the long term. A few things are for sure though, the NRL needs to stop skimping on grassroot funding, particularly in the bush, "affiliated states", and smaller cities outside of Sydney and Brisbane, it needs to create strong incentives in the salary cap for developing local juniors, and it needs to learn to identify demographic changes within cities and regions and learn to adapt to them more quickly (which to be fair it's been much better at than most other sports in Australia). It also needs to watch what the AFL is doing in the grassroots and actively fightback. The AFL actively targeting tactically important markets and totally outgunning the local RL institutions until they dominate the local grassroots without any resistance from the NRL needs to stop.
  8. It's sad news, but Starling has been more potent at hooker than Hodgson for the last couple seasons now. The Raiders would be heading in the right direction if they could just keep their starting halves, or even backup halves, on the pitch together for more than a week at a time. Hodgson going down is very bad news for England though.
  9. That may not be feasible considering the times. The NZRL doing something for themselves for once wouldn't be a bad thing either...
  10. None of them should go to Sydney or Brisbane. Spread the love around now, worry about overhyped derbies later. Unfortunately this is the NRL so I fully expect at least one or two to go to Sydney, and another to the Dolphins. In an ideal world independent bids would be seriously considered as well, but that's almost certainly not going to happen under the current administration either.
  11. Not Canberra's fault that tickets were massively overpriced and there was precisely zero marketing for the event locally. 90% of the population had no clue when the games were actually on, and most of the other 10% were turned off when they realised they'd have to sell a kidney to get a seat worth having. The only good decision made as pertains to the 2017 RLWC and Canberra was to base France here (large diaspora for Aus, French speaking school, etc). Aside from that they made every mistake that you possibly could.
  12. Radradra being allowed to pull on a Kangaroos jersey because of a loophole was absolutely a joke, and RU adopting eligibility rules closer to RL's doesn't mean that they aren't misguided...
  13. I agree that players shouldn't be allowed to switch nations. It cheapens both the jersey and the concept of international sport and encourages mercenary behaviour that has no place in such a concept, all of which does more damage than good in the long run and will devalue the concept over all. However that doesn't address the point I was making. With the exceptions of Radradra and debatably Kaufusi, by rights each of those guys are Australian, have every right to play for Australia, and most probably should be playing for Australia in a sensible system.
  14. Radradra playing for the Roos was a joke, but no more so than most of those other guys playing for any nation other than Australia is a joke (with the possible exception of Kaufusi). Mansour, Frizell, Fifita, Maguire, and Haas were all born and raised in Australia, and Kaufusi moved to Australia at the age of 7 and has lived the majority of his life here. So if we're being ethically consistent it's not Australia that has a bad record. Then again you seem to think that any Australian that is eligible for another nation should play for that other nation, which is just nonsense, and I doubt that you'd hold England/your nation to that standard either. BTW, what do you think of players like Mansour, Frizell, or Haas whom are eligible for multiple nations (Australia, Lebanon, Portugal, and I believe Cuba in Mansour's case for example). Should they be able to decide which they represent, or should they be pressured to turn out for the weakest nation in the interests of the greater good? Genuine question.
  15. 50% of the population of Australia are either immigrants themselves or have at least one parent that is an immigrant. The vast majority of the rest of the population (easily upwards of 95%) have immigrant heritage, and most of that immigration happened in the last 100 years, largely post WWII. So we, as a nation and a people, totally understand the attraction that some have to identifying with their cultural/ethnic heritage, and it's absolute nonsense to suggest that that is particularly unique to the pacific cultures. However most of us also understand that it's false, as you cannot truly be a member of multiple cultures as all cultures and nations have different goals and values that fundamentally contradict each other. We also know that in most cases the ancestral culture won't accept you as an actual member either. Trust me, there's nothing cringier than an ocker bloke whom goes around claiming they are (e.g.) Irish or Scottish. The sad thing is that this tendency for it to be culturally acceptable for certain groups to identify with their cultural heritage and not others is born out of racism and the stereotype of "Australian" being either indigenous or a person of Western European heritage, and has many negative impacts on society with the two major ones being- 1. It tacitly implies to any Australian that doesn't fit in the above stereotypes that no matter what they do they will never truly be an Australian, which is fundamentally untrue and a cultural cancer. 2. It steals opportunities from people whom are born and raised in the nations of those cultural heritages when more often than not those people needed them much more than the Australian born and raised individual needed them. The second impact is particularly apparent in the case of sport where every (e.g.) Brian To'o whom pulls on a Samoan jersey takes a spot that a Samoan resident could have had, and makes it that much harder for a Samoan to make it in RL unless they can afford to immigrate to Australia/NZ, and that much less likely that RL will take off as a sport and potential career path in Samoa it's self. Though having very loose eligibility rules produces more competitive internationals in the short term, the long term impacts are already starting to hurt RL in the southern hemisphere, and in the future it could be a disaster.
