Dunbar Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 5 hours ago, The Great Dane said: The All Blacks have done absolutely nothing for the actual development of RU outside of NZ, in fact they've been a massive roadblock to development in a lot of places. Yes they draw good publicity in a lot of the places that they go (however I think you are imprinting your experiences in England onto other countries to a very large degree), however that publicity is fleeting, and once the circus leaves town the townsfolk don't start their own circus. We are both probably hindered by our own perspectives based on location. In England, the All Blacks being in town turns the Union media machine up to 11 but in Australia (one of the few places on earth where League dwarfs Union) the opposite is true. On a wider scale though, one of the things Union has done well is sell itself as a global game when every piece of evidence shows that it clearly isn't. This has allowed its World Cup to gain huge traction and become the event it is now. A big part of this (although hard to quantify) is the fact they have a 'global brand' like the All Blacks to use as a marketing lever. I strongly believe that if the Australian Rugby League and the wider game had invested in the Kangaroo brand through the 90's and 00's we would see benefits today. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 32 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: Png didn't have easier games but they had more chances to qualify. But you said they had easier games? You know what, if I didn't know better, I would think you were not reading people's posts properly and just arguing for the sake of it. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 30 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: No I said the other sides you mentioned had easier games. That was the trade off it wasnt unfair. Harder games meant more chances to qualify, easier games meant fewer. We both knew that though, you were just being silly Just think about what you are saying for a moment. In 2008 PNG were in Group A and told to play the three best teams in the tournament (England, Australia & New Zealand) knowing that at least one win was needed get them into the knock-out stages. While over in Group B Fiji won one of their two games (losing to Scotland and beating France) and they progressed to the knock out stages. While in Group C Ireland also progressed to the knock out stages with one win and one loss. Are you really trying to tell me that PNG having three chances to beat the three best teams in the world is equal to winning one of two games against weaker opposition and moving on in the tournament? From the moment the tournament structure was devised and groups allocated the odds were stacked massively against PNG who at the time could easily lay claim to being the 4th best team in the world and it was inherently unfair. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayCee Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 8 hours ago, The Great Dane said: the NRL invests it's time into developing RL in NZ I burst out laughing at reading this. I thought you couldn’t make this up. Then I realised GE just did. My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/ It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course. It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: Sooo there was a trade off, PNG had more chances to qualify but harder games and Fiji had fewer chances and easier games. OK, we will leave it there. I will take it on good faith that you genuinely believe that the 2008 World Cup was fair to PNG and the 2013 event fair to Tonga... I can't for the life of me work out why you think it was fair but I will believe you. 2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: Weren't you telling me three pages ago how wonderful, brilliant and important it was that smaller nations played the bigger nations in the world cup more? Weren't you the one telling me how integral getting 80pts put on them by NZ was to the development of Japan? Now here you are telling me that PNG screwed over by getting to play England, NZ and Australia. I think you have confused small with developing. The sport of Rugby League does not need to be promoted in PNG (as RU would have needed to be in Japan) as it is the national sport of PNG and a national passion. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 1 minute ago, scotchy1 said: This thread sums up why RL struggles. It blames those who dont want to buy what we are selling rather than us for not tailoring our product to what the market wants. It picks out random vague principles of fairness, strength and the corinthian ideal and sticks to those principles even when the consequences of doing so is damaging. Meanwhile it is happy to ignore the intrinsic and inherent biases elsewhere. It takes an almost active dislike of creating value. The cricket world cup is somehow bad because it schedules the games and sides people want to see at the times they want to see them and sells that for massive sums It's just a list of examples of how we leave money on the table and cut off our nose to spite our face in some vague and hypocritical search for none existent purity But we will of course see the reason the womens football world cup will get more for 1 game than we do for our entire competition as a conspiracy of some unholy partnership between the old boys and the woke mafia Stop trying to position your opinions as facts. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: The cricket world cup is somehow bad because it schedules the games and sides people want to see at the times they want to see them and sells that for massive sums Okay, I'll bite. The Cricket World Cup has decided to reduce the number of teams who can play in the tournament. There were 14 at the last one in 2015. There are 10 this time. The number of matches with genuine jeopardy - either finales of group stages or straight knock out games - has been cut. There are now no quarter finals and no group stage elimination before a second round (both have happened previously). None of this has been done for sporting reasons or to expand the game of cricket to either new fans or new territories. It has been done because the ICC likes money. This money will not be used to expand the game of cricket to either new fans or new territories. It will not go to the players. It will not support youth or female development, or increase participation. It will make a very rich organisation and its chosen associations individually that bit richer. I'm enjoying it. But then I'm English and I love cricket. If I were Irish, I'd be furious at being excluded. If I were moderately interested in cricket, I'd be bored rigid by now. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fighting irish Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 9 minutes ago, Dunbar said: Stop trying to position your opinions as facts. OCD mate. OCD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fighting irish Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 Its like deja vu, all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 20 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: So if we had the same or a similar format but swapped PNG with say Jamaica or the USA or france t would be good no? The game needs promoting in those countries and it could develop them like it did Japan? Stop mixing up the arguments to try and win points. Japan played New Zealand in the 2011 RUWC but they were in a 5 team group including Tonga and Canada (with whom they drew) so while the promotion in Japan by playing New Zealand was useful they were not exposed to the kind of unfair structure that PNG were exposed to in the Super Group in the 2008 RLWC. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 8 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: But we cant complain that we dont get people watching, dont get the money, don't get the visibility etc when we make a specific choice to put these vague sporting or fairness principles ahead of these attempts to reach out and bring people in. As with all things in life and business, doing things fairly and being successful should not have to be a choice. When it does become a choice you have lost your way somewhere along the line. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moove Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 The super group format used in 2008 was daft. It's a mess of a structure which would do nothing to promote RL as a top-level sport worth watching, attending or investing in. 99 times out of 100 the simplest solution is the best one, quite why people feel RL needs to try to be the 1 out of 100 all the time is beyond me. Picking the right grounds for the right games would be far better than fiddling with the format and would give a positive look to one-sided games. The super group format didn't even give use close results. Four out of the six fixtures in it were one-sided scorelines. Funnily enough that's more one-sided scorelines than the other two groups combined. The knockout stage of that format gave us just four games in total... FOUR!... and one of those was a blow-out as well. The things which are going to give this sport the WC legacy it needs are a global look and feel, opportunities for lower-level nations to play a decent number of games including exposure to top-level teams (blow-out or not), and successful results for the England team. By the time we've built up to the knock-out stages and semi-finals with NZ/Aus/England/Tonga no one will care about one-sided results in the earlier rounds anyway. If that's the thing people are focusing on by that point then we've failed miserably on things which are far more important than tournament structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 There is a clear reason that the regular pools system is used often. Because it is relatively easy to understand and is seen as fair. In a regular group of four you would have: 1 team ranked 1-4 1 team ranked 5-8 1 team ranked 9-12 1 team ranked 13-16 The beauty of this is that each team will always have a rival team that is only one level above them. So whilst Jamaica may have a hard time against the Kiwis and Fiji, they have some hope that they could maybe make a fist of it against Wales for example. They have some hope. It is balanced and makes sense. 2017 wasn't a horrendous structure, but we had the situation whereby Samoa made the quarter finals without a single win, but Ireland were knocked out at group stages with 2 wins. That just doesn't make sense, nor is it fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 Arguing for arguing's sake , sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: Japan being thrashed by Japan 7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: The idea that the goldilocks formula is get smashed twice and be competitive be competitive twice and get smashed once is obviously not true. I think you need to have a little lie down. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: What cricket do and what we did isn't unfair. If we aren't willing to take advantages of our strengths then we cant really complain that other sports do and they see success. Making the most valuable competition isn't a failing of cricket, Its pretty much the most basic aim. Once again you are confusing your opinion with facts... there is a difference. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattrhino Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 21 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: So Jamaica getting smashed is unfair and them playing teams around their level, as japan did with Tonga and Canada was good for them? This isn't mixing arguments, you are just trying to have it both ways. Japan being thrashed by Japan was integral to their development but playing three big teams is bad. Japan playing teams around their level was integral to their development but playing teams around their level was also bad when it suits. The idea that the goldilocks formula is get smashed twice and be competitive be competitive twice and get smashed once is obviously not true. The fact is that jamaica could have been competitive with USA, Scotland and lebanon. That would be an interesting and compelling group of games that would have reach and impact. With that we could also have Tonga v samoa, NZ v Tonga, England v Australia, England v Fiji and fiji v Australia, again compelling games that we could sell ahead of time. That isnt a bad or unfair world cup. Doing random groups of 4 because thats