Test match status

[Neil_Ormston]

'm interested in people's view on this, which has come up whilst I've been working on the all-time rep match list (currently > 1,500, and still the last 15 years to go!)...

What determines the status of international matches, and specifically whether they are classified as 'Test' matches (aka 'Full Internationals')? I have always presumed that this was based on some sort of official status: so games that France played pre-1957 are not Tests, as they were only given full test status (presumably by the International RL Board); given the status of the competition though, I think that the games against France in the World Cup in 1954 are counted as Full Internationals though, by virtue of the competition being played in?! But who makes this call / how is it determined, and is there global acceptance?

On a related point, there are then a second tier of matches that national teams may play which are counted as 'first-class' (and that the RKC are interested in, and need to capture therefore): think tour games against club / representative sides, or possibly international games against / between minor nations who don't have Test status (if this is still a thing) - but I was surprised to note in Rothmans that this explicitly says that the game played in the Emerging Nations World Cup in 1995 DO NOT count towards official records: so not only are these games not test matches (which I guess is pretty uncontentious), but these are not even deemed to be first-class; this seems a little harsh in my view.

There is of course a third tier of matches, which wouldn't be included for a national team - for example, friendlies against domestic club sides, or 'exhibition' games played on tour.

As I say, it would be great to hear people's views on what determines Test status, and also how to define the boundary between the second and third tiers referred to above.

[BrisbaneRhino]

I can't help with international games, but the 1983 Queensland tour and 1987 Auckland tour were counted as "official" games by Leeds. Assume the other clubs they played did the same?

[marklaspalmas]

5 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

I can't help with international games, but the 1983 Queensland tour and 1987 Auckland tour were counted as "official" games by Leeds. Assume the other clubs they played did the same?

It's not for the individual clubs to decide.

[BrisbaneRhino]

The Auckland tour is an interesting one - it was before Auckland/NZ Warriors joined the NRL. That game was pretty rough, maybe because a number of players on both had played in the NZ tour game 2 years earlier which is still the most violent game I've ever watched live.

[BrisbaneRhino]

Thanks Mark for pointing out what should have been blindingly obvious to me!  I just hadn't thought that through....

 

[Number 16]

On 10/06/2020 at 00:08, Neil_Ormston said:

What determines the status of international matches, and specifically whether they are classified as 'Test' matches (aka 'Full Internationals')? I have always presumed that this was based on some sort of official status: so games that France played pre-1957 are not Tests, as they were only given full test status (presumably by the International RL Board); given the status of the competition though, I think that the games against France in the World Cup in 1954 are counted as Full Internationals though, by virtue of the competition being played in?! But who makes this call / how is it determined, and is there global acceptance?

Yet, I think that the French awarded full caps for the games against GB pre 1957. Between 1952 and 1956 there were five such games. Can this anomaly be addressed? Should it be? 

I seem to recall the FA changing the status of an England B team game in Iceland in 1982 to Full International only a few years ago. The upgrade resulted in Paul Goddard and Steve Perryman gaining their only caps for England. 

[Neil_Ormston]

19 hours ago, Number 16 said:

Yet, I think that the French awarded full caps for the games against GB pre 1957. Between 1952 and 1956 there were five such games. Can this anomaly be addressed? Should it be? 

I seem to recall the FA changing the status of an England B team game in Iceland in 1982 to Full International only a few years ago. The upgrade resulted in Paul Goddard and Steve Perryman gaining their only caps for England. 

It strikes me that just as it shouldn't be for clubs to determine the status of their games, so nations shouldn't determine the status of their matches.  It should be based on some pre-defined criteria, ideally consistently applied over time (though maybe needing to reflect different categories that evolve over years). 

Nations unilaterally determining what is a 'test' for example leads to farcical situations where one recognises and the other doesn't.  I can't see how a second team can ever be deemed to play a 'test' (if we take this to be the top level of international sport); both teams need to the their nation's first choice, but there also has a to be a hurdle applied to the standing of both teams; on the criteria is established, I don't see why this would need to be changed retrospectively, though of course things can change in terms of current / future status of teams. 

Statisticians should work on this basis consistently, internationally.  That is far from what we have in RL, and is something that needs addressing.

[BrisbaneRhino]

There's no doubt that for a long time 'England' was an inferior team to GB until the relatively recent split - more like a GB reserve side without a token Welshman.  Whilst a lot of what Schoey says is a it daft, I can understand him arguing that his GB appearance record is different to someone who includes England games from a time when nobody cared about England. Certainly in the 80s/90s an England appearance would not have been considered the pinnacle of representative RL.

[marklaspalmas]

On 11/06/2020 at 15:37, Number 16 said:

Yet, I think that the French awarded full caps for the games against GB pre 1957. Between 1952 and 1956 there were five such games. Can this anomaly be addressed? Should it be? 

I seem to recall the FA changing the status of an England B team game in Iceland in 1982 to Full International only a few years ago. The upgrade resulted in Paul Goddard and Steve Perryman gaining their only caps for England. 

I think there is real merit in this. The idea of going back and changing history is normally dangerous but this seems a baffling, illogical and unjustifiable state of affairs. 

