Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
17 stone giant

Great Britain Origin Series - West vs East

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Mushy said:

Well I used to enjoy the Roses matches both times they were reintroduced in the last 30 years. It could come across as a bit parochial though. 

 

I went to one game at Wigan and there were about ten late withdrawls which rather spoiled it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

We need to ban the word IF in rugby league. What is the point in saying if ABC, we should do XYZ? We have to work with what we've actually got, not what we wish we had.

My idea might not be popular, but it is at least something that you could do right now.

Your hypothesis is an option.  But (which is sadly also a sad little word) it is realy something of an artificial  construct.  NSW and Queensland do have some history/antipathy. 

Lancashire v Yorkshire (or even 'trans pennine') has been tried as you suggest. And it limits the available player pool.  Frankly however it as likely to be as close as we can get to Origin.   Our real comparison is either England v Wales or France. These are cross-state games.

With all the will in the world I cannot work up much antipathy between Shropshire and Norfolk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lobbygobbler said:

For me, the only Origin that could work is North v South, however this would require the South to be competitive and we need far more players down here. It’s the same issue with France and the other Ctic nations

Did Rugby ever have North v South before the breakaway?

Haha. Look, I know people aren't exactly enamoured with my idea - and I'm happy to admit it's far from perfect - but at least it's not completely mad. You could at least get two fairly well matched teams from the East and West, based on how I've divided up the country. But North v South - in rugby league? I think the North would probably win 200-0, and we'd be lucky to get 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rupert Prince said:

Your hypothesis is an option.  But (which is sadly also a sad little word) it is realy something of an artificial  construct.  NSW and Queensland do have some history/antipathy. 

Lancashire v Yorkshire (or even 'trans pennine') has been tried as you suggest. And it limits the available player pool.  Frankly however it as likely to be as close as we can get to Origin.   Our real comparison is either England v Wales or France. These are cross-state games.

With all the will in the world I cannot work up much antipathy between Shropshire and Norfolk.

I absolutely take your points, but you don't always need genuine animosity or strong rivalry or strong identity for something to work in sport. Yes, it can obviously help sometimes, and it may well exist in the best examples that you can think of in sport - Man Utd v Liverpool, England v Germany, England v Australia, Queensland v NSW etc. However, sometimes people watch sport for the occasion - to see something unique, to see the best competing, to be part of something special. How many people watch the Boat Race every year - Oxford v Cambridge? Do they watch because they're passionate about one of the teams and feel tremendous rivalry towards the other? 

I don't know - maybe East v West could be played as a sort of exhibition match (I'm not saying that it should be, but it could be an option. I think that's how it's done with East v West in the NBA). Maybe as a result players could try things that they wouldn't dare risk in a SL or international match - take more risks, show some flair and imagination. Like I say - these are just ideas. It isn't going to affect my life either way if rugby league doesn't change anything from what it's doing right now. I just think it's worth exploring different options.

Shropshire v Norfolk for the Cider Cup? I think you're onto something there, Rupert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Your hypothesis is an option.  But (which is sadly also a sad little word) it is realy something of an artificial  construct.  NSW and Queensland do have some history/antipathy. 

Lancashire v Yorkshire (or even 'trans pennine') has been tried as you suggest. And it limits the available player pool.  Frankly however it as likely to be as close as we can get to Origin.   Our real comparison is either England v Wales or France. These are cross-state games.

With all the will in the world I cannot work up much antipathy between Shropshire and Norfolk.

Shropshire and Norfolk? Maybe not, but he's split Cape Wrath from nearby neighbours Durness. There'll be riots in Sutherland!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Methven Hornet said:

Shropshire and Norfolk? Maybe not, but he's split Cape Wrath from nearby neighbours Durness. There'll be riots in Sutherland!

Haha. I'll never forgive myself for doing that to places that I've never even heard of. :) Seriously, though, although my line that I did on Paint was drawn without any real care, I actually took the approximate position from another map that had already split southern Scotland into West and East. The North of Scotland was its own block, but I just carried the line on up anyway. Is that maybe where the places you mentioned are located? Haha

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

There we have it again. Negative and more negative. Why would it have to look pathetic? It would only look pathetic if you allow it to look pathetic.

Would it even be a blatant copy? Yorkshire have been playing Lancashire for many years - maybe even before Queensland and NSW did, I'm not sure. Either way, it's been a long time, and why even does it matter anyway if it's a copy? That is such a non-argument.

