SOO 3 will be the world largest sporting event since covid-19 began

[JohnM]

25 minutes ago, Aussie Bronco said:

Gee you poms are a pessimistic bunch, always gotta find a negative in something good. Anyways regarding the earlier comment about Aus vs GB should be the pinnacle, maybe we’ll start holding it in high regard when England/GB can put up a challenge? Let’s face it, Rugby League sucks in the northern hemisphere at the moment and has for a few decades, except for the odd star player here and there. This years Super league has probably been the worst yet and SL is going backwards at an alarming rate. Origin is the pinnacle because it’s the hardest and toughest RL on the planet, international RL is starting to get good with the rise of the pacific nations and in particular Tonga, and I always enjoy watching the roos and kiwis go at it, at least they are made up of NRL quality players and give us a decent fight. England are rubbish at the moment, they need to have more of their top players playing NRL and week to week footy in the top comp in the world if they want to challenge the Southern Hemisphere countries. 

Gee you poms are a pessimistic bunch, always gotta find a negative in something good.

Oi, you!. Not all of us,

.... though at times it seems to be a condition of contributing to this forum. It is though, fashionable, nihilistic almost,  for certain posters to constantly denigrate the organisation, management, operation, clubs, owners, players, crowds, media coverage and match officials, stadiums and meat pies.

[DI Keith Fowler]

Just now, Aussie Bronco said:

Gee you poms are a pessimistic bunch, always gotta find a negative in something good. Anyways regarding the earlier comment about Aus vs GB should be the pinnacle, maybe we’ll start holding it in high regard when England/GB can put up a challenge? Let’s face it, Rugby League sucks in the northern hemisphere at the moment and has for a few decades, except for the odd star player here and there. This years Super league has probably been the worst yet and SL is going backwards at an alarming rate. Origin is the pinnacle because it’s the hardest and toughest RL on the planet, international RL is starting to get good with the rise of the pacific nations and in particular Tonga, and I always enjoy watching the roos and kiwis go at it, at least they are made up of NRL quality players and give us a decent fight. England are rubbish at the moment, they need to have more of their top players playing NRL and week to week footy in the top comp in the world if they want to challenge the Southern Hemisphere countries. 

No one thinks the Super League's that good at the moment, or even comparable to the NRL. But England lost the world cup final by 1 try, that's not a decent fight?

[Dunbar]

11 hours ago, Aussie Bronco said:

Anyways regarding the earlier comment about Aus vs GB should be the pinnacle, maybe we’ll start holding it in high regard when England/GB can put up a challenge? Let’s face it, Rugby League sucks in the northern hemisphere at the moment and has for a few decades, except for the odd star player here and there.

What I have never understood about this argument is why the same standards of competitiveness were not applied to State of Origin.

In 1982, the Kangaroos toured Great Britain and were labelled the Invincibles after winning the Ashes 3-0.

The eight ashes series from 1982 to 2001 saw the Kangaroos win each series and the aggregate results were Australia 19 Great Britain 5.

During this time, Australia started to talk about the value of international League with the lack of competitive from Great Britain.

In 2006, Queensland beat New South Wales to win State of Origin and then went on to win the next 7 series.

The eight State of Origins from 2006 to 2013 saw Queensland win each series and aggregate results were Queensland 17 New South Wales 7.

And yet during this era of dominance from Queensland I don't remember anyone questioning the value of the series and it continued to be labelled as the toughest most competitive sport on the planet.  Feels to me to be a little bit of a double standard.

[The Rocket]

14 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

And yet during this era of dominance from Queensland I don't remember anyone questioning the value of the series and it continued to be labelled as the toughest most competitive sport on the planet.  Feels to me to be a little bit of a double standard.

As Roy Masters said, Origin relies on Queensland winning. Queenslanders never get sick of the Maroons beating NSW, and as long as Queensland are winning , NSW fans will turn up to see if we beat them.

However if NSW start beating Queensland all the time, fans south of the border will get sick of this very quickly.

It`s all to do with the supposed relative differences between the states, NSW considers Queensland to be less populated, poorer, uneducated, unsophisticated hill billies. Queenslanders probably don`t think that NSW residents are really even Australian, effete, over educated i.e. completed yr 10, home of the Mardi Gras and snobs. They love beating us and we don`t really care about them.

To get a real handle on it you would probably have to see a couple of Queensland politicians like Pauline Hanson, Bob Katter, George Christianson and Clive Palmer, if you knew anything about them you really understand Queensland`s Hill Billy reputation.

[thirteenthman]

16 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

What I have never understood about this argument is why the same standards of competitiveness were not applied to State of Origin.

In 1982, the Kangaroos toured Great Britain and were labelled the Invincibles after winning the Ashes 3-0.

