Jump to content

State of Origin may permanently move to end of season


eal

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

We're definitely 3 kingdoms, England and Wales, Scotland, and (Northern) Ireland, with distinct legal codes and identities that decided to compete internationally between themselves first in most cases. England v Scotland accounts for some of the earliest internationals in many sports. 

Its only in places we compete against other non British nations first that the UK/GB comes about.

Yeah and with the exception of the ACT, NT, and some of Australia's other territories, each of the states were separate colonies, with separate cultures and identities, whom don't really get along more often than not, that came together to form one nation.

I'm not saying that that means that NSW and Queensland should play in internationals, in fact I think that would probably be a very bad idea, but at the end of the day it's really not so different from the situation in the United Kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply
32 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes I could definitely blame them, surely an International Jersey beats all else.

Like it or not origin is the highest standard of RL an Australian can play and until other countries start beating the kangaroos on a regular basis that will continue im afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Didn’t turn into a laughing stock when Tonie Carroll was turning out for Qld & NZ

Trust me it did.

Plenty of people were genuinely furious, same is true of when Tamou and Uate played for NSW, or any number of NSW born "Queenslanders" and vice versa. Adrian Lam is the only one I can't remember causing a stink, don't know why, maybe nobody realised he was from PNG lol .

Make SOO open to anybody and the controversy would eat it alive, especially if players fresh off the boat were lining up for either team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

Trust me it did.

Plenty of people were genuinely furious, same is true of when Tamou and Uate played for NSW, or any number of NSW born "Queenslanders" and vice versa. Adrian Lam is the only one I can't remember causing a stink, don't know why, maybe nobody realised he was from PNG lol .

Make SOO open to anybody and the controversy would eat it alive, especially if players fresh off the boat were lining up for either team.

And yet it didn’t kill it off as you stated and I’m pretty sure those players mentioned were not as you say “fresh off the boat”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

Which would instantly turn SOO into a laughing stock and kill it dead.

So maybe some of you guys should be applauding the moves V'landys is making.

Yes, I tend to agree.  With the increase in the Polynesian players in the NRL and their opportunity to play for their heritage countries, neither of the choices for State of Origin are attractive.

1. Allow the Polynesian players to play both SOO and International League for their preferred nation and lose the 'Australian' element that makes SOO special.

2. Select only players who will represent Australis in SOO and risk Origin missing many of the best NRL players and devaluing in the product.

Either way, not good. 

"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

3 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

And yet it didn’t kill it off as you stated and I’m pretty sure those players mentioned were not as you say “fresh off the boat”

Sure one or two at any one time didn't kill it, but the greater part of each team would, and if you are going to open it up to people that don't declare for Australia then why not let effectively anybody that has resided in NSW or QLD play as well?

Making NSW and QLD residents teams again is the next logical progression of this line of thinking, to suggest it's not is rather silly frankly. 

By the way, many from within Australia and abroad (if anything more so from NZ in particular) would, and did, argue that your Uate's and Tamou's of the world had not had the time to truly become NSWelshmen, and were just mercenaries after the money. Not saying that I necessarily agree with that (I think it's too simplistic if you must know), but there are large groups of people whom do think that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

Yeah and with the exception of the ACT, NT, and some of Australia's other territories, each of the states were separate colonies, with separate cultures and identities, whom don't really get along more often than not, that came together to form one nation.

I'm not saying that that means that NSW and Queensland should play in internationals, in fact I think that would probably be a very bad idea, but at the end of the day it's really not so different from the situation in the United Kingdom.

Did they play international sport as Australia or NSW etc first though? In Britain we have the examples of football and rugby national bodies formed in the late 1800s with games between England and Scotland contrasted with say Ice Hockey that was formed and ran on a UK wide level much later. 

In a different example take the Cook Islands and New Zealand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

Sure one or two at any one time didn't kill it, but the greater part of each team would, and if you are going to open it up to people that don't declare for Australia then why not let effectively anybody that has resided in NSW or QLD play as well?

Making NSW and QLD residents teams again is the next logical progression of this line of thinking, to suggest it's not is rather silly frankly. 

By the way, many from within Australia and abroad (if anything more so from NZ in particular) would, and did, argue that your Uate's and Tamou's of the world had not had the time to truly become NSWelshmen, and were just mercenaries after the money. Not saying that I necessarily agree with that (I think it's too simplistic if you must know), but there are large groups of people whom do think that way.

They probably spent more time in NSW than Greg Inglis spent in Qld and I don't recall any Queenslanders decrying his selection over the years so it's a massive exaggeration to say picking a Pacific island qualified Aussie born player is the death of Origin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, I tend to agree.  With the increase in the Polynesian players in the NRL and their opportunity to play for their heritage countries, neither of the choices for State of Origin are attractive.

