Mal Meninga: "We're playing the right amount of games"

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 minute ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

It’s pie in the sky nonsense to be suggesting we need to be playing more. It’s simply not feasible with the current structure we have at club level. Now, I know people will want to cut this, that or the other but it’s not happening, so it’s redundant saying we should. 

Disagree. If people believe it's in the best interests of the wider game, then we should keep banging the drum.

2 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

The Exiles? Well, did that actually work? I don’t know if we didn’t give it enough time to gain a foothold in the game or whether it was that poorly performing financially, that it needed to go. Are the Exiles even a good enough draw to pull in a respectable crowd? How close to an International side that we’d be playing end of season are the Exiles side?

It was a terrible idea for me. One that was doomed to not engage supporters. Moreover, if the concept had been successful, it would have killed itself - i.e. if the English game had developed its playing strength then the reliance on overseas players would have been less, and consequently the Exiles would get weaker. The last game saw England beat them without breaking a sweat.

6 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

I’m not sure what the answer is, if I’m honest but I know slating Australia definitely isn’t the answer. 

An annual mid-season European Championships involving the full England side, couple with a high profile Autumn competition (WC, Confederations Cup and Lions series). It's no coincidence that the home nations suddenly manage to get a competitive team together when they're playing in a high profile tournament (e.g. WCs and Scotland in the 4 Nations). We must increase the number of high profile internationals as a matter of urgency to avoid falling further and further behind other sports in the public consciousness.

[Man of Kent]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

1 - When people talk about Australia, they talk about the Kangaroos. For the last two years, they have played only 2 games each year. That is pathetic, and is clearly them doing the bare minimum. 

2 - I agree that 5 is fine and every nation should play 5 per year, that would be progress, but why do you think 4 or 5 will be more than we will play? England already have 3 organised, and history has shown that we will have a warm-up and they are starting to clear the schedule in June for a trip Down Under for a mid-season Test. I expect we will also play 5 next year.

In the last few years Eng/GB have played 4, 5, 7, 4, 4

That's a guess, though. As of now, it is a fact the Aussies are playing more than England next year.

The days of blaming the Aussies for the state of the international game are long gone. It's arguably stronger than ever. It's us up here in the Northern Hemisphere who need to pull our finger out.

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

That's a guess, though. As of now, it is a fact the Aussies are playing more than England next year.

The days of blaming the Aussies for the state of the international game are long gone. It's arguably stronger than ever. It's us up here in the Northern Hemisphere who need to pull our finger out.

It is an educated guess, when you stated we wont play 4 or 5, history and evidence suggests you are wrong.

The Aussies played 2 this year. And 2 last year. That isnt the sign of a strong and committed Kangaroos.

[17 stone giant]

All things considered, I think Australia playing four or five times a year is a good effort from them.

[roughyedspud]

11 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

That's a guess, though. As of now, it is a fact the Aussies are playing more than England next year.

 

Because England haven't announced who they are playing mid season or in the 2 weeks between the grand final and the first ashes test yet..

England could be playing another 3 internationals on top of the 3 ashes tests

[Damien]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

5 Tests is a decent number, relatively speaking. If we all played 5 each year, that would be a very decent starting point and allow substantial growth. 

It would be fine if that was the case every year.

[Man of Kent]

15 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It is an educated guess, when you stated we wont play 4 or 5, history and evidence suggests you are wrong.

The Aussies played 2 this year. And 2 last year. That isnt the sign of a strong and committed Kangaroos.

No, it's the sign of a strong and committed players' union. We all know the realpolitik of this.

My point is the lazy old excuse of blaming England's failings on the Aussies for not being committed to the international game no longer holds water.

The international game is strengthening rapidly thanks to the NRL and England is in danger of getting left behind because they appear Down Under to be taking it more seriously than we are. Where is our Oceania Cup? Where was our midseason Test? Where is next year's?

 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

32 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It is an educated guess, when you stated we wont play 4 or 5, history and evidence suggests you are wrong.

The Aussies played 2 this year. And 2 last year. That isnt the sign of a strong and committed Kangaroos.

Why isn’t it a sign of that? Maybe they recognise that 13 games in the two previous years and 3-6 games in 2020 and another 6-8 game in 2021 is a lot going forward and that with the rigours of club and state football, it’s a lot for their players to juggle so more barren years are ways in the which they can get, what they believe is, adequate rest. 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

7 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

No, it's the sign of a strong and committed players' union. We all know the realpolitik of this.

My point is the lazy old excuse of blaming England's failings on the Aussies for not being committed to the international game no longer holds water.

The international game is strengthening rapidly thanks to the NRL and England is in danger of getting left behind because they appear Down Under to be taking it more seriously than we are. Where is our Oceania Cup? Where was our midseason Test? Where is next year's?

 

This is spot on. 

While it would be nice to play Australia more than we do, we’ve (England) averaged exactly the same amount of games as them over the past four years. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Man of Kent said:

No, it's the sign of a strong and committed players' union. We all know the realpolitik of this.

My point is the lazy old excuse of blaming England's failings on the Aussies for not being committed to the international game no longer holds water.

The international game is strengthening rapidly thanks to the NRL and England is in danger of getting left behind because they appear Down Under to be taking it more seriously than we are. Where is our Oceania Cup? Where was our midseason Test? Where is next year's?

 

Well of course you can keep ignoring the facts that are presented that show that the RFL stage more internationals for their national team than the Kangaroos. 