When someone came up with the idea for a tv show called Big Brother (I think it might have been the Dutch, but I'm not sure), did every other country say "we're not doing that - it's a blatant copy. It would look pathetic." No, they took the idea and made it a success in their country too.

Look, Origin works because it is State against State, real rivalry. And properly meaningful.

Compare that against whatever combined north west counties side you could put out against a Yorkshire side with 15k to watch and yes it would look pathetic in comparison. Especially when the concept has to be dropped after a couple of games because it is losing money the game does not have to lose.

If you want a game to rival Origin, then it is the original Derby which should and could be taken on the road to showcase the sport. Take it to the Etihad one summer, challenge the two clubs to bring 15k fans each, and then sell another 20k tickets at sensible prices to rugby fans across the North West and into Yorkshire. 50k to watch Wigan v Saints in Manchester for a regular season game, sounds a fair but ambitious target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, foozler said:

Look, Origin works because it is State against State, real rivalry. And properly meaningful.

Yes, and there was an Aussie poster on here explaining that it wasn't always like that. They didn't just click their fingers and on Day 1 create an Origin series that captured the interest of people not only in Queensland and NSW, but also in other parts of Australia (Perth) and beyond. They had to persevere with it in order to make it the massive success that it is today.

5 minutes ago, foozler said:

Compare that against whatever combined north west counties side you could put out against a Yorkshire side with 15k to watch and yes it would look pathetic in comparison. Especially when the concept has to be dropped after a couple of games because it is losing money the game does not have to lose.

I'd be happy with Yorkshire v Lancashire. I just went for something different in my original post, because Yorkshire v Lancashire has been discussed before and interest there was, as I mentioned, lukewarm. That's why I widened it to West v East, along with that perhaps being a better way to involve the rest of the country too.

7 minutes ago, foozler said:

If you want a game to rival Origin, then it is the original Derby which should and could be taken on the road to showcase the sport. Take it to the Etihad one summer, challenge the two clubs to bring 15k fans each, and then sell another 20k tickets at sensible prices to rugby fans across the North West and into Yorkshire. 50k to watch Wigan v Saints in Manchester for a regular season game, sounds a fair but ambitious target.

For sure Wigan v St Helens is a great game (when I went to the Challenge Cup final at the Millennium back in the mid 2000's, I chose to go the year those two played, because of the history and rivalry). However, it just isn't ever going to be a match that the rest of the country will take much interest in. It doesn't matter how much you promote it - it's still two relatively small and (with all due respect) in terms of national significance and fame, unspectacular places. That isn't to say that your idea for taking it to different venues isn't a good one, and something that could and should be explored, but it's not quite got the appeal or the ability to make a statement nationally, that I was looking for. Besides, it's a game that already occurs. It's nothing new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, nay, never to the OP. Why? We, Rugby League in the UK, have an obsession with copying Australian Rugby League and other sports and most things we copy aren’t really relevant or part of any strategic plan.

We also have a bipolar nature in Rugby League in the UK. When we make a decision, whether it’s a format change, a new tournament or idea to expand the game, we talk it up like it’s a great thing and the game is going to change beyond recognition. Fast forward two years and those things brought in twenty-four months before are the worst things the game have ever done and the game is as good as dead. We’re too knee-jerk. 

Simply, we play too many games at the minute. Twenty-nine league games and at least one Challenge Cup game for eleven of our sides and one has an extra game in the World Club Challenge. That’s too many,  let’s be honest. Do we need every team to play each other home and away? Does the season have to be relentless, with very few, if any, breaks?

Does an East vs West game change much in Rugby League? Is there an appetite for it? What’s the purpose of this game? Where does it need to be in 5, 10, 15 years?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

I absolutely take your points, but you don't always need genuine animosity or strong rivalry or strong identity for something to work in sport. Yes, it can obviously help sometimes, and it may well exist in the best examples that you can think of in sport - Man Utd v Liverpool, England v Germany, England v Australia, Queensland v NSW etc. However, sometimes people watch sport for the occasion - to see something unique, to see the best competing, to be part of something special. How many people watch the Boat Race every year - Oxford v Cambridge? Do they watch because they're passionate about one of the teams and feel tremendous rivalry towards the other? 

