Jump to content

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


Abicus

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

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

Controversial statement this may be but I think the Kiwis are a bigger brand over here than the Kangaroos - if only because to non Leaguies its New Zealand and Rugby so they must be good. That we've over played it is unfortunate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Controversial statement this may be but I think the Kiwis are a bigger brand over here than the Kangaroos - if only because to non Leaguies its New Zealand and Rugby so they must be good. That we've over played it is unfortunate.

They could well be now. We haven't played a series against the Kangaroos for 16 years. In the 80s and early 90s the Kangaroos were household names in sporting terms, courtesy of the likes of Mal Meninga, and we were playing them home or away every 2 years. They've now fallen away from public consciousness massively. For me, they should be up there in the UK as one of the most iconic international sporting teams, but they're not. Winning virtually everything going for several years running never seemed to do Usain Bolt, Tiger Woods and the All Blacks any harm. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter to the Aussies because the sport is already extremely successful over there, but it does matter to the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DC77 said:

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. 

AB's have had played 12 different teams. 

Kangaroos have played 10 different teams. 

One of the reasons we get poor crowds for some games is the lack of decent organisation and credibility given to these games. And that is across the sport not just the Kangaroos. But we can't just say that the Kangaroos wont play games until the opposition are decent and will fill grounds - it doesn't work like that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/11/2019 at 19:04, Mr Wind Up said:

Who are they meant to play against? If you play NZ once, you play England once, maybe Tonga. Who else? What is actually the point of Australia playing anyone else?  

Other countries need to prove that they should get a chance to play against Australia. Unless your idea is that they just play the usual suspects again and again.

Maybe it's less of a they don't care enough, and more of a they're so much better than most of the pack that they probably shouldn't be playing more than they do.

Fiji beat NZ in 2017 (haven't played a tier 1 since). PNG beat Great Britain. Who else do you expect these teams to beat to earn a chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, jim_57 said:

Fiji beat NZ in 2017 (haven't played a tier 1 since). PNG beat Great Britain. Who else do you expect these teams to beat to earn a chance?

Australia played Fiji in 2017 after Fiji beat NZ.

Australia have been sending a select Squad to play PNG every year for many years.

This year they played Fiji.

Talent is secondary to whether players are confident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Allora said:

Australia played Fiji in 2017 after Fiji beat NZ.

Australia have been sending a select Squad to play PNG every year for many years.

This year they played Fiji.

Why is that game (in bold) dressed up as a Prime Minister’s XIII and not just the national side playing a Test match?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 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 non-internationals have the All Blacks players played in those 2 years. Sonny Bill for example has only played 11 non-internationals and 12 internationals in those 2 years. A total of 23 games in 2 years.... 

That is without getting into the very different demands of the different sports. The comparison is utterly worthless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

How many non-internationals have the All Blacks players played in those 2 years. Sonny Bill for example has only played 11 non-internationals and 12 internationals in those 2 years. A total of 23 games in 2 years.... 

That is without getting into the very different demands of the different sports. The comparison is utterly worthless. 

What's that got to do with anything? Hasn't SBW spent the last 2 years struggling with injuries also?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Why is that game (in bold) dressed up as a Prime Minister’s XIII and not just the national side playing a Test match?

Because it is not the national side or Test strength squad

It is a team made up of some regular Test players and some fringe up and comers.

 

 

 

Talent is secondary to whether players are confident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Why is that game (in bold) dressed up as a Prime Minister’s XIII and not just the national side playing a Test match?

Tbf the best England side played Jamaica this year (without most of the stars because they were in the GB side) and we insisted on calling them the knights - which was a frankly ridiculous suggestion imo especially when this doesn't happen in other sports.

There was a perfect chance for the already qualified for the world cup northern hemisphere nations, England (who were weakened by GB selections), Wales (who weren't weakened by GB selections, thank you Wayne Bennett), France and Jamaica, to have a competitive series of games at reasonably sized stadia with perhaps only Jamaica not hosting a home game and England travelling to Wales and France. All 4 teams would have benefitted from the experience of playing together and perhaps between the BBC and a French channel they could have been aired on TV. Thinking about it even Lebanon could have been involved. Did we do it? No, we demeaned a side who will be playing in the world cup next year and then packed up because our administrators can only do one thing at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Allora said:

Australia played Fiji in 2017 after Fiji beat NZ.

Australia have been sending a select Squad to play PNG every year for many years.

This year they played Fiji.

Yes, in the semi of a World Cup, like I said since then (2017) Fiji haven't played a tier 1. Australia sent a PMXIII side and played Fiji PMXIII made up of all locals, not a test by a long shot.