The eight ashes series from 1982 to 2001 saw the Kangaroos win each series and the aggregate results were Australia 19 Great Britain 5.

During this time, Australia started to talk about the value of international League with the lack of competitive from Great Britain.

In 2006, Queensland beat New South Wales to win State of Origin and then went on to win the next 7 series.

The eight State of Origins from 2006 to 2013 saw Queensland win each series and aggregate results were Queensland 17 New South Wales 7.

And yet during this era of dominance from Queensland I don't remember anyone questioning the value of the series and it continued to be labelled as the toughest most competitive sport on the planet.  Feels to me to be a little bit of a double standard.

When QLD were winning 8 series in a row, NSW were still competitive and all but 3 of those series went to a decider. We, sadly, went 10 years from 1978 to 1988 without beating the Aussies once. And by the time next years RLWC rolls round, it will have been 15 years since we've beaten the Aussies in a single game.

I'm 47 and I wasn't even born the last time GB or England beat the Aussies in a test series, or the last time we won the RLWC. Origin going 8 years with one side winning each series pales into comparison when you look at our record. Hope springs eternal that 2021 will be the year we stop the rot.

[Tommygilf]

34 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

What I have never understood about this argument is why the same standards of competitiveness were not applied to State of Origin.

In 1982, the Kangaroos toured Great Britain and were labelled the Invincibles after winning the Ashes 3-0.

The eight ashes series from 1982 to 2001 saw the Kangaroos win each series and the aggregate results were Australia 19 Great Britain 5.

During this time, Australia started to talk about the value of international League with the lack of competitive from Great Britain.

In 2006, Queensland beat New South Wales to win State of Origin and then went on to win the next 7 series.

The eight State of Origins from 2006 to 2013 saw Queensland win each series and aggregate results were Queensland 17 New South Wales 7.

And yet during this era of dominance from Queensland I don't remember anyone questioning the value of the series and it continued to be labelled as the toughest most competitive sport on the planet.  Feels to me to be a little bit of a double standard.

I think thats because NSW were losing. Australian rugby league, from an organisational perspective, is Sydney. If Queensland were to be rubbish for so long with diminishing interest I think it would be a different story.

[Dunbar]

Just now, thirteenthman said:

When QLD were winning 8 series in a row, NSW were still competitive and all but 3 of those series went to a decider. We, sadly, went 10 years from 1978 to 1988 without beating the Aussies once. And by the time next years RLWC rolls round, it will have been 15 years since we've beaten the Aussies in a single game.

I'm 47 and I wasn't even born the last time GB or England beat the Aussies in a test series, or the last time we won the RLWC. Origin going 8 years with one side winning each series pales into comparison when you look at our record. Hope springs eternal that 2021 will be the year we stop the rot.

Yes, I do understand and agree with that.  I am always torn between two views on this.

1, it is absolutely the responsibility of Great Britain/England to be competitive and we have not been.

2, Ashes series and Great Britain/England games against Australia can still be talked up despite this.  As can Origin and I guess as could the Ashes series between 1921 and 1948 when Australia didn't win a single series.

We always try to find ways to downplay international Rugby League when we should be bigging it up.  We can't play France because they aren't competitive enough... Australia get fed up with beating England etc.  In other sports excellence is celebrated, in Rugby League we turn it into a negative.

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think thats because NSW were losing. Australian rugby league, from an organisational perspective, is Sydney. If Queensland were to be rubbish for so long with diminishing interest I think it would be a different story.

I think there's a lot of truth in this.

[The Rocket]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

2, Ashes series and Great Britain/England games against Australia can still be talked up despite this.  As can Origin and I guess as could the Ashes series between 1921 and 1948 when Australia didn't win a single series.

I have thought about this before, he fact we didn`t beat you in a series for 27 years at one stage, however 50 years is getting a little beyond the pale.

I don`t think the Kangaroos would mind travelling to England every four years even if they were beating you every time, a lot of players would do it for the experience, after a while though they might find it hard to get the best players to go, there would be a lot of drop outs.

I f we were beating you all the time, there would be very little interest over here very quickly.

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think there's a lot of truth in this.

Its the best explanation imo, akin to if GB kept organising the Ashes despite losing regularly.

[Dunbar]

12 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

I have thought about this before, he fact we didn`t beat you in a series for 27 years at one stage, however 50 years is getting a little beyond the pale.

I don`t think the Kangaroos would mind travelling to England every four years even if they were beating you every time, a lot of players would do it for the experience, after a while though they might find it hard to get the best players to go, there would be a lot of drop outs.

I f we were beating you all the time, there would be very little interest over here very quickly.