I don't know - maybe East v West could be played as a sort of exhibition match (I'm not saying that it should be, but it could be an option. I think that's how it's done with East v West in the NBA). Maybe as a result players could try things that they wouldn't dare risk in a SL or international match - take more risks, show some flair and imagination. Like I say - these are just ideas. It isn't going to affect my life either way if rugby league doesn't change anything from what it's doing right now. I just think it's worth exploring different options.

Shropshire v Norfolk for the Cider Cup? I think you're onto something there, Rupert.

Some sort of a game might make sense as an occasional charity event. A novelty. A semi friendly.   But I do think a real game, between 2 really meaningful teams does need a point to it.

You are making a brave effort to put forward an idea, but...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

No, nay, never to the OP. Why? We, Rugby League in the UK, have an obsession with copying Australian Rugby League and other sports and most things we copy aren’t really relevant or part of any strategic plan.

To be honest, despite my rant at the beginning, I actually couldn't care less what the Aussies have. I just want rugby league in England/GB/UK to be as successful as possible. I don't want Origin because the Aussies have it - I want it (in some way, shape, or form) because I think it's a good concept. I watched the "seniors" origin match on rugby AM where the likes of Morley and Peacock etc. played. It was nostalgic seeing those players that used to wear the England/GB shirt. If we had it at professional level, it would be another chance to see the big players perform. People often talk about how rugby league players should become household names nationally, but you're not going to achieve that by them playing for Huddersfield.

8 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Simply, we play too many games at the minute. Twenty-nine league games and at least one Challenge Cup game for eleven of our sides and one has an extra game in the World Club Challenge. That’s too many,  let’s be honest. Do we need every team to play each other home and away? Does the season have to be relentless, with very few, if any, breaks?

Yes, too many games that are of interest only to diehard RL fans. Don't get me wrong - there's absolutely nothing wrong with looking after the people in the heartlands - it's those people who have made rugby league into the great game that it is, and who are the lifeblood of the sport. They absolutely should get priority and be looked after, because without them there is no game. But if the scales could just be tipped so that there are a slightly less club matches, and a few more big international or rep team matches, then maybe the 'burden' of supporting the game could be spread over more people. I'm not saying that you can convert a load of people into becoming diehard RL fans, but even if you could get them to buy a £30 match ticket once a year and/or a replica shirt for £25, you've got a contribution from them towards keeping the sport going.

 

16 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Does an East vs West game change much in Rugby League? Is there an appetite for it? What’s the purpose of this game? Where does it need to be in 5, 10, 15 years?

What it would change would depend on whether it was a success. No, there's no appetite for it right now as such - but sometimes you have to create an appetite for something. People weren't saying 15 years ago how much they wished there was a 20 over game in cricket, and how much they'd love to go along and watch it. There was no "appetite" for it. But someone in cricket came up with the idea, they decided to go with it and put a lot of effort into supporting it, and look where it is now. I'm not for one moment saying that East v West could become anything close to what Twenty20 cricket has become - I'm simply making the point that you can create something that is successful, despite nobody currently demanding it.

The game could have various purposes, depending on what you wanted it to be. One would be to give people who aren't massively interested in watching club rugby league teams, a chance to watch something where the best players are competing against one another. Like I keep stressing - underpinning all these things is the reality that it won't ever work if rugby league people don't buy into the idea. Rugby league as a sport has to care about something first, before anyone else can be expected care. That is how these things work. The horse (people with a stake in RL) has to come before the cart (the great mass of people who aren't currently engaged in anyway with RL).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

But we already know that all the best players are English. There isn't a battle to be had there.

My suggestion wasn't just a battle for GB selection - although if you play well, it should obviously help your cause - it was more a way of trying to create another high profile match - and one that might just interest people who aren't already fans of RL.

That's a sweeping statement! 

How do you know the best players are English! 

Other than saints fans who would have said makinson was world class a year ago?? Sometimes people just need a chance! 

Your idea is shocking BTW who would support an east of britain team? Also where would the dividing line be? 

Would Welsh players be get into the east team would London players get in the West?

Again where would the line be through Scotland??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, yipyee said:

That's a sweeping statement! 

How do you know the best players are English!

Because people on this forum repeatedly state that currently the best players are English and that not many (if any) non-English players would make the GB team or squad on merit. If your point is that in future this situation might change, then I agree that is absolutely possible. Right now, though, and probably for the immediate future, the best players are English.

21 minutes ago, yipyee said:

BTW who would support an east of britain team? Also where would the dividing line be?

