2022 - Thirty years since Princes Park

[EastLondonMike]

Im sat watching the 2nd test at Princes Park from ‘92 (for the thousandth time). And it occurred to me that 2022 is the thirty year anniversary since that great game. This tour was my proper introduction to RL.

Would love to see the RFL celebrate the milestone in a suitable fashion.

Maybe getting the squad back together to re-watch the game, maybe in a cinema. Would be great to hear the thoughts and memories from that group from such a classic moment in British RL.

It would make for a great documentary style TV programme.

[Richard de la Riviere]

Nice idea. 
In 2013, I had a go at getting the 1988 team together to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the win in Sydney (and to launch a book I’d written!)

I managed to get Mal Reilly, Mike Gregory’s father, Andy Greg, Henderson Gill and Hugh Waddell. Garry Schofield and Lee Crooks, who didn’t play on the night but who were in the squad, also came. We watched the game and it was good fun.

[Pie tries]

I was there. Amazing night.

How we have messed up the iconic Ashes series…the one great Int competition RL had…

[The Partisan]

Actually just watched the 1991 Kiwi victory over the Kangaroos at the same venue ! 

Two losses in two years ! Must have had a hoodoo over the roos 

 

 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

10 hours ago, Pie tries said:

I was there. Amazing night.

How we have messed up the iconic Ashes series…the one great Int competition RL had…

Couldn't agree more (although we now have a World Cup which is always superb). It's absolute madness to me. No other sport would ditch one of its most successful events. It's like golf ditching the Ryder Cup.

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, The Partisan said:

Actually just watched the 1991 Kiwi victory over the Kangaroos at the same venue ! 

Two losses in two years ! Must have had a hoodoo over the roos

The match you watched wasn't at Princes Park, it was at Olympic Park.  I know because I've watched both.

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Couldn't agree more (although we now have a World Cup which is always superb). It's absolute madness to me. No other sport would ditch one of its most successful events. It's like golf ditching the Ryder Cup.

It stopped being successful though, that's what you don't seem to grasp.  The years of Aussie dominance undermined the Aussie public's interest and led them to believe that State of Origin is superior to International RL and in one sense at least they're right.  For years SOO has been far more even and competitive than International RL.

[M j M]

17 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

It stopped being successful though, that's what you don't seem to grasp. 

The Ashes series were competitive right to the end so this isn't correct.

[Wigan Riversider]

14 hours ago, Pie tries said:

I was there. Amazing night.

How we have messed up the iconic Ashes series…the one great Int competition RL had…

Murdoch.

[Magic XIII]

We drunk the place dry that night !

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 hours ago, Big Picture said:

It stopped being successful though, that's what you don't seem to grasp.

I'm sorry, but this statement is based on no evidence whatsoever. The last ashes series in 2003 saw each game decided by a margin of 6 points or less and was played in front of near capacity crowds and was very profitable for the RFL.

[Wigan Riversider]

50 minutes ago, Magic XIII said:

We drunk the place dry that night !

Because of that magical victorious night I was determined to go on the 1996 tour to Australia which never happened.

Believe GB toured Fiji and New Zealand

[Wigan Riversider]

56 minutes ago, Magic XIII said:

We drunk the place dry that night !

Miss both the Lions and Kangaroo tours.

Ancient history granted.

[Big Picture]

41 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I'm sorry, but this statement is based on no evidence whatsoever. The last ashes series in 2003 saw each game decided by a margin of 6 points or less and was played in front of near capacity crowds and was very profitable for the RFL.

I grant that that series was close, but Australia still won it 3-0.  Australia won 11 of the fourteen matches between 1992 and 2006 and outscored GB 499-231, giving an average score of 25-12.  It's not difficult to see why the Aussies lost interest.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 hours ago, Big Picture said:

I grant that that series was close, but Australia still won it 3-0.  Australia won 11 of the fourteen matches between 1992 and 2006 and outscored GB 499-231, giving an average score of 25-12.  It's not difficult to see why the Aussies lost interest.

You're being very selective with your use of stats there. There weren't any ashes series between 2004-06, so how can results during these years be relevant to your argument when ashes series had already stopped? And Australia didn't stop playing GB/England in 2006 - they've played them in multiple competitions since then. So again, your argument isn't actually based on anything factual. 

