Jump to content

Rugby League World Cup 2021 (Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Jim from Oz said:

I began following the North Sydney Bears, even though I grew up in the heart of South Sydney territory, because Norths had a winger (the position I played) with the same surname as me !

Speaking of the Bears, do you happen to know what reason was given for excluding them from the NRL when the number of clubs was cut back?  I've seen a number of old matches played at North Sydney Oval and it looks like it was a great place for an NRL club so their exclusion has me mystified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Back on topic,  one group is not being consulted and that is those of us who already have paid for tickets and would be going in normal circumstances. The debate on here, as normal, is being dominated by those who do not go, so to paraphase the RLSA slogan let those who have paid have their say .

As someone who does go to RL international events from the other side of the country for over 27 years and over the years has proved his worth using another hackyneyed RL catchphrase. I am royally $$$$* off that John Dutton can get on Pay TV and state "no we do not have a deadline for this" with under 90 days before the starting date.

FWIW as far as I am concerned it's not a world cup without Australia and New Zealand. That's not defending te NRL decision, but a statement of reality shared no doubt by sponsors and the BBC. I have paid to watch Australia v Scotland not Australia Indigenous or an Aussie Rebel XIII.

If the powerbrokers here want to use the stadiums already booked to give England, Scotland ,Wales, France, Ireland and maybe a Pacific Nations XIII formed from Super League players matches. Great deal me in for England v Greece and England v France which I have tickets for. I would also consider other arranged international matches maybe double headers say England v Scotland, Wales v France in lieu of some of the other matches.

But stop flogging a dead horse and pretending you can run a credible world cup. Let your stateholders know NOW what you intend to do and by that I mean the nations that can put together a side not reliant on NRL players. and the fans who have paid up front.

And before anybody says they are probably doing this now all I will say is that on studying everything coming out from the RLWC organisers it appears to boild down to a binary choice - A "World Cup"  without many of the best players in the world or postponement.

Whatever they decide to do, Get on with it now, so the rest of us can plan what they are doing in October / November.

Rant over

  • Like 1
Quote

When the pinch comes the common people will turn out to be more intelligent than the clever ones. I certainly hope so.

George Orwell
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

Back on topic,  one group is not being consulted and that is those of us who already have paid for tickets and would be going in normal circumstances. The debate on here, as normal, is being dominated by those who do not go, so to paraphase the RLSA slogan let those who have paid have their say .

As someone who does go to RL international events from the other side of the country for over 27 years and over the years has proved his worth using another hackyneyed RL catchphrase. I am royally $$$$* off that John Dutton can get on Pay TV and state "no we do not have a deadline for this" with under 90 days before the starting date.

FWIW as far as I am concerned it's not a world cup without Australia and New Zealand. That's not defending te NRL decision, but a statement of reality shared no doubt by sponsors and the BBC. I have paid to watch Australia v Scotland not Australia Indigenous or an Aussie Rebel XIII.

If the powerbrokers here want to use the stadiums already booked to give England, Scotland ,Wales, France, Ireland and maybe a Pacific Nations XIII formed from Super League players matches. Great deal me in for England v Greece and England v France which I have tickets for. I would also consider other arranged international matches maybe double headers say England v Scotland, Wales v France in lieu of some of the other matches.

But stop flogging a dead horse and pretending you can run a credible world cup. Let your stateholders know NOW what you intend to do and by that I mean the nations that can put together a side not reliant on NRL players. and the fans who have paid up front.

And before anybody says they are probably doing this now all I will say is that on studying everything coming out from the RLWC organisers it appears to boild down to a binary choice - A "World Cup"  without many of the best players in the world or postponement.

Whatever they decide to do, Get on with it now, so the rest of us can plan what they are doing in October / November.

Rant over

I don't agree with all you say but the delay in a decision is frustrating. The organisers will say it's best not to rush a decision to get the best result and I get that. But for people who have bought tickets or contemplating doing so, the lack of certainty is problematic. Whether it ultimately puts people off altogether I'm unsure.