1. Allow the Polynesian players to play both SOO and International League for their preferred nation and lose the 'Australian' element that makes SOO special.

A lot of people from overseas seem to fail to understand that the thing that made SOO so successful was that it was an outlet for the real historic disdain that QLD and NSW have for each other.

You take that away, you take away what made SOO what it is, and a sure fire way to take that away is if you add a bunch of people into mix whom don't really understand that history or disdain, which is what you'd be doing if you allow a bunch of people whom, whether we like it or not, aren't really Queenslanders or NSWelshmen to participate.

SOO isn't a glorified All Stars match, and if you treat it as such it will die.

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

2. Select only players who will represent Australis in SOO and risk Origin missing many of the best NRL players and devaluing in the product.

Either way, not good. 

I can see why you think that, but I fundamentally disagree.

If we ever get to a point where SOO is incapable of picking most of the best players in the world then that will mean that RL growing out of SOO, which wouldn't be a bad thing at all as it'd mean that a lot more people from much more diverse groups, even just within Australia BTW, are watching and engaging with the sport to an extent where RL is truly larger than just NSW, QLD, and the redhead stepchild that is the ACT.

It'd be RL becoming a national sport, which would only be a good a thing, and I think if that ever happens that you'd pretty quickly see internationals take more of the focus as SOO slowly became redundant.

That's what happened when the AFL grew out of their SOO in the late 90s, but that's a story for a different time.

I do however think that screwing up or sabotaging SOO before it's readily replaceable internationals, or other representative competition, would be a massive mistake, and that comes from a person who is proudly not from NSW or QLD and finds SOO to be an annoying distraction that ruins the NRL for a few months each season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SOO becoming an international all-star game with loose eligibility criteria will be its death knell, and most in Australian RL circles realise this. What makes SOO is Queensland and their status as underdogs against the NSW behemoth. NSW has passion for sure, but Queensland is what makes SOO. If you make it an all-star game that passion will be lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

I can see why you think that, but I fundamentally disagree.

If we ever get to a point where SOO is incapable of picking most of the best players in the world then that will mean that RL growing out of SOO, which wouldn't be a bad thing at all as it'd mean that a lot more people from much more diverse groups, even just within Australia BTW, are watching and engaging with the sport to an extent where RL is truly larger than just NSW, QLD, and the redhead stepchild that is the ACT.

I meant not good for SOO. It would good for Rugby League as a whole if International League were to be the undisputed top level of the sport.

"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

10 hours ago, MEXICO WILL PAY said:

How is that any different to the UK pretending it's three different countries?

FYI England, Wales and Scotland are three different countries.  The UK is a multi-national state.

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

We're definitely 3 kingdoms, England and Wales, Scotland, and (Northern) Ireland, with distinct legal codes and identities that decided to compete internationally between themselves first in most cases. England v Scotland accounts for some of the earliest internationals in many sports. 

Its only in places we compete against other non British nations first that the UK/GB comes about.

In fact it's only the sports invented outside of Britain which don't have/recognize separate teams for England, Scotland and Wales unless I'm mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Did they play international sport as Australia or NSW etc first though? In Britain we have the examples of football and rugby national bodies formed in the late 1800s with games between England and Scotland contrasted with say Ice Hockey that was formed and ran on a UK wide level much later. 

In a different example take the Cook Islands and New Zealand. 

I'm not sure, and I think it would depend on which colony we are talking about, but generally speaking there wasn't really the money in sports in Australia in that time period to go on what we'd call tours to other nations these days, and if there was it would have been a very rare and special thing.

However, representative games between the colonies were definitely a thing (obviously not in RL because the Commonwealth of Australia had formed before RL was brought to Australia), how early on they started and how often they were played I don't know, but you have to keep in mind that holding a game between two of the colonies in Australia in 1800s would have been a much larger, and more expensive, undertaking than holding tests between England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland during the same time period, which would have required the teams to sometimes take weeks off work simply for them to travel to and from the matches.

For example, I highly doubt there were representative matches between e.g. WA and NSW very often, if at all, simply because of the distance and expense it would take to make them happen.

I also think that whether or not the colonies played representative sports is totally redundant to the point I was making, and I think the fact that initially both the Wallabies and Kangaroos wore sky blue if they were playing Sydney, maroon if they were playing in Brisbane, and wore sky blue and maroon hoops if they were touring should tell you something.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

They probably spent more time in NSW than Greg Inglis spent in Qld and I don't recall any Queenslanders decrying his selection over the years so it's a massive exaggeration to say picking a Pacific island qualified Aussie born player is the death of Origin.

Of course QLD didn't decry Inglis playing for QLD, he was on their team and wouldn't you know it's only ever a problem when the other guys do it lol.