To be fair there hasn't been an Ashes series since 2003 and so the Great Britain winning streak was 27 years and Australia 30 years.

ButvI accept the point. And in the modern technology era things move a hell of a lot quicker.

[Anita Bath]

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

As Roy Masters said, Origin relies on Queensland winning. Queenslanders never get sick of the Maroons beating NSW, and as long as Queensland are winning , NSW fans will turn up to see if we beat them.

However if NSW start beating Queensland all the time, fans south of the border will get sick of this very quickly.

It`s all to do with the supposed relative differences between the states, NSW considers Queensland to be less populated, poorer, uneducated, unsophisticated hill billies. Queenslanders probably don`t think that NSW residents are really even Australian, effete, over educated i.e. completed yr 10, home of the Mardi Gras and snobs. They love beating us and we don`t really care about them.

To get a real handle on it you would probably have to see a couple of Queensland politicians like Pauline Hanson, Bob Katter, George Christianson and Clive Palmer, if you knew anything about them you really understand Queensland`s Hill Billy reputation.

I suppose NSW doesnt have any dodgy derricks in its political class....the premier seems to be in a tangled web and of course was responsible for Australias first covid wave when her public health officials failed to test passengers disembarking a virusridden cruise ship.

Palmer is an ex politician who didnt stand for election at the recent poll. His party got no seats...which in a PR system is difficult to do! All these are members of fringe parties who could hold their party meetings in a phone box. Well not Clive....he wouldnt fit in a phone box on his own

Leave us with our queensland politicians.....its thanks to their hard line on Covid that we are able to go to the footy without restriction.

 

 

[fighting irish]

I'd be interested to know, subsequent to these headlines broadcast far and wide, how many new viewers might seek out the coverage, just to see what all the fuss is about.

This is a good news story fellas we should be cheering and very proud. 

[The Rocket]

26 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I'd be interested to know, subsequent to these headlines broadcast far and wide, how many new viewers might seek out the coverage, just to see what all the fuss is about.

This is a good news story fellas we should be cheering and very proud. 

Yeah mate for sure, over 50 % audience share in Sydney and Brisbane, 300 000 tuned in in Melbourne, outstanding, and over 100 000 in both Perth and Adelaide, and about 850 000 regionals, so it was a pretty good night on the box and all those non-League supporters who tuned from interstate saw a top-notch game of League. How about that hit on Tupou when he was bringing it off his line, spilled the ball but the Maroons were called offside, poor bloke had a target on his chest all night.

[fighting irish]

2 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Yeah mate for sure, over 50 % audience share in Sydney and Brisbane, 300 000 tuned in in Melbourne, outstanding, and over 100 000 in both Perth and Adelaide, and about 850 000 regionals, so it was a pretty good night on the box and all those non-League supporters who tuned from interstate saw a top-notch game of League. How about that hit on Tupou when he was bringing it off his line, spilled the ball but the Maroons were called offside, poor bloke had a target on his chest all night.

Its the best game in the world my friend, I love it. 

[Eddie]

I only saw the hour long highlights on Sky (without knowing the score) and enjoyed every second of it, superb game, passionate players and fans, what’s not to like. 
 

To call the Aussies parochial for favouring this over a test series against England is ridiculous though, they’ve already got the biggest RL game in the world, why would they drop it for something inferior. It’s up to us to up our game if we want to be at the top table 

[wilsontown]

This game was pictured in the Guardian's "Eyewitness" centrefold today. Looks fantastic.

[yipyee]

On 18/11/2020 at 11:36, DiH68 said:

So lucky we’ve had no community transmission of COVID  in Qld for ages... but don’t think NSW were too impressed our premier introduced new easing of restrictions to allow 100 per cent capacity at outdoor stadiums the day before the game. Well played premier

 

23 hours ago, Aussie Bronco said:

Gee you poms are a pessimistic bunch, always gotta find a negative in something good. Anyways regarding the earlier comment about Aus vs GB should be the pinnacle, maybe we’ll start holding it in high regard when England/GB can put up a challenge? Let’s face it, Rugby League sucks in the northern hemisphere at the moment and has for a few decades, except for the odd star player here and there. This years Super league has probably been the worst yet and SL is going backwards at an alarming rate. Origin is the pinnacle because it’s the hardest and toughest RL on the planet, international RL is starting to get good with the rise of the pacific nations and in particular Tonga, and I always enjoy watching the roos and kiwis go at it, at least they are made up of NRL quality players and give us a decent fight. England are rubbish at the moment, they need to have more of their top players playing NRL and week to week footy in the top comp in the world if they want to challenge the Southern Hemisphere countries. 

Maybe if Aus played against GB and not run away scared?

Origin is the pinnacle because that is what the press tell you not because it is 

Anyway maybe the pinnacle should be Tonga vs GB as they turned Aus over??

