Jump to content

how to improve home nations


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, wiganermike said:

When the SH teams tour here then the other home nations and France should get a game against them too. Doing so removes the need (as they currently have no choice but to switch to England if they wish to play Aus/NZ and probably Tonga too now) for players like Joe Philbin and those before him to switch to England.

Do you think then that if Australia had agreed to play Ireland this autumn (while over here for the now cancelled Ashes) that Philbin would have stuck with them and not wanted to switch to England?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Irish people back the Lions every time there’s a tour. You wouldn’t just take a game there immediately, it would be some time in the making anyway.

The other nations are wasting money. They’re doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. You’re never going to grow the game domestically when you’re paying to take 30+ people, who are English or Australian to Spain, Serbia, France etc for World Cup qualifier games and paying to rent out stadia so that less people than watch sixth tier Football can see a game. There’s thousands of pounds thrown down the drain in the hope that somehow, some way the game of Rugby League booms in their respective countries. It’s not going to happen like that. It’s ludicrous to suggest it would. 

You’re going to have to hope there’s Irish, Scottish and Welsh versions of Eric Perez out there that have the power to sell the game to wealthy investors, which is unlikely. I’m not sure we can rely on just finding investors either. Or you do something different. 

When Celtic Crusaders were on the up and heading towards Super League, the youth game there was heavily pushed and look at the results there. Grand Final winners and seasoned pros born in Wales are spread across a number of the Super League sides. 

The British AND IRISH lions in union don't walk out under the union jack or stand for GSTQ. The GB lions in league however couldn't be anymore disrespectful to us, hence why I and other Irish posters on here were totally against rugby league Ireland wanting to be apart of that tour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wiganermike said:

Unless a sport is a part of the cultural psyche of the population of at least a large area within a nation then development officers are going to be of very limited value and the junior game will struggle to become established. Without people living there being aware of the existence of the sport in their nation and the ability to play it and go on to represent your nation, then it is going to be difficult to generate and sustain the will amongst a large enough proportion of the populace to establish, play for and support the clubs and thus the game at community level. I know that many children play a sport simply for the enjoyment of playing it rather than as a future career but they are much more likely to consider playing it in the first place (and to keep playing it) if they have some visible (on whatever level) team and players to look up to and inspire their interest. Club sides whether pro, semi pro or amateur will only catch the attention of those local to that specific club (unless the sport has a reach akin to football, few sports do). If there is no RL national team to know about but there is a RU national team or a football national team then those other sports will get the interest. The best way to catch the interest of the population across the whole of a nation is with a national team that plays regular games that the public there are able to attend. Once that national team has attracted the interest of someone they are much more likely to pay attention to and support the efforts of development officers or a local community club. Both approaches are needed.

How do you explain the growth of American football in the UK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

Do you think then that if Australia had agreed to play Ireland this autumn (while over here for the now cancelled Ashes) that Philbin would have stuck with them and not wanted to switch to England?

The system as it is set up currently sees players declare themselves to play for Ireland/Scotland/Wales and largely using it as a springboard to get an England cap. They treat it as an England Knights team but one that can play in World Cups then ditch them after a WC. Joe Philbin is by no means the first and as things stand he is not going to be the last. He has already played for the Knights after playing for Ireland and has basically stated he won't be returning for the Irish. All of them when switching to England have cited a desire to play against Aus & NZ and only being able to do so by playing for England. While it's not a guarantee that no players would switch if as I suggested the players representing the other home nations also knew that they (and not just England) could play at home against touring SH teams, as well as being able to earn a place on GB tours, then I do believe that fewer would as the need to switch to England would be removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Well GB doesnt cover 5 countries so its unlikely to help too much in that regard.

In Scotland a lot of people see themselves as Scottish and not British. 

No way would competing as GB improve any brand. Nor would playing home games in England.

GB should be resigned to history, if theres going to be any history left at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, yipyee said:

How do you explain the growth of American football in the UK?

American Football was televised in the UK during the 80s on Channel 4, a man called William "Refrigerator" Perry was one of the big names as was Dan Marino. Many tv shows from America that are shown over here contain and have contained references to American Football in some cases regularly. Films like Mean Machine, Wildcats, Any Given Sunday have also brought it to the attention of audiences outside the US. NFL Europe further introduced people to the sport during the 90s even though that league faltered it still led to more people picking up an interest in the sport. The NFL through a concerted effort have launched and expanded a series of games in London annually, they are excellent at promoting their sport. Even as a kid during the late 80s I remember that I could collect small cardboard NFL shirts that would fit on a key ring that were free with some kind of sweets (can't remember what they came free with but I do remember them). I don't care two hoots about American Football, I find it boring personally but without trying there are a collection of methods by which I from childhood was made aware of the sport and which to this day I can recall without trying and also a method more recently by which the NFL have sought to and succeeded in capitalising on those earlier efforts. American Football has no international teams as other sports do but through such efforts it has sufficiently entered the cultural sporting psyche over here that people will go to those games in London, will set up/play for their own local teams and are sufficiently interested that they will follow the results of a team on the other side of the Atlantic and consider it their team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, wiganermike said:

While it's not a guarantee that no players would switch if as I suggested the players representing the other home nations also knew that they (and not just England) could play at home against touring SH teams, as well as being able to earn a place on GB tours, then I do believe that fewer would as the need to switch to England would be removed.