However, I'd go to a game with a replacement team to Australia because to do otherwise is to agree that RL is Australia. They say there can't be a WC without us and you agree. Hand the reigns over to Australia now. Let's capitulate. 

  • Like 4

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

We aren't a coal mining town along the M62, we're a fishing port city at the end of the M62. 

But in the main the sport was rooted in coal mining towns. I know I’m referring back to Tony Collins on this but he says this connection is unique. Having such a strong connection with these coal mining communities have both helped and hindered the sport in that RL will always part of the fabric/culture of these towns which in turn makes it more inaccessible for outsiders. 

3 hours ago, Big Picture said:

That's why anyone backing a new club or franchise there would have to give them a reason to care about it.  That's as true in Manchester as it is in London or anywhere else where the game is unknown to most and looked down on by most of the remainder.

I think this “unknown” claim is a myth. Ask scousers (especially anyone who follows sport) if they know about rugby league I’d expect 99% will say yes. Radio Merseyside has a RL show so it’s not as if they are blind to it. There’s no connection to RL in the city, a sport culturally tied to another location. 

3 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Are you talking about Everton there?  According to Wikipedia Everton is a district in Liverpool, Goodison Park is only 3 km from Liverpool city centre and Everton moved there from Anfield.  That certainly makes Everton a Liverpool team and thus it's entirely acceptable to Liverpudlians.  The difference between them and St Helens is like night and day.

I wasn't disputing that, but I note none of the examples you gave is residents of a big city supporting a team based in and carrying the name of one of it's suburbs, though I grant that could happen if some of those city dwellers have a personal connection of some sort to it.  There won't be too many in that category though.

Wouldn’t go about calling Everton fans “Liverpudlians” (even though being from the city they are) as the term in a sporting context infers being a supporter of the major club in the city.

I think everything you write about in regards to supporting city teams is only relevant outside the UK. I’ve yet to see any evidence that a team with Liverpool in its name, or Manchester, or London will do anything to shift the dial here, outside it may well be a different story. The sport has been in existence for 125 years and it’s parochial identity has almost been set in stone here. Good luck trying to shift that. The waves that were made in Toronto for the club game exceeded anything seen here so the answer may well be outside the UK...that and internationals as a few previous posters mentioned (which again explains the annoyance over the Aussies/Kiwis pulling out)

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

They are well supported clubs named after the suburbs of the big cities in which they are located.

So, to be fair, it appears you’re talking absolute cobblers.

He’s definitely from Canada as opposed to an ex pat in Canada. Alot of wishy washy stuff that simply doesn’t relate to the sporting landscape here, though It’s always good to have an outside take on things.

2 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Everton is not a suburb, it's within the city of Liverpool and as far as I can tell always has been.  Aston is likewise not a suburb, it's in inner Birmingham according to Wikipedia.  And you'll probably find that the London boroughs have always been considered integral parts of London, not suburbs.

In any case all those clubs were established in a different era than the one we live in now, and attitudes have changed since those days.  Are Man U or Man City fans going to get excited about their team playing Blackburn, Bolton or Preston like they will about them playing Liverpool, Spurs or Arsenal?  I think we both know that's unlikely.

When Blackburn were good, yeah. The location really doesn’t matter if the team is good. Blackburn vs Manchester United were “top of the table” clashes for a few seasons. A couple of years ago Castleford were heavyweights in RL, yet there are maybe half a dozen bigger locations in RL. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, RayCee said:

I'm not a big media follower (can't trust them) but from what I have seen in NZ is it's barely news worthy. In this case not a pro-NRL stance but an acceptance of what they've been fed, that's it's too dangerous to go. 

Quite possibly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, RayCee said:

I'm not a big media follower (can't trust them) but from what I have seen in NZ is it's barely news worthy. In this case not a pro-NRL stance but an acceptance of what they've been fed, that's it's too dangerous to go. 