Plus the stats you gave are incorrect.

[Big Picture]

53 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

You're being very selective with your use of stats there. There weren't any ashes series between 2004-06, so how can results during these years be relevant to your argument when ashes series had already stopped? And Australia didn't stop playing GB/England in 2006 - they've played them in multiple competitions since then. So again, your argument isn't actually based on anything factual. 

Plus the stats you gave are incorrect.

Yes they are correct for the matches from 1992 to 2006.  Whether particular matches were part of an Ashes series or not is irrelevant to whether those matches bolstered or undermined the Ashes concept.

If we look at the 13 matches played between England and Australia between 1995 and 2017, we find that Australia won 12 out of 13 and outscored England 320-162, giving an average score of (once again) 25-12.

In short, occasionally the matches have been close, but not often enough for the Aussies to remain interested and that really is the point.  It might be the case that an Ashes series held in the UK now would be a success, but that depends on the Aussies being interested in playing it which is seriously in doubt now.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

3 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Yes they are correct for the matches from 1992 to 2006.

You are wrong. This is what you claimed:

6 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Australia won 11 of the fourteen matches between 1992 and 2006

GB beat Australia in 1992, 1994, 1997, 2001 and 2006, so your stats are incorrect.

3 hours ago, Big Picture said:

If we look at the 13 matches played between England and Australia between 1995 and 2017, we find that Australia won 12 out of 13 and outscored England 320-162, giving an average score of (once again) 25-12.

England didn't play an ashes series against Australia in this period, so how are these stats relevant? This is what you said about ashes series:

10 hours ago, Big Picture said:

It stopped being successful though, that's what you don't seem to grasp. 

And yet (as you've already highlighted) we've played Australia multiple times since then, so your argument makes no sense. Plus you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever to back up this statement. 

3 hours ago, Big Picture said:

In short, occasionally the matches have been close, but not often enough for the Aussies to remain interested and that really is the point. 

Please point me to any evidence that supports this claim.

3 hours ago, Big Picture said:

It might be the case that an Ashes series held in the UK now would be a success, but that depends on the Aussies being interested in playing it which is seriously in doubt now.

You're backtracking now. 3 posts ago you claimed that they weren't successful. In my opinion, the reason the Aussies aren't overly interested in playing us anymore has nothing to do with the level of competition and everything to do with their significantly enhanced broadcasting deals for NRL and SoO compared to 20+ years ago. It simply doesn't make as much sense financially for them to play us anymore, because the value of their other competitions has massively increased in that time. For the British game, an ashes series would likely be much more commercially attractive that it would be to the Aussies. I believe this is the reason why they're not overly bothered about playing us anymore. If it generated more money than their other competitions then I'm sure they'd play us like a shot, regardless of standard.

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

GB beat Australia in 1992, 1994, 1997, 2001 and 2006, so your stats are incorrect.

I ignored 1997 just as the Aussies do; that wasn't a true Australian national team.  This list of "Test" matches in 2007 doesn't list any GB vs Australia or Australia vs GB match.  The Kiwis toured Britain that year.

The Aussies losing interest is my evidence that the Ashes series had ceased to be successful.  They stopped considering British RL a worthy rival.  They know that a series down there would struggle on TV and at the gate.

[Davo5]

20 hours ago, Big Picture said:

The match you watched wasn't at Princes Park, it was at Olympic Park.  I know because I've watched both.

It stopped being successful though, that's what you don't seem to grasp.  The years of Aussie dominance undermined the Aussie public's interest and led them to believe that State of Origin is superior to International RL and in one sense at least they're right.  For years SOO has been far more even and competitive than International RL.

They didn’t seem to mind the 11 out of 12 series wins for Queensland between 06-17 though.

[M j M]

4 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

They didn’t seem to mind the 11 out of 12 series wins for Queensland between 06-17 though.

LOL he'll never come up with an answer to that!

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

9 hours ago, Big Picture said:

I ignored 1997 just as the Aussies do; that wasn't a true Australian national team.  This list of "Test" matches in 2007 doesn't list any GB vs Australia or Australia vs GB match.  The Kiwis toured Britain that year.