I understand your point, but if a player is good enough to have been selected for GB, I think that they will always want to represent England (if eligible) for the three years in between, simply because there is such a huge gap (as things currently stand) between playing for England and playing for Ireland/Scotland/Wales.

That's why I made the point about Philbin - I cannot imagine that Ireland playing one off matches against touring Australia/NZ/Tonga teams, would ever have been enough for him to remain committed to them in non-GB years. I think someone like him - who is eligible for England - will always seek to switch to England, once they have proven themselves good enough (which you clearly are if you've been selected for GB.

I guess it's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, because if Ireland could retain the likes of Philbin, they might then be good enough to warrant more regular matches against Australia etc. That in turn would make it more desirable for others to put their names forward for Ireland. But until you reach that critical mass, it's always likely that English born players will play for Ireland ONLY until England wants them and/or they themselves feel they're good enough to be in contention for England. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Keith989 said:

The British AND IRISH lions in union don't walk out under the union jack or stand for GSTQ. The GB lions in league however couldn't be anymore disrespectful to us, hence why I and other Irish posters on here were totally against rugby league Ireland wanting to be apart of that tour.

I agree. I find it frustrating that the rugby union Lions gets mentioned almost every time someone makes a point in favour of GB RL. The two teams are world's apart in terms of how they go about things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the Home Nations to be a serious competitive force, they need to be treated seriously first.  Outside of the World Cup year, everything about the Wolfhounds, Bravehearts and even Dragons unfortunately screams amateur or unprofessional.

Fixtures are scheduled as late as humanly possible, matches are played in often tiny grounds with only a few hundred watching, there are no 'development camps' or other gatherings leading in, the coaches of the national teams are rarely even mentioning anything until the regular season is over.

There is no regular marketing or even data gathering to build the very few 'home tests' these nations play.

It's no wonder that when it is time to play, some of the top players, who are eligible for the side, are reluctant to play.  I mean, what are we providing the players as incentives?

  • Money? Nah can't afford to pay the players
  • Crowds / Audiences? No, sorry
  • A chance to connect with their heritage? Doesn't appear that way
  • A chance to showcase their skills? Doesn't really help established players, emerging, yes, but established, not really

Compound this with the fact we can't even necessarily tell you who you'll play or when, I'm sure many players just put it in the 'too hard' basket.

These three nations, plus France, should just pretty much form an agreement that for the next 4, 8, 10 or so years, they'll play each other, regardless of whether there is a World Cup, European Nations, Qualifiers, whatever... At least if they had 3 Tests guaranteed and locked in, each and every year which they can use to sell to players, sell to governments, sell to sponsors etc.

Maybe they can get some sponsorship dollars, or get a grant from the RLEF/IRL and do some promotion, and build some crowds... Honestly, why can't Wales v Ireland somewhere in Wales get a crowd of around 10K?  There are over 2.5K participants in Wales between clubs, schools and universities, which gives you a pretty solid base to start with.    You then had 62K attend matches in Wales in the RLWC (8K Wrexham, 3K Neath, 45K Cardiff, 6K Wrexham Semi), sure not all of them were Welsh fans, but still it's a pretty solid database to be marketing out to...

Suddenly if these games look a bit more professional, have a bit of a crowd and are locked in, I reckon you'd start to see players more inclined to turn out for these nations.  You'd possibly find England would be more willing to play them as well.

Sure it won't turn them into a Tonga, but it would make them more competitive than they currently are.

Unfortunately for Wales, Ireland or Scotland to become a real competitor to the top tier nations, they have to grow their player pool and that takes investment.  Arguably a bottom up approach would be best, but even if they suddenly created Academy teams and High Performance Units at all the junior ages and tried to push the top talent into the English system, it would help.  

PACIFIQUE TREIZE: Join the team by registering as a fan today at pacifique13.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

I understand your point, but if a player is good enough to have been selected for GB, I think that they will always want to represent England (if eligible) for the three years in between, simply because there is such a huge gap (as things currently stand) between playing for England and playing for Ireland/Scotland/Wales.

That's why I made the point about Philbin - I cannot imagine that Ireland playing one off matches against touring Australia/NZ/Tonga teams, would ever have been enough for him to remain committed to them in non-GB years. I think someone like him - who is eligible for England - will always seek to switch to England, once they have proven themselves good enough (which you clearly are if you've been selected for GB.

I guess it's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, because if Ireland could retain the likes of Philbin, they might then be good enough to warrant more regular matches against Australia etc. That in turn would make it more desirable for others to put their names forward for Ireland. But until you reach that critical mass, it's always likely that English born players will play for Ireland ONLY until England wants them and/or they themselves feel they're good enough to be in contention for England. 