Look mate, you're just wrong about this one and I'm done arguing with you about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

FYI England, Wales and Scotland are three different countries.  The UK is a multi-national state.

In fact it's only the sports invented outside of Britain which don't have/recognize separate teams for England, Scotland and Wales unless I'm mistaken.

As a rule of thumb thats probably not bad to go on. Cricket is a bit odd in that it remained the England team despite officially including Wales and in practice including Scots and Irishmen throughout history.

RL is weird that sense that it had an England National governing body (the NRFU then RFL), but also had a large influx of mainly Welsh but also Scottish players with no NGB to represent them and form a national team. Very early on its was decided to play as GB to include these players in an international team. This left an undeniably English governing body running a clearly British team. That's less of a problem because outside the UK, England and Britain were/are fairly synonymous. Its part of the reason why the GB heritage, current set up and future is so contentious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Aussies can still put a test team out, just that it will be their 3rd string in test jerseys... we always hear how they could field several teams and beat us so this would be our chance to prove them wrong. give them a few beatings and batter their pride a bit and watch them come running back to redress the balance. or it could go horribly wrong and we do lose to their reserves but either way i'm still well up for seeing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

also think that whether or not the colonies played representative sports is totally redundant to the point I was making, and I think the fact that initially both the Wallabies and Kangaroos wore sky blue if they were playing Sydney, maroon if they were playing in Brisbane, and wore sky blue and maroon hoops if they were touring should tell you something. 

So in short, when NSW and QLD played abroad they played as a United team represented most obviously by the shirt, just as the RFL of England, Scotland and Wales did by sticking a 3 flowers badge and a double V in the colours of the Union flag when playing for GB rather than England's red and white hoops.

I appreciate there's historical nuance being set aside for simplicity in that, but in practical terms that is what happens and why. NSW and QLD playing fully fledged international sides, outside of extended tours to Australia, would devalue the international game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

As a rule of thumb thats probably not bad to go on. Cricket is a bit odd in that it remained the England team despite officially including Wales and in practice including Scots and Irishmen throughout history.

RL is weird that sense that it had an England National governing body (the NRFU then RFL), but also had a large influx of mainly Welsh but also Scottish players with no NGB to represent them and form a national team. Very early on its was decided to play as GB to include these players in an international team. This left an undeniably English governing body running a clearly British team. That's less of a problem because outside the UK, England and Britain were/are fairly synonymous. Its part of the reason why the GB heritage, current set up and future is so contentious.

In fact the GB name didn't come along until the 1946 tour down under, before then the team was called England as the match programs and reports of that era demonstrate conclusively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

In fact the GB name didn't come along until the 1946 tour down under, before then the team was called England as the match programs and reports of that era demonstrate conclusively.

Tbf in 1932 they were captained by a Welshman, played in a red and blue v and had the GB badge with the daffodil, rose and thistle on, as well as being captained by a Welshman. I think thats more to do with England and GB/UK being synonymous. I posted a video from that tour where the Aussie commentators called the team English despite interviewing the Welsh captain afterwards. Basically I don't think too much should be read into that other than the synonymous use of England and Great Britain by those from other shores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

So in short, when NSW and QLD played abroad they played as a United team represented most obviously by the shirt, just as the RFL of England, Scotland and Wales did by sticking a 3 flowers badge and a double V in the colours of the Union flag when playing for GB rather than England's red and white hoops.

I appreciate there's historical nuance being set aside for simplicity in that, but in practical terms that is what happens and why. NSW and QLD playing fully fledged international sides, outside of extended tours to Australia, would devalue the international game.

In RL sure, but again RL came after the formation of the commonwealth. In other sports, and in the Australian culture more broadly, not so much.

You are massively oversimplifying the situation in Australia at that time, and now frankly, and I don't think you could do much more to devalue the international game in Australia than has already been done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Tbf in 1932 they were captained by a Welshman, played in a red and blue v and had the GB badge with the daffodil, rose and thistle on, as well as being captained by a Welshman. I think thats more to do with England and GB/UK being synonymous. I posted a video from that tour where the Aussie commentators called the team English despite interviewing the Welsh captain afterwards. Basically I don't think too much should be read into that other than the synonymous use of England and Great Britain by those from other shores.

I'm not reading anything into that.  You see for yourself that England played for the Ashes before that 1946 tour, not Great Britain.

589204409_1937AshesProgramCover.jpg.0f7672c4a11f32aee78706e153ba956a.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/09/2020 at 03:08, 17 stone giant said:

I'd want to wait and see what his plans were for the international game, if this idea went ahead.

This guy has been very Sydney centric since he started, I dare say his plan for the international game is "deal with it".

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.