  16. I never said you did... But that's what Laurie wants. He wants the the Indigenous All Stars to become a touring team that play national teams across the world in pseudo internationals, and that's a deplorable idea. You have to be wilfully ignorant in the extreme, and a massive hypocrite to boot I'll bet, to believe that. Firstly, nationality, state, most other representative teams, do not discriminate based on inalienable characteristics, and at least conceptually (though it may not always be possible in practice) anybody can participate no matter their sex, race, creed, sexuality, etc. Ethnic and racial teams on the other hand are inherently discriminatory based on inalienable characteristics, as anybody not born with the right ancestry/racial identity is barred from participating in any meaningful way. You and I both know that if there was a role reversal in this case that there'd be outcry both nationally and internationally, and rightly so BTW, which puts to bed this BS of it simply being celebratory or tributary when only certain people will ever be allowed to "celebrate their culture" in this way.
  17. Yeah well what are you going to do when internationals at best break-even in Australia. Many make a loss if truth be told. It just is what is, and until that changes the NRL is always going to lack interest. How you fix that problem is debatable, however it's clear that sustainable interest in internationals will only happen off the back of the growth of the club game internationally, but this is an aside. Why does that matter when you could have created something significantly more successful if you didn't both inherently and openly exclude anybody with the wrong ancestry... I mean you do understand that the British equivalent of the All Stars match would be to have something like an Anglo-Saxon vs Celtic game, where each player has to prove their ancestry (literal one-drop rule stuff) before they participate? Can you imagine the insidious impact that'd have on both the game in Britain and British society more broadly... Either way the point still stands. We don't need the cultural cancer that are ethnic/racial teams to have successful representative competitions, SOO being the biggest annual sporting event in the country being the perfect example.
  18. Technically the players are just getting the money back from the pay cut they took because of the pandemic, which I don't begrudge them. However the fact that the NRL only has the surplus it has now because V'landys gutted grassroots, junior development, and a bunch of other extremely important things is very concerning, especially considering that most of them were all underfunded to begin with. What're you gonna do I guess, the players are entitled to the payments, but while the NRL continues to ignore anything outside of pro tiers the AFL continues to increase investment into the grassroots and keeps marching north as a result.
  19. It's a truly deplorable idea. Internationals are for national teams, not ethnic teams. Frankly the fact that we have ethnic representative teams at all is a bad idea. It's divisive and only a matter of time before it backfires just like all ethnic sport does (just look at the history of soccer in Australia). In this case it's also inherently discriminatory and hypocritical, because certain ethnicities will always be barred from participating, and if history tells us anything it's that that road leads to hell. Racial teams are an even worse idea. I mean at that point you wouldn't just be asking for trouble, you'd be creating it. I imagine that a Polynesian vs Maori match would be pretty awkward as well lol.
  20. It's not meaningless though is it, it could be the difference between the accused being told to pull their heads and lay of the grog and them becoming social pariahs and having their whole lives thrown upside-down. Furthermore, you have to admit that this incident is only getting the traction that it is because of the accusation of racism. So it matters whether or not a racist act actually occurred. You also don't want to go through what Australia just went through earlier this year when some yob "sovereign citizens" tried to burn down Old Parliament House and Indigenous activist and the Tent Embassy were wrongly accused and subjected to accusations of racism and reciprocal attacks. So yeah we need to be very, very, careful and precise with our language here. That's why I said 'if we assume, as is most likely', you know referring to what is most likely instead of a statement of fact...
  21. That just reports the same accusation from the mother, it doesn't report what was actually said... In other words no new information.
  22. Nobody else in the world would accept that definition that whataboutism, as it's broad enough to make most forms argumentation a whataboutism fallacy. Here's Google's definition, which is the standard definition: whataboutism /ˌwɒtəˈbaʊtɪz(ə)m/ noun BRITISH the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue. "the parliamentary hearing appeared to be an exercise in whataboutism" I didn't make a counter-accusation or raise a different issue.
  23. FFS, you don't know that. For all your faults innocent until proven guilty is one of the greatest gifts that Pommy philosophical traditions ever gave the world, and abandoning it always leads to abuses. There're so many injustices in this world that could have been avoided if only people had waited just a little bit until they'd made damn sure that the person they were about to burn at the stake was actually guilty of the crime they were accused.
  24. Firstly, you don't know what whataboutery means. Secondly, you don't know that a 7 year old was attacked. Got a link?
×
×
  • Create New...