Which is completely stupid 

Much was made in the UK of NZs PM's handling of the pandemic , mostly by people who have never visited Aotearoa , or who genuinely don't know exactly where it is , not understanding that nobody goes through NZ , you only go to and from it , so isolating it is relatively easy 

But the efforts at vaccinating the population is very poor , you cannot isolate forever , vaccination is the only long term solution , so if not right now , very soon it will be a whole lot safer here , than there , this also applies to our other ' friends ' in the bigger place 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Mr Frisky said:

Agree, I lived in Australia for a few years and loved the place but they have always been behind the rest of the western world by about 10 years in just about every aspect of modern life.

Very insular country and people overall so the WC decision was no surprise.

10 years behind , but under the impression they are 10 years ahead , that's an Aussie 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Tbf Newcastle have only had the type of money they are showing for 5 years.  One of those years got covid'd.  

I do not share the belief that Manchester would be incapable of getting 5000-6000 in SL.  

The average age of the fan in a football game in Man Utd is over 40 because a huge chunk are priced out.

A Manchester team would have a fixed stadium with perfect transport links and a healthy player base on its doorstep before anacademy was set up. 

I think those of us in favour are deeply annoyed because the rfl killed it before it had a chance and if we arent targeting a city next to the traditional areas the game is dead. 

And lets say it gets a niche audience.  Well in a city of 500,000 people a niche audience could be 5000-6000 which in a 6500 stadium would look great. 

This is hopefully my last post along this tangent as we risk driving this thread off the subject at hand, the RLWC. What Newcastle have done and continue to do is success. They have been in existence for two decades and are still growing and progressing, as is the NERL community scene. A great problem we have is that too many people seem to think that expansion is creating SL clubs. Expansion is creating RL clubs and players whether that be at SL, Championship, League 1 or community level. Expansion also doesn't just cover the men's game, women's RL, wheelchair RL and PDRL and LDRL are all areas for growth.

To take it back to the men's game by all means clubs can be formed and build up to reach whatever level they can but we shouldn't fixate that that level has to be SL. Nor should we be trying to crowbar them straight into SL hoping their presence will be some form of panacea. If clubs in Manchester, Bristol, Nottingham, Newcastle, Coventry or wherever are going to be the giants of the game then they will be formed (as some of those have been) and will get there. We can't though keep sticking pins in maps and thinking a club in city X,Y or Z will see us better off than one in Warrington, Wigan or Castleford simply because more folk live in that city. The clubs at the top of RL have got there because they built up popularity and a place in the culture of their towns. They produce the players and supporters in sufficient numbers to enable success. If a club appears in a city then if the people that live there go along and like what they see then crowds can build, kids will want to play as well as watch and then community clubs can spring up which would further embed the sport in the local culture. The new pro/semi pro club will then rise to as high a level as it can and will hopefully exist long term. That level does not have to be SL with large crowds it would still be successful expansion. We need to stop thinking it is SL or nothing for new clubs or that big population equates to big crowds and RLs magic bullet.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RayCee said:

I'm not a big media follower (can't trust them) but from what I have seen in NZ is it's barely news worthy. In this case not a pro-NRL stance but an acceptance of what they've been fed, that's it's too dangerous to go. 

I imagine it is a case of the NZRL feeding stories to journalists that take and keep the narrative away from the RLWC and their withdrawal to prevent any chance of growing discontent amongst players and fan base.

I apologise for my part in the thread drift.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is getting more and more reported posts. It’s taking far too much time to moderate compared to the rest of the forum.

Come on, please try to keep it on track and going.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ckn said:

This thread is getting more and more reported posts. It’s taking far too much time to moderate compared to the rest of the forum.

Come on, please try to keep it on track and going.

Why would anybody feel the need to report a post on this thread ? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, fighting irish said:

Oh this is part of the problem, isn't it?

It is so far removed from a Covid ridden hellhole but the poor bug gers believe it is.

I don't know why there has been so little uptake, of the vaccine (fear and suspicion I suppose) but it seems that there is some willful resistance to it.

Their alternative strategy seems to be to stop the virus from propagating widely by using stringent (& punitive) lockdowns.

Good luck with that.

Are they really suggesting that every time someone is identified as suffering the disease they are going to lockdown the locality, while keeping people from visiting (or leaving and returning to) the country indefinitely?

This is a complete absurdity.

They will be cycling in and out of lockdown, (with borders closed) for decades. 

Yes, this is exactly what they are suggesting, and the general population are now so scared they actually support this approach.

As for the vaccines, that’s a whole other ball game. It doesn’t help that the government hasn’t ordered enough, or that the rollout was botched from the start (in the words of the Prime Minister - ‘this is not a race’ 🥺).

It also doesn’t help that the different states, the Premiers, the health officers and the fed government are all giving different messages. In the words of the Qld chief health officer - ‘younger people should not be getting the Astra Zeneca vaccine because there’s more chance of them dying from the vaccine than Covid’ 🥺
Honestly, you couldn’t make it up.

And yes, the attitude here is so insular. The WC decision doesn’t surprise me in the least 

Edited by DiH68
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

FWIW as far as I am concerned it's not a world cup without Australia and New Zealand.

I'm of a similar mindset. I know it would still be a World Cup in name, but I wouldn't think of it in the same way that I think of previous tournaments. It wouldn't have the same value or meaning to me. If England won, I would consider it to be a hollow victory. People are entitled to take a different view, and I'm happy to award credit for us beating Tonga and Samoa etc., but I've been watching international rugby league since 1990 and I know that Australia (and to a lesser extent New Zealand) are the teams that England are judged against. In all that time, I can't remember England losing a World Cup game to anyone other than those two teams. I think that says it all in terms of how significant Australia and New Zealand are.

  • Confused 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

I'm of a similar mindset. I know it would still be a World Cup in name, but I wouldn't think of it in the same way that I think of previous tournaments. It wouldn't have the same value or meaning to me. If England won, I would consider it to be a hollow victory. People are entitled to take a different view, and I'm happy to award credit for us beating Tonga and Samoa etc., but I've been watching international rugby league since 1990 and I know that Australia (and to a lesser extent New Zealand) are the teams that England are judged against. In all that time, I can't remember England losing a World Cup game to anyone other than those two teams. I think that says it all in terms of how significant Australia and New Zealand are.

You’re not wrong about the importance of Australia and New Zealand but it doesn’t mean England cannot hold a successful tournament without them or winning the World Cup wouldn’t be an achievement.

I think of it in Olympic terms like the boycotts of 1980 and 1984, and to a lesser extent the peculiar Russia thing at Tokyo. They diminish the games, sure, but they don’t negate them. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

I'm of a similar mindset. I know it would still be a World Cup in name, but I wouldn't think of it in the same way that I think of previous tournaments. It wouldn't have the same value or meaning to me. If England won, I would consider it to be a hollow victory. People are entitled to take a different view, and I'm happy to award credit for us beating Tonga and Samoa etc., but I've been watching international rugby league since 1990 and I know that Australia (and to a lesser extent New Zealand) are the teams that England are judged against. In all that time, I can't remember England losing a World Cup game to anyone other than those two teams. I think that says it all in terms of how significant Australia and New Zealand are.

Unfortunately because of the game's perilous position in the UK which all of us here recognize, British RL desperately needs this World Cup to go ahead and be a success.  Consider that fact in the context of Sky having effectively put the sport on probation for the next 2 years with the real possibility that if the RFL and SL can't prove its worth to them during that time they'll pull out altogether.  A successful and profitable World Cup which reaches an expanded audience (even if only for a time) could be a very important part of keeping Sky interested.

The fact that two smallish countries population-wise, in an out of the way part of the world which as @GUBRATSpointed out get little or no "through traffic" so to speak of are so key to the RL World Cup says a lot about where the sport sits in the world, and not in a good way.  Then add to that the fact that in a normal World Cup four of the other quarter-finalists would be even smaller countries — which would never happen in any other sport's World Cup — and I hope that you (and certain other posters here critical of my views) can see why I'm skeptical that even a successful tournament can bring about a material change in the game's prospects in the northern hemisphere.

I'd suggest to @cknthat the tournament's importance to the game's future in the northern hemispere explains why there's been some thread drift here.  With a soccer World Cup at about the same time next year postponement isn't really an option, in the context which I summarized in this post it really is now or never, and the latter could be devastating for the game in the northern hemisphere.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Unfortunately because of the game's perilous position in the UK which all of us here recognize, British RL desperately needs this World Cup to go ahead and be a success.  Consider that fact in the context of Sky having effectively put the sport on probation for the next 2 years with the real possibility that if the RFL and SL can't prove its worth to them during that time they'll pull out altogether. 

My hope is that it will be deemed feasible to postpone it until 2022. I will wait for the organisers to make that decision, but that would be my hope.

We can then have Australia and New Zealand (men, women, wheelchair users) here and put on the sort of World Cup that the sport deserves. I'd like to think that Sky would understand why it was delayed, and that they'd be suitably impressed by the show that was put on in 2022.

I guess we'll find out soon what the organisers have decided.

Just finally about the football World Cup, I don't actually see that as a huge barrier to having the RLWC next year. Football is my first love, but the WC isn't scheduled to start until 21 November or something like that. Providing the RL administrators are sensible and make sure the final is played before then, I don't think it will be a problem. Let's be realistic here, it doesn't matter when the RLWC takes place, the airwaves and chat will still always be predominantly (90% plus) about football. It's not as if people everywhere are going to spend the month discussing whether Roby or Hodgson should start for England RL. But that doesn't mean people can't find a couple of hours now and then to watch a RLWC game - especially if it's England. The way people consume their sport is to dip in and out as it suits them. You don't tend to have a month when you're solely devoted to only one sport. This weekend past I watched the RU Lions, the F1 GP, several cricket Hundred games, a bit of the Olympics, and the last 15 minutes of Warrington and Leeds. I'm sure like most people, I pick and choose as it suits me. The idea that RL is going to capture everyone's attention for a month, is not realistic. There will still be other things going on. Obviously you don't want important RLWC fixtures clashing with football world cup games, but that doesn't need to happen. If anything, there might be an opportunity because the football Premier League will stop at least a week or so before the 21st, so you might actually have a couple of weekends where there's no top flight football for the RLWC to compete with.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Cup has to take place. there is too much at stake. If it doesn't, you won't see France going down the same road only to  find themselves in  the same position on whether the Aussies will take part. If it takes place without Aussie NZ and is a success(which I am sure it will be}then no problems with France. they will follow.

What brasses me off I thought the Kiwis had more about them than knuckling under to the Aussies

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the tokyo olympics can pull it off with over 200 countries competing surely we can do it with 16

Where there is a will there is a way as the saying goes.

Get the players that you need & you have the tournament - Let the NRL sit in there castle surrounded by there moat & let the rest of of the world get on with things & running the best RLWC in 2021

Bring it on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Could you imagine the political repercussions in Australia if an Indigenous team (not wearing green and gold and not singing Advance Australia Fair) wins the world cup?

Don't worry the NRL and Uncle Gould would take full credit, and expect 68% of all profits go to clubs as reparations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Could you imagine the political repercussions in Australia if an Indigenous team (not wearing green and gold and not singing Advance Australia Fair) wins the world cup?

Some people just want to watch the world burn

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jim from Oz said:

I began following the North Sydney Bears, even though I grew up in the heart of South Sydney territory, because Norths had a winger (the position I played) with the same surname as me !

As good a reason as any Jim! 😆

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • John Drake changed the title to Rugby League World Cup 2021 (Merged Threads)
  • John Drake locked and unlocked this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...