I wasn't really having a dig at Australia just the idea that Australia can't play anyone else because they haven't earned it even though teams have beaten NZ & England in recent years. Australia don't have to play everyone every year but to put them on a pedestal and dismiss the idea of them playing Fiji, Samoa, PNG and other tier 2s because it's a "waste of time" is ridiculous. English fans do the same with France & other European nations too for the record. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

How many non-internationals have the All Blacks players played in those 2 years. Sonny Bill for example has only played 11 non-internationals and 12 internationals in those 2 years. A total of 23 games in 2 years.... 

That is without getting into the very different demands of the different sports. The comparison is utterly worthless. 

The comparison is very apt, the above post was worthless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

How would nations possibly become decent and fill grounds when they never play them? It's completely the wrong way round.

We need lots of games, against lots of nations, lots of times. That's how you build rivalries and context and everything that goes in to creating an international scene.

We dont have one, we dont have that continuum. In football you have friendlies which are a build up to qualifiers which are a build up to euros and world cups. If a game isnt important in and of itself it's building towards one that is. In RU you have mixtures of test matches and series and autumn internationals and world cups that all feed in to a narrative of improving or falling and on to the next thing.

That's the international calendar we need. Everything else is just setting expectations. 

For instance GB terrible being isnt the worst thing that could happen. It's probably, actually the best thing that could happen because it highlights the challenge a gb tour is. The brave GB lads far away from home battered and bruised, that builds towards the next one. It's a true challenge. If the international game had any commitment it would be selling the next tour now. 

Similarly with australia coming over for a tour, it's just about setting expectations and creating a challenge. If Australia would come over here and play some club sides and some international sides and win 9 times out 10. Then the challenge is to win 10. 

People like two things in sport. Underdogs and unstoppable machines. 

If Australia are an unstoppable force, fine. Have 3 competitions per year every year and make them prove it. When they do we have an objective measure of their brilliance to show everyone just how good they are. The better they are, the more you throw at them until they break. That's how you test them. If they go 10 matches unbeaten challenge them to do 20, of they go 20 challenge them to do 50. If they win 50 matches in a row make challenge them to win twice in a week. 

Tiger woods won a major, then the challenge was  grand slam, then a calendar grand slam, then jack Nicklaus record. Boxers want a world title, then unification, then in another weight. 

We need numerous competitions every year to measure quality. 2 games a year just doesnt prove that Australia are the best in the world

Agree completely.

I find it bizarre that in other sports where the champions are dominant (individual or teams) they are celebrated, championed and people would go to great lengths to watch them. In RL we treat it like a dirty secret and are embarrassed about it.

It's weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DC77 said:

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.

Exactly. I would suggest that if the Kangaroos had the same circumstances that the All Blacks enjoy, they too would happily play a similar number of matches. It would be a no-brainer to do so, since those matches would be played in front of sell-out crowds in large stadiums. It would make the Kangaroos a fortune, just as it does the All Blacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Tbf the best England side played Jamaica this year (without most of the stars because they were in the GB side) and we insisted on calling them the knights - which was a frankly ridiculous suggestion imo especially when this doesn't happen in other sports.

There was a perfect chance for the already qualified for the world cup northern hemisphere nations, England (who were weakened by GB selections), Wales (who weren't weakened by GB selections, thank you Wayne Bennett), France and Jamaica, to have a competitive series of games at reasonably sized stadia with perhaps only Jamaica not hosting a home game and England travelling to Wales and France. All 4 teams would have benefitted from the experience of playing together and perhaps between the BBC and a French channel they could have been aired on TV. Thinking about it even Lebanon could have been involved. Did we do it? No, we demeaned a side who will be playing in the world cup next year and then packed up because our administrators can only do one thing at a time.

But it wasn't the best England side, even without the stars. It was a mix of people that could of been in the GB set up, as well as upcoming talents, like Rob Butler, who wouldn't of made a full England team, but I am sure gained a lot of experience being in the Knights set up, and being able to play in this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Click said:

What's that got to do with anything? Hasn't SBW spent the last 2 years struggling with injuries also?

Ok, spoken like someone with an absolute in depth knowledge of what it is like to play RL...but lets use some of the most played or used players in the All Blacks instead. 

Beauden Barrett, in the reasonable involved role of RU fullback, has played a total of 49 games, club, rep and international,  in 2 years. In those 2 years he has completed just over 100 tackles and made 240 odd carries and gained around 2400 metres.  

Kieran Read , the All Black skipper, in the much more demanding role of number 8 has played 34 times in 2 years in all games. He has made 393 tackles and 217 carries and gained around 690 metres.

Aaron Smith, in the very involved position of scrum half, has also played 49 times in 2 years, has made 235 tackles and carried the ball 86 times for around 670 metres in those 2 years. 