I grouped the already established regions together - North West, West Midlands, South West, etc. in one team. North East, East Midlands, South East, etc. in the other.

38 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Would Welsh players be get into the east team would London players get in the West?

Well, based on geography, I put Wales with the West, and London with the East.

If you mean what would happen to a Welsh born player who currently plays for London Broncos, well, I would probably go with whatever eligibility criteria they use for State of Origin/Roses.

58 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Again where would the line be through Scotland??

Scotland (or at least the southern part) gets split into West of Scotland and East of Scotland on some maps. I just went with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yipyee said:

Your idea is shocking

Haha. That's ok. I'll file it with all my others.

I'll spare you any more bad ideas for now, but I'll be back next year once all the GB stuff is starting to take shape. Will be good to see the first GB shirt and merchandise in more than a decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SilentAssassin said:

be better if we could get France up to a competitive level

You mean one of the reasons that Catalans were originally entered into SL to assist with strengthening the French game for this purpose? Well that has worked so far!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

Haha. I'll never forgive myself for doing that to places that I've never even heard of. :) Seriously, though, although my line that I did on Paint was drawn without any real care, I actually took the approximate position from another map that had already split southern Scotland into West and East. The North of Scotland was its own block, but I just carried the line on up anyway. Is that maybe where the places you mentioned are located? Haha

Yes, very far north west coast of Scotland. ?

Your split is more of less accurate is southern and central Scotland, but the north tends to be a separate region for sporting purposes. To be honest, there isn't an awful lot of sport of any kind played in the far north west.

Seriously, I've always thought your suggestion could work in England as an alternative to the Roses game. It sort of keeps the Lancashire/Yorkshire rivalry but includes players originating in other parts of England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People don’t identify with East or West in the UK. 

Why do we even need this event anyway? We have enough events in the Rugby League calendar as it is, that aren’t always attended as well as maybe they could, so to add another event just seems weird. 

I’ve said it before but Rugby League in the UK would be far stronger for the realisation they don’t need to see themselves as competing with other sports and don’t have to usurp the popularity of Rugby Union. 

We’ve got some big clubs here who arrract good crowds. Wigan, Leeds and Hull can fetch around twenty thousand for a league game and have done in the past, Saints, Warrington and Hull KR all can fetch five figure crowd. The Grand Final and Challenge Cup Final pull crowds in excess of 60,000 regularly and Magic Weekend sees a Day One crowd of 30,000+ and Day Two around the 20,000 mark. The Internationals have been fairly well attended too.

There is appetite for the game and there are some good crowds, however, we as a game and clubs themselves could do more to build crowds. 

Let’s concentrate on what we have before we start making grand plans.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Oliver makes a fair point. Our game is not predicated to international football,  it is based around club football and is a professional regional game.

If it can consolidate then it can expand its regional club football.  That is the start.  It's best chance of Origin style is England  v France.  And I repeat something I've said before, outside world cups I see no reason why a Welshman cannot play for England at RL if they can do the same for cricket.

In cricket there was a Roses antipathy, but county cricket has declined such that no one is interested.  Cricket is now more interested in internationals and the Mickey Mouse short game. 

The likes of Hull, Leeds, Huddersfield, Wigan and St Helens have big enough grounds... we need to see them filled before we start on anything else.  Mind you any games between say Wigan v Hull on Thursdays would not help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, roughyedspud said:

England v the Celts....is the nearest thing to origin we could put on...it would also be a GB trial..

Well, the Welsh are more Celtic than the English, but the Scots are more Gaelic. And then again the Scots originally came from Ireland (!)... But I get your drift. 

Never mind drug tests... lets get everyone DNA tested!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An RL 6 Nations/Euro Nations (England, France, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Italy) would be better than an Origin series which already harms international RL by taking the spotlight off it! Not all Aussies are fans of Origin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rupert Prince said:

Well, the Welsh are more Celtic than the English, but the Scots are more Gaelic. And then again the Scots originally came from Ireland (!)... But I get your drift. 

Never mind drug tests... lets get everyone DNA tested!!

Gaelic is a subset of Celtic.

Gaelic = Irish, Scottish, Manx

Brythonic = Welsh, Cornish, Breton

These are the two branches of the Celtic language family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Forever Trinity said:

You mean one of the reasons that Catalans were originally entered into SL to assist with strengthening the French game for this purpose? Well that has worked so far!

True they just won the euro championship! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...