International: Brazil 0-82 South Africa

[Jughead]

6 hours ago, OriginalMrC said:

Where did I moan about a game being played? 

There are 'international' games played every month in a park in Sydney by ex pat Aussies. It was a valid question about whether this was one of those or a genuine test match. Maybe I'll gather a few mates together and play an Ireland vs England International down my local park 

I look forward to you being on passport patrol for the World Cup. What do you mean, you won’t? The best thing that’s happened to Rugby League in a generation (maybe even longer) is a load of lads from Manly, Auckland, Newcastle and