Jump to content

Bluebags1973

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bluebags1973

  1. New Zealand may have only one fully pro club like France does, but the 15 Australian NRL clubs have at least 3 or more NZ qualified players in their teams. Talent spread around. Then there’s a shed load of NZ players in Super League. Let’s do a count on the number of NZ players across all 28 NRL + Super League clubs compared to France.
  2. Yes that but is very clear. I was referring to the next paragraph why the need? Players cannot represent Australia or New Zealand if they have elected to represent Great Britain and vice versa. Maybe it’s to differentiate between ‘England’ and ‘Great Britain’?
  3. Perhaps also allow some switching between France and Spain, and France and Morocco given the migration links between those countries.
  4. I’ve read the full document. Good improvement there, but I would tighten it up more - like no switching between countries between Tier Two and Tier Three (only between/from one of Australia, New Zealand, England and Tier Two/Three). There’s also some shabby wording - mentions ‘Great Britain’ in one paragraph but ‘England’ in the next. There’s also no specific mention of not switching between Australia and New Zealand: http://rlif.com/article/8877/irl-announces-updated-eligibility-rules
  5. That one Albanian team are seemingly looking at joining the Greek domestic competition: https://mobile.twitter.com/albaniarl?lang=en
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Idiot. Wasted a year and took a pay cut.
  13. French season has just started: https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/magique-french-elite-1-championship-club-by-club-season-preview/
  14. 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!
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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!!
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. Couldn’t agree more. It’s a gimmick. Manufactured. Nothing wrong with a draw. And in finals where there must be a winner - it’s a set period play that must be played through - so at least there’s a ‘better’ team over 20 minutes extra time where both teams have opportunities to score.
  22. If the 1982 Kangaroos were “The Invincibles” does this make the 2019 Great Britain Lions “The Vincibles”?
  23. Ridiculous. The ‘points value’ of every single match should be the same - 2 points. Two teams participating in a drawn match should not ‘benefit’ from not being good enough to win in normal time by having an 3rd point available - that is grossly unfair to a team that wins in normal time. Not even the NRL allows this. Every NRL competition match has the same value of 2 points. Games can even be ‘fixed’ to allow the losing team an extra point on the ladder. I am not in favour of golden point in any case - it should be a draw after 80 minutes and even in finals a set period of extra time should be played not first scorer wins.
  24. If the Golden Boot is now awarded based on performances in international matches, why have the IRL put out the nominations now, when there are still 3 games to go (plus 2 RLWC qualifying games)? Odd.
×
×
  • Create New...