what football do wont make our world cup better or fairer or more valid. This is our chance to show the world what rugby league is all about. What makes it unique and wonderful, that's sipi Tau v siva tau, haka v Noqu Masu, the flag of st George v the green and gold. Hopefully soon we will see the reggae warriors v the hawks joining that. Structuring our world cup to make that happen isnt unfair or weak or impure. It's a celebration. It's our strength. It's what an RL world cup should be. If its not. It's not really RL I do agree that us just following what soccer does is stupid. But we seem to always want to revert back to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 Anyway, after all that nonsense let me say that I am really happy with the Men's World Cup in 2021 being 4 groups of 4 teams, two qualifiers from each... quarter finals, semi's and final. The only problem with it is we have to wait 2 more years! "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 37 minutes ago, GUBRATS said: Arguing for arguing's sake , sad Oh no he's not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 15 minutes ago, Dunbar said: Anyway, after all that nonsense let me say that I am really happy with the Men's World Cup in 2021 being 4 groups of 4 teams, two qualifiers from each... quarter finals, semi's and final. The only problem with it is we have to wait 2 more years! And so am I. It's great news and shows maturity and a belief in the event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: The funny thing is, football constantly changes but we are obsessed with offering a poor facsimile of it. Theres no faith in what actually makes RL brilliant and unique. There isn't a whole market of people out there underserved, just desperate for a smaller union world cup or a less competitive fifa world cup This is all your opinion and it's quite easy to flip around this entire post based upon your perspective. In my opinion having supergroups is having absolutely no faith in Rugby League or the ability of the so called lesser teams. There isn't a whole market of people desperate for a glorified Four Nations either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 The Four Nations is not a World Cup and is a completely different event. As much as you think you know what people are desperate for and deride and twist what they want then you must be prepared to accept that people view the alternatives different to yourself too. Others obviously have much more faith and confidence in the game and don't see it as just a pale imitation of other sports. They see the change in 2021 as great and a sign of maturity and confidence in the event. They are not wanting it just to copy other sports. In contrast the scewed, unfair supergroup concept is a Four Nations with a few bolt ins. It is a sign of insecurity and is unfathomable to outsiders. They see it as laughable and a manufactured event, devaluing the World Cup to them immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Kevin Sinfield Posted July 3, 2019 Author Share Posted July 3, 2019 46 minutes ago, Damien said: As much as you think you know what people are desperate for and deride and twist what they want then you must be prepared to accept that people view the alternatives different to yourself too. Others obviously have much more faith and confidence in the game and don't see it as just a pale imitation of other sports. They see the change in 2021 as great and a sign of maturity and confidence in the event. They are not wanting it just to copy other sports. In contrast the scewed, unfair supergroup concept is a Four Nations with a few bolt ins. It is a sign of insecurity and is unfathomable to outsiders. They see it as laughable and a manufactured event, devaluing the World Cup to them immediately. What do people want? I think it’s watching the best teams play each other, not tier one sides beating minows by 100+ points. Which group fixtures do you think would have better attendances? Possible Super Group Eng v New Zealand Eng v Tonga Eng v France Possible actual Group 2021 Eng v Lebanon Eng v Italy Eng v Russia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 18 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said: What do people want? I think it’s watching the best teams play each other, not beating minows by 100+ points. Which group fixtures do you think would have better attendances? Possible Super Group Eng v New Zealand Eng v Tonga Eng v France Possible actual Group 2021 Eng v Lebanon Eng v Italy Eng v Russia My problem with this argument is that it assumes that all the possible attendees of the Rugby League World Cup know that New Zealand, Tonga and France are stronger nations than Lebanon, Italy and Russia. We should be attracting people to the World Cup who don't know if Tonga are better than Italy or France are better than Russia. Now, New Zealand I will give you because most people know New Zealand are good at 'rugby' but if every attendee of the World Cup could place the rest in order of world ranking then we haven't used the World Cup to reach any new audiences at all. Let me put it another way. In the current Women's football World Cup England were in a group (D) with Japan, Argentina and Scotland. Was that a tougher group or an easier group than Group E which was Netherlands, Canada, Cameroon and New Zealand? The bottom line is that the vast majority of people watching this World Cup don't know and don't care. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith989 Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 4 hours ago, scotchy1 said: What cricket do and what we did isn't unfair. If we aren't willing to take advantages of our strengths then we cant really complain that other sports do and they see success. Making the most valuable competition isn't a failing of cricket, Its pretty much the most basic aim. How is cricket not unfair when they are reducing the nunber of teams in the WC? There is no other reason other than financial to do this, given the sheer amount of upsets in both t20 and 50 over world cups. What we are seeing now is the death of interest in cricket in Ireland when it was all looking so promising only a few years ago. I can imagine it's the same for the Netherlands, Scotland etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.