[kev p]

a game between 2 countries should be regarded as first class, but not necessarily a test match. in football brazils first international (by their records) was v exeter city, who were touring at the time. exeter have never been top division let alone international! football still dosent have a first class list of matches, & crickets list of first class matches was sorted out by the ACS in the 70/80s changing records of great players from many years earlier. my opinion of english first class matches are competitive competition games, plus games v tourists & representative games (eg county games etc).  i think the list set out by neil is pretty much right. i stand to be corrected though! its not for clubs to form their own list,  the same format for all must be the right way. 

[Neil_Ormston]

On 12/06/2020 at 21:40, kev p said:

a game between 2 countries should be regarded as first class, but not necessarily a test match. in football brazils first international (by their records) was v exeter city, who were touring at the time. exeter have never been top division let alone international! football still dosent have a first class list of matches, & crickets list of first class matches was sorted out by the ACS in the 70/80s changing records of great players from many years earlier. my opinion of english first class matches are competitive competition games, plus games v tourists & representative games (eg county games etc).  i think the list set out by neil is pretty much right. i stand to be corrected though! its not for clubs to form their own list,  the same format for all must be the right way. 

I think the important thing is defining standards.  The 'emerging nations' are the interesting litmus test here.  In 2000 a BARLA Select team competed alongside nations like Morocco, Japan & Italy - indeed, the beat all 3 to win the tournament.  Should the game between Morocco & Japan really be counted as a 'first-class' match?  And what do you do with the BARLA matches??

Likewise, in the 1995 ENWC, teams were restricted to playing 3 players who were registered with pro teams in any given match, to provide a more even competition (and stop the likes of Ireland using grandparents rules to stack their team, which others couldn't do).  As a result, these matches were not deemed to be 'first-class', so aren't included in players records.  Interestingly, the US played 3 and lost 3 in this, yet Wales count their two matches against them 3 months earlier as full internationals!

[BrisbaneRhino]

There's definitely another category of 'first class' matches below internationals. County championship etc already sit there, so presumably do GB vs World XIII/Exiles that have periodically been played? There also used to be Probables vs Possibles trial games. Are they counted as 'first class' games?

[Neil_Ormston]

On 16/06/2020 at 02:23, BrisbaneRhino said:

There's definitely another category of 'first class' matches below internationals. County championship etc already sit there, so presumably do GB vs World XIII/Exiles that have periodically been played? There also used to be Probables vs Possibles trial games. Are they counted as 'first class' games?

In short yes.  You can probably create 3 or 4 ‘tiers’ here, but really the important ones are Full Internationals (aka Tests), and other first-Class matches, which might include games between two national sides, as well as all the other stuff you mention.  The problem is, there’s no definition I can find, and everyone does their own thing: sound familiar?!  This is what I am currently working on rectifying!

[Number 16]

I don't envy anyone trying to determine the status of international games between lower tier nations, particularly given that countries like Greece, Italy and Turkey have almost entirely different squads in the SH and NH!

[kev p]

did see that one earlier today. strange one though, hes given a cap, but in the same breath they say it wasnt a test match

[Neil_Ormston]

The Alan Jones thing sits extremely uncomfortably with me, as an objective viewer of this.  It smacks of exactly what we're discussing here - cricket is 'fortunate' in having a strong global governing body that rule on things such as test status, which is rather helpful for the stattos.  But for an international team to unilaterally ignore that, and do whatever they fancy, well, it sounds like rugby league doesn't it!  It's just not cricket.

[rlno1]

Just on the 1995 Wales games v USA these should be reclassified as Phil Ford a Welsh player was one of the touch judges....surely just that fact alone means the game doesn't reach the standards of a full international. 

I know we like to get as many international games up as possible...but I feel calling them Wales A would suffice.

Also the 2004 France v Australia game in Toulouse. Originally Australia said it wasn't official so Bennett...the 'boss' of international league said the French could use 5 subs so as to give Australia a decent it out before the tri nations final. As the French did well it was later called  full international.

Surely we need some standards to stick to and not make it up as we go.

[Neil_Ormston]

On 10/07/2020 at 01:15, rlno1 said:

Just on the 1995 Wales games v USA these should be reclassified as Phil Ford a Welsh player was one of the touch judges....surely just that fact alone means the game doesn't reach the standards of a full international. 

I know we like to get as many international games up as possible...but I feel calling them Wales A would suffice.

Also the 2004 France v Australia game in Toulouse. Originally Australia said it wasn't official so Bennett...the 'boss' of international league said the French could use 5 subs so as to give Australia a decent it out before the tri nations final. As the French did well it was later called  full international.

Surely we need some standards to stick to and not make it up as we go.

100% agree rlno1.  Work is on-going to prescribe these standards exactly as you suggest, and the RKC is involved in these discussions.  It’s important to note that there has been no strong international governing body to determine the status of these games at the time, hence the need to do this retrospectively.  That presents some challenges, concerning the availability of information and detail needed, and some judgements will be required, which might also mean changes in the future being required if further information comes to light.