The RFL led the development of the 4N, hosting it to grow it, before it was disbanded for the Confed Cup that the Aussies sacked off.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Why isn’t it a sign of that? Maybe they recognise that 13 games in the two previous years and 3-6 games in 2020 and another 6-8 game in 2021 is a lot going forward and that with the rigours of club and state football, it’s a lot for their players to juggle so more barren years are ways in the which they can get, what they believe is, adequate rest. 

Yes, 2 internationals a year is definitely a sign of a strong commitment by the Kangaroos to international RL.

[Man of Kent]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Well of course you can keep ignoring the facts that are presented that show that the RFL stage more internationals for their national team than the Kangaroos. 

The RFL led the development of the 4N, hosting it to grow it, before it was disbanded for the Confed Cup that the Aussies sacked off.

I hate it when threads veer off into pointless personal arguments so I'll leave it there.

All I'll say is international rugby league is changing fast and I'd rather we get our systems and structures right up here before bemoaning things we can do little about.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

This is spot on. 

While it would be nice to play Australia more than we do, we’ve (England) averaged exactly the same amount of games as them over the past four years. 

Surely you aren't discounting GB there?

Because Eng/GB have played 20 Tests over the last 4 years. The Aussies have played 17.

But over the last 2 years the Aussies have played only 4 Tests, the English/British have played 9, the Kiwis have played 9 too.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Man of Kent said:

I hate it when threads veer off into pointless personal arguments so I'll leave it there.

All I'll say is international rugby league is changing fast and I'd rather we get our systems and structures right up here before bemoaning things we can do little about.

Pointless personal arguments?

[SilentAssassin]

i wish England/GB played the Aussies far more often than we have over the last 5 years or so. 

Sick to death of the Kiwis now.

Glad this is being addressed next year with the three test series. As far as the Aussies playing enough though i pretty much think they do play enough tests for the competition they have.

[fighting irish]

I'd like to see an arrangement between Atlantic developing nations Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France, Canada, USA, Jamaica (possibly South American nations) which could provide all with good competition and fuel the development of the sport in all.

Cross-pond games are so much more interesting (to me) than home-nations games.

Just as the pacific nations have come on in leaps and bounds nurtured by Australia, we (the Northern Hemisphere) should look to develop the Atlantic zone.

With the much larger populations these nations represent huge potential for development. If not, then Rugby League looks like becoming a Southern Hemisphere sport.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, SilentAssassin said:

i wish England/GB played the Aussies far more often than we have over the last 5 years or so. 

Sick to death of the Kiwis now.

Glad this is being addressed next year with the three test series. As far as the Aussies playing enough though i pretty much think they do play enough tests for the competition they have.

In the All Blacks last 25 matches they have drawn 1 and lost only 4. 80% win record. 

In the Kangroos last 25 matches they have lost 5. 80% win record. 

The big difference is that the AB's have played their 25 over the last 2 years, the Kangaroos over 6 years.

Being good isn't a reason not to play.

[Oliver Clothesoff]

30 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, 2 internationals a year is definitely a sign of a strong commitment by the Kangaroos to international RL.

I don’t get this whole “commitment” argument that only seems to come from English fans. 

They’re committed to ensuring their own national side is strong when it matters and having a year or two with fewer games ahead of, and after, two years of many games on top of the rigours of club and state level Rugby (which won’t be reduced any time soon before people make that useless ‘argument’). 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

27 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Surely you aren't discounting GB there?

Because Eng/GB have played 20 Tests over the last 4 years. The Aussies have played 17.

But over the last 2 years the Aussies have played only 4 Tests, the English/British have played 9, the Kiwis have played 9 too.

So three less games over four years? Won’t somebody please think of the children?!

[Dave T]

30 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

So three less games over four years? Won’t somebody please think of the children?!

5 less over the last two years. Left to their own devices they have clearly shown they will do the minimum.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

11 hours ago, Scubby said:

To win the World Cup they will have to play 6 in 2021

That could be against Lebanon, Scotland and Greece in the group stage which shouldn’t break a sweat. PNG in the quarter final could be the first physical challenge but lack the skill, they are unlikely to be properly challenged until the semi final.

[DC77]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

In the All Blacks last 25 matches they have drawn 1 and lost only 4. 80% win record. 

In the Kangroos last 25 matches they have lost 5. 80% win record. 

The big difference is that the AB's have played their 25 over the last 2 years, the Kangaroos over 6 years.

Being good isn't a reason not to play.

How many different opponents have NZ had in those 25 games though? Kangaroos at most have three worthwhile (and financially viable) opponents (including Tonga).

When NZ play Ireland Landsdowne road is full. When the Kangaroos played Ireland in the 2013 RLWC there was 5k rattling around a 30k seater in Limerick. 

Again, the onus is on the opposition to improve to make it worthwhile for the Aussies to play more. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

In the All Blacks last 25 matches they have drawn 1 and lost only 4. 80% win record. 

In the Kangroos last 25 matches they have lost 5. 80% win record. 

The big difference is that the AB's have played their 25 over the last 2 years, the Kangaroos over 6 years.

Being good isn't a reason not to play.

Agreed. There's a reason the All Blacks are a global brand and the Kangaroos aren't.

[Allora]

4 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Agreed. There's a reason the All Blacks are a global brand and the Kangaroos aren't.

Because they play a sport with  a bigger global reach and have more competitive Nations to play against?

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 hours ago, Allora said:

Because they play a sport with  a bigger global reach and have more competitive Nations to play against?

Yes that's another reason.