 

the only way to make international sides better is to state when a player plays for a national side they have decided that's the country they want to play for and cannot change.  What have youngsters in Wales, Scotland and Ireland got to aim for if every 4 years players who cant make the England or other Tier 1 nations side decide they want to play for Wales, Scotland and Ireland.  It would be a kick in the teeth for the players who train and turn out for their country for 3 years then to be told sorry its a world cup next year and if players don't make Tier 1 squads we will have them instead of you,  but its ok after the world cup you can come back and play for us as these players wont want to play against tier 2 nations on a regular basis.  i know what i would say and that is thanks but no thanks.  Wales have got some great youngsters coming through at the moment and it would be great if they stay together for the world cup, they may not win lots of games next year but 2025 will be a different proposition in my honest opinion.  So come on lets do away with the swapping teams just so i can play in a world cup attitude and give youngsters something to aim for so at least if they don't make it its because somebody else who wants to play for lets say Wales is better than them and not just using it as a stepping stone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, stevevalerugby said:

To be honest id only want players who want to commit to playing for Wales playing for Wales.

 

What does that actually mean though? Playing in front of a couple of hundred a couple of times a year? When you could play in front of 30k plus for England regularly against Australia and New Zealand. On a purely professional level the choice isn't even.

We see it in France where there is less opportunity to play for other nations (vs the home nations) that players hardly turn up except for the big occasions.

We in England need to give the status to the home nations and France beyond just the 2 months of the World cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The problem is that in that situation nobody would commit to the 2nd tier nations. 

Why would anyone commit to playing for Wales for their entire career when chances are they will play top internationals once or twice in their career if.they are lucky?

Everything stems from having regular top internationals.

You would have said the same about Tonga a few years ago though. The better Wales get the more likely players are to commit to them, and vice versa. I know Wales are unlikely to be better than England any time soon but if they had a team who could give us a good game it would be superb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the likes of England , Australia and New Zealand played against the likes of Wales, France, Scotland and Ireland instead of just looking down with contempt at them then perhaps they would improve and the players like Philbin would stay with say Ireland but then your Tier 1 sides wouldn't be able to entice players who become world class to move as they would already be playing against the top nations.  But for this to happen you have to stop being able to jump between sides.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Eddie said:

You would have said the same about Tonga a few years ago though. The better Wales get the more likely players are to commit to them, and vice versa. I know Wales are unlikely to be better than England any time soon but if they had a team who could give us a good game it would be superb. 

Tonga have the advantage of being under the NRL umbrella and thus got to participate in the pacific series and Oceania cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 17 stone giant said:

Whose job is it to arrange such matches? Is it the RFL?

The fact that nobody has taken the initiative in that regard from a position of power (ie the RFL) tells you all you need to know. 

Wales, Scotland, France and Ireland have all in the past 4 years said they wanted to either play or host England. We've only taken up France, once, on any of those offers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stevevalerugby said:

if the likes of England , Australia and New Zealand played against the likes of Wales, France, Scotland and Ireland instead of just looking down with contempt at them then perhaps they would improve and the players like Philbin would stay with say Ireland but then your Tier 1 sides wouldn't be able to entice players who become world class to move as they would already be playing against the top nations.  But for this to happen you have to stop being able to jump between sides.

 

I don't think banning jumping altogether helps particularly and doesn't recognise the fact that France aside, a significant amount of Northern Hemisphere international players are going to be English qualified by birth first. Perhaps a system of no switching in 5 years (covering 2 world cups) would be a way to go to ensure player loyalty to a nation. The European under 19s is another way of engendering national pride for these teams.

Personally I believe all players in academies, Super League, Championship and League 1 (as well as the Australian equivalents), should put down both their preferred nation (to be shown next to their name when they score on sky sports) but also their nations they would be willing to represent of heritage when they register. This would provide a database for the IRL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The fact that nobody has taken the initiative in that regard from a position of power (ie the RFL) tells you all you need to know. 

Wales, Scotland, France and Ireland have all in the past 4 years said they wanted to either play or host England. We've only taken up France, once, on any of those offers.

To be fair should it be up to the RFL to organise internationals? There should be a strong international body pushing these games to go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Keith989 said:

To be fair should it be up to the RFL to organise internationals? There should be a strong international body pushing these games to go ahead.

There is an international body, of which the RFL is one of the 2 most powerful members. And a European body, of which the RFL is without doubt the most powerful member. If either international body is pushing for games then the RFL will be part of and likely leading that decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

There is an international body, of which the RFL is one of the 2 most powerful members. And a European body, of which the RFL is without doubt the most powerful member. If either international body is pushing for games then the RFL will be part of and likely leading that decision.

Well then that is a huge issue as they will never vote for games to go ahead that effects their club calendar, are they? I can't even imagine how bad the international game would look like in union if the PRL and the LNR looked after internationals in the NH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Keith989 said:

Well then that is a huge issue as they will never vote for games to go ahead that effects their club calendar, are they? I can't even imagine how bad the international game would look like in union if the PRL and the LNR looked after internationals in the NH.

Well maybe there should be a  window set aside  in the  middle of a season for international fixtures.

 

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.