Jump to content

Bluebags1973

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Excellent
  1. Exactly! It doesn’t mean that Australia still does not wield considerable influence. So they should, but the process is wrong. A coherent global process on rule changes (or no changes at all, preferably) at least makes us look like a global international sport. The current NRL unilateral process does not portray Rugby League as a global international sport.
  2. I get your point. However, rule changes should go through the international world governing body. That said, Australia, and England for that matter by virtue of running the only two professional leagues and having top-line players from many other nations playing in their competitions (e.g. Tonga), SHOULD exert considerable influence on the decision-making of the IRL, but at least this way there is a unified global process where other nations - at least in theory - can voice their opinion on rule changes. In the 1980’s and early 1990’s under Ken Arthurson’s watch, rule changes almost always went through the International Board.
  3. All rule changes should be run thru the International Rugby League board and approved for a universal set of rules worldwide. Very small-time thinking. So they consulted the fans did they? Did they consult the French Rugby League, who have been running Rugby League competitions since 1934? Or the RFL since 1895? No self-respecting sport does this. Unilateral rule changes might work for AFL and NFL but they are not international sports.
  4. V’landys may be over dramatic on the Perth comments but you need to read between the lines a bit here. The money will not be as freely available for the next TV deal in the depressed TV market (not just for sports but across the TV industry). So if NRL is to expand it’s looking like an increase to 17 teams rather than 18. The market is dictating this. Its obvious Brisbane needs a second team. Brisbane, a rusted-on Rugby League stronghold with a population on 2.4 million and only one team is ridiculous. Channel 9 are obsessed with airing Brisbane Broncos games every single week to boost Queensland TV ratings and everyone is utterly sick of it (including Queenslanders). No such problem exists in NSW because Channel 9 has nine Sydney teams to choose from. A second Brisbane team will give Channel 9 a second option, and offer respite for Aussie league fans sick of the Broncos. Channel 9 would be willing to pay $$$ TV money for this even though an odd number of teams offers no extra games - all because of the Queensland TV ratings a second Brisbane team will bring with it. From the NRL’s perspective, if the depressed TV market dictates there’s only enough money to go around for 17 teams, then a Brisbane 2 must be next cab off the rank. For the NRL it’s a win-win - admitting a second Brisbane team with be low risk: a ready-made Rugby League market, minimal investment required (compared to the millions required to throw at Perth to make it a success), a ready-made player base, juniors, a ready-made supporter base, the game’s ready-made high-profile in a Rugby League stronghold city, at a great stadium - all for an increased $$$ TV deal return due to Channel 9’s obsession with Queensland ratings - it’s a no-brainer. If the NRL had the bargaining power, and if TV market had the finances for 18 teams then Perth would be in as the 18th team. The fact that they can only just barely increase to 17 teams means Brisbane 2 is in.
  5. They’re still playing in PNG this weekend. The PNG National Club Championship: https://www.asiapacificrl.com/2019/11/28/png-national-club-championship-kicks-off-today-in-lae/?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter
  6. A renowned St. George Dragons fan. He even hosted the NRL Footy Show as a one-off in the absence of Fatty Vautin and Peter Sterling: https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/clive-james-replaces-fatty-20050623-gdlk9u.html
  7. Idiot. Wasted a year and took a pay cut.
  8. French season has just started: https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/magique-french-elite-1-championship-club-by-club-season-preview/
  9. Fair enough you going through that complicated mathematical equation. I guess the rankings are there to stir up discussion and debate. I’d love to have someone at the RLIF explain to us precisely how they come up with each country’s final percentage points. Yes more transparency would be ideal!
  10. In the SH they can play Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Samoa (although to be fair the PMX111 has played PNG and Fiji in recent years), and when touring NH they can play France, and possibly heritage-stacked Ireland and Italy. Obviously not all in the one year but there are opponents out there.
  11. If they are worried about player fatigue, the NRL season should be reduced from 25 rounds (24 games + bye) to 22 rounds to accomodate more international matches, including a mid-season Test.
  12. I agree Australia should be playing more games. The scrapping of a mid-season Test for Australia is a disgrace. This means an iconic brand is only “visual” every 12 months instead of the Kangaroos brand being promoted and is “visual” every 6 months. That Kangaroos mid-season Test was a marquee signature match on the Rugby League calendar. Now which business gets rid of their marquee events? Crazy! The mid-season Test rated higher on TV than all NRL regular season matches (behind only SOO and some finals) and drew bigger crowds than most NRL matches. The game as a whole and the Kangaroos brand is much poorer for it. As for New Zealand, yes they have played ‘X’ amount of matches which had helped their ranking but I don’t think their results overall justify number 1 position.
  13. Further adding to the farce... Australia WON the Oceania Cup, not New Zealand - albeit on points difference. So New Zealand didn’t even win the trophy on offer (v Australia) in 2019 yet they are number 1 ??? Of the two Australia v New Zealand contests in 2018/2019, Australia’s margin of victory is hugely superior: 2018: New Zealand 26-24. 2019: Australia 26-4. And New Zealand are number 1 ??? And if we’re counting results over 3 years as part of the rankings criteria, they didn’t even make the 2017 RLWC semi finals!!
  14. New IRL rankings. Australia number 2, should clearly still be number 1 - they belted NZ 26-4 in their most recent match. Also noticed 3 new teams added, but 6 teams removed which is baffling considering the rankings are based on a 3 year period and the often-dormant Latvia is on the list: http://www.rlif.com/article/8789/kiwis-take-no--spot-in-latest-international-rugby-league-world-rankings
  15. I understand your point, but the golden point match ends up with 3 points on offer in value overall, instead of the regulation 2. This then provides an imbalance. Every ‘contest’ for points should present an equal value.
×
×
  • Create New...