I also find your arrogance amusing why should the best English players play in Aus, okish players go over there and look like world beaters.

Roby, olockhlan, Peacock, Sculthorpe long etc would have made the aussies look like school boys if they went over in their prime they just chose to play in the uk. 

[yipyee]

8 hours ago, Eddie said:

I only saw the hour long highlights on Sky (without knowing the score) and enjoyed every second of it, superb game, passionate players and fans, what’s not to like. 
 

To call the Aussies parochial for favouring this over a test series against England is ridiculous though, they’ve already got the biggest RL game in the world, why would they drop it for something inferior. It’s up to us to up our game if we want to be at the top table 

Its good for them but very insular and lets face it any other sport would laugh this out of the park.

Imagine the pinacle of Soccer being the best players born in Liverpool vs Manchester.

Its an absolute joke.

The pinacle is and always will be representing your country as you have been chosen as the best person to represent a whole nation.

Whilst representing a region of your country is also important its certainly not the pinnacle. 

[AB90]

1 minute ago, yipyee said:

Its good for them but very insular and lets face it any other sport would laugh this out of the park.

Imagine the pinacle of Soccer being the best players born in Liverpool vs Manchester.

Its an absolute joke.

The pinacle is and always will be representing your country as you have been chosen as the best person to represent a whole nation.

Whilst representing a region of your country is also important its certainly not the pinnacle. 

I get what your saying but international sport is not the pinnacle of all sports.

Basketball, American Football, Aussie Rules, Baseball all have national teams to some degree but are not considered the pinnacle of their respective sports.

[Eddie]

10 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Its good for them but very insular and lets face it any other sport would laugh this out of the park.

Imagine the pinacle of Soccer being the best players born in Liverpool vs Manchester.

Its an absolute joke.

The pinacle is and always will be representing your country as you have been chosen as the best person to represent a whole nation.

Whilst representing a region of your country is also important its certainly not the pinnacle. 

That just isn’t right at all. In cricket and rugby Union yes, and in English RL, but it’s not the case in plenty of other sports. Even in English football the national team aren’t the pinnacle any more. 

[yipyee]

3 minutes ago, AB90 said:

I get what your saying but international sport is not the pinnacle of all sports.

Basketball, American Football, Aussie Rules, Baseball all have national teams to some degree but are not considered the pinnacle of their respective sports.

I agree that sports which are only played in one country predominatly which is most of the above, however rugby league does not fit into that category.

None of the above have world cups, none of the above have international calenders.

Basketball is however anolympic sport and i should imagine 99% of players would consider playing in an olympics representing thier country is the pinnacle

[yipyee]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

That just isn’t right at all. In cricket and rugby Union yes, and in English RL, but it’s not the case in plenty of other sports. Even in English football the national team aren’t the pinnacle any more. 

It is right though, if playing for England soccer wasnt the pinnacle no one would play as they effectively play for free. 

Why do they all want to play for england and make a big deal over it.

Gareth Bale also imfamously ranked wales above club football 

No one would bother for the amateur olympics would they if representing their country didnt mean anything

[AB90]

3 minutes ago, yipyee said:

I agree that sports which are only played in one country predominatly which is most of the above, however rugby league does not fit into that category.

None of the above have world cups, none of the above have international calenders.

Basketball is however anolympic sport and i should imagine 99% of players would consider playing in an olympics representing thier country is the pinnacle

Basketball is actually a great comparison to RL as its very popular world wide but the pinnacle is still the NBA.

They do in fact have a world cup every four years. The last one was only held last year in China and the US (who you assume would walk it) came 7th. Australia even finished higher than them finishing 4th!

All the top US players and stars don't participate so they can have a longer offseason and rest up for the next NBA season (I.e the pinnacle of their sport).

It is what it is. No point getting mad at it. You can't tell people how they should or shouldn't feel about something.

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, AB90 said:

Basketball is actually a great comparison to RL as its very popular world wide but the pinnacle is still the NBA.

They do in fact have a world cup every four years. The last one was only held last year in China and the US (who you assume would walk it) came 7th. Australia even finished higher than them finishing 4th!

All the top US players and stars don't participate so they can have a longer offseason and rest up for the next NBA season (I.e the pinnacle of their sport).

It is what it is. No point getting mad at it. You can't tell people how they should or shouldn't feel about something.

The other similarity is that both the NRL and the NBA are casting their net more widely to find talent. Just as the NRL has more Pacific Island and UK players year on year, the NBA had 108 international players this year, more than four times the 24 international players on opening-night rosters for the 1994-95 season 25 years ago.

It is good news for international League but I don't know enough about basketball to say if it will impact that sport.