In Australian RL just for example;

Damien Cook the current Australia hooker, has played 58 games in the last 2 years, club, rep and international, he has made over 2300 tackles and has ran over 4400 metres.

The current full back , James Tedesco, has played 60 times in the last 2 years. He has made 231 tackles , has had over 700 carries and gained over 9000 metres.

The current Australian loose forward , Jake Trbojevic, has  played 60 times in the last 2 years. He has  made over 2200 tackles and carried over 800 times for over 6000 metres.

Judge for yourself what "that has got to do with anything" and what asking the RL players to play another dozen plus games over 2 years might do to them and the games.

Alternatively, play a game of RL one week, play a game of RU another week. Then ask yourself would like to play 40 games of RL or 25 games of RU over exactly the same period ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Click said:

But it wasn't the best England side, even without the stars. It was a mix of people that could of been in the GB set up, as well as upcoming talents, like Rob Butler, who wouldn't of made a full England team, but I am sure gained a lot of experience being in the Knights set up, and being able to play in this game.

But for a few additions it was a pretty good side that was put out and certainly was used looking to 2021 where realistically the likes of Evalds, Oledzki, Greenwood, Minikin, Lineham, Newman, King, Richardson etc could all be in contention for an England berth at the world cup. Wayne Bennett went with tried and tested in his most recent selections, including Hall for example on the wing, because the players in the frame for internationals just don't get the opportunity to play in that environment enough. We never get chance to experiment with selections or try new things because we only ever seem to play high pressure must win games against the top 3 teams in the world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

But for a few additions it was a pretty good side that was put out and certainly was used looking to 2021 where realistically the likes of Evalds, Oledzki, Greenwood, Minikin, Lineham, Newman, King, Richardson etc could all be in contention for an England berth at the world cup. Wayne Bennett went with tried and tested in his most recent selections, including Hall for example on the wing, because the players in the frame for internationals just don't get the opportunity to play in that environment enough. We never get chance to experiment with selections or try new things because we only ever seem to play high pressure must win games against the top 3 teams in the world. 

That's why we need an Oceania Cup-style comp with P&R in Europe, even if England plays only two games a year in it. And that's England, not England Knights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Man of Kent said:

That's why we need an Oceania Cup-style comp with P&R in Europe, even if England plays only two games a year in it. And that's England, not England Knights.

Precisely. Hallelujah. These don't have to be games that sell out Spurs or Wembley but can be allowed to build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

You seemed to have joined the fantasy crew.

If it is a wild fantasy to expect the World Champion team to play more than 2 games a year, then absolutely. 

Other sports just don't do it, and every excuse rolled out has pretty much been dismissed with real-life examples really easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

Exactly. I would suggest that if the Kangaroos had the same circumstances that the All Blacks enjoy, they too would happily play a similar number of matches. It would be a no-brainer to do so, since those matches would be played in front of sell-out crowds in large stadiums. It would make the Kangaroos a fortune, just as it does the All Blacks.

So the natural conclusion is to play only 2 games a year? Why aren't GB and the Kiwis only playing 2 a year then? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If it is a wild fantasy to expect the World Champion team to play more than 2 games a year, then absolutely. 

Other sports just don't do it, and every excuse rolled out has pretty much been dismissed with real-life examples really easily.

The NRL/RLPA effectively ###### all over the confederations cup idea because they want to be in total control of how many tests the Kangaroos play each year. They idea is almost certainly to minimise the tests played around WC years. In 2012 they did nob all and then 2015 played just one test, 2018/2019 playing just 2 tests each year. Keeps the RLPA happy.

What I don't understand is why the RLPA only seems to have influence over the Aussie test team? The NRL feeds 6-7 nations in decent numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Absolutely. Workington would do.  

A European Cup would also strengthen France, Wales, Ireland, Scotland etc.

Exactly. To be honest I think we could be a bit more ambitious than that with locations. A better example would be to use Cardiff Arms Park (12,000 capacity) rather than Millenium. Equally Scotstoun in Glasgow or the new smaller ground being built next to Murrayfield would be ideal for Scotland to host games. England could look at places that don't normally feature in the big test calendar for the smaller games so Kingston Park Newcastle, Cumbria (if it ever gets built), York, maybe even Coventry or particularly Bristol for a wales game. We can't forget too that Leeds and London consistently have provided our best attended internationals so Headingley and perhaps even Brentford's new stadium could be potential venues for England. I don't know enough about France but you'd have to imagine the south west (Avignon, Perpignan, Toulouse) would be a good place to start. 

Perhaps it could start with England mainly playing away from home to put some much needed finances in the coffers of our neighbours. Just having England involved would give the whole thing a boost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.