And yet you didn't ignore the 1995 World Cup in some of your other stats, despite that only being an ARL team. Plus even taking this 1997 game out, your stats were still wrong! And why are you now mentioning 2007? What has that got to do with anything? 

9 hours ago, Big Picture said:

The Aussies losing interest is my evidence that the Ashes series had ceased to be successful. 

So you don't have any evidence then? Presumably by your logic, the world cup isn't successful, because the Aussies aren't interested in that either? As I've said, the Aussies losing interest in playing us has nothing to do with Ashes series being unsuccessful, otherwise they wouldn't have played us in multiple competitions since then. 

I'm going to have to leave it there, because you've managed to derail a thread that should have been talking about the amazing 1992 Melbourne test match, and instead make baseless claims with incorrect stats and no evidence to back up your viewpoint whatsoever, so there's not really any point in continuing.

[Big Picture]

6 hours ago, M j M said:

6 hours ago, Davo5 said:

They didn’t seem to mind the 11 out of 12 series wins for Queensland between 06-17 though.

LOL he'll never come up with an answer to that!

Sure I will.  Queensland was the historic underdog and New South Wales never stopped being competitive.  Looking at those 12 series wins from 2006-2017 we find that of 36 matches, Queensland won 20 and NSW 12. That's a far cry from Australia's dominance of International RL for 40+ years: if we look at the last 36 matches between Great Britain and Australia we see that Australia won 24 and GB only 8, not even in double figures.

5 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

And yet you didn't ignore the 1995 World Cup in some of your other stats, despite that only being an ARL team. Plus even taking this 1997 game out, your stats were still wrong! And why are you now mentioning 2007? What has that got to do with anything?

1995 was the official Australian national team, the same team which played for the Ashes.  I mentioned 2007 only because you mentioned it.

5 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

So you don't have any evidence then? Presumably by your logic, the world cup isn't successful, because the Aussies aren't interested in that either? As I've said, the Aussies losing interest in playing us has nothing to do with Ashes series being unsuccessful, otherwise they wouldn't have played us in multiple competitions since then.

Yes I do have evidence: the series stopped being competitive with continued Aussie dominance over a period which now exceeds 40 years, thus the Aussies lost interest.  A good few posters have suggested that GB could have role as a touring team like the RU Lions, but if the Aussies aren't interested there's nowhere where they could profitably tour is there?  The 1996 tour was disastrous and 2019 doesn't seem to have any better.

5 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I'm going to have to leave it there, because you've managed to derail a thread that should have been talking about the amazing 1992 Melbourne test match, and instead make baseless claims with incorrect stats and no evidence to back up your viewpoint whatsoever, so there's not really any point in continuing.

I quite agree that that match was amazing, it's the only time I've ever seen the Aussies given such a comprehensive defeat.  If GB had been able to compete like that more than once in a series now and then, the Aussies almost certainly wouldn't regard State of Origin as the pinnacle of the game.

International RL has suffered greatly as a result of first France and then Britain falling behind Australia and New Zealand.  A successful World Cup might regenerate Aussie interest in Internationals, but the poor financial results of the last one in 2017 suggesst that such success won't happen on their shores so it's up to the RFL and FFR XIII to make that happen.

[Davo5]

20 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Sure I will.  Queensland was the historic underdog and New South Wales never stopped being competitive.  Looking at those 12 series wins from 2006-2017 we find that of 36 matches, NSW won 20 and Queensland 12. That's a far cry from Australia's dominance of International RL for 40+ years: if we look at the last 36 matches between Great Britain and Australia we see that Australia won 24 and GB only 8, not even in double figures.

So by your stats NSW won 8 more Origin games but lost 11 out of 12 series,they should maybe ask for an inquiry.

[Big Picture]

8 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

So by your stats NSW won 8 more Origin games but lost 11 out of 12 series,they should maybe ask for an inquiry.

ROFLMAO, thanks for pointing out that typo.  It's fixed now.

[Davo5]

5 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

ROFLMAO, thanks for pointing out that typo.  It's fixed now.

Your welcome but your argument is still flawed.

[Wigan Riversider]

Seem to recall that a Martin Offiah try was refused in 3rd Test the following week at Lang Park after that memorable night at Princes Park. 

GB were mightily close to winning the Ashes in that 1992 series.

The Shackle draggers were quaking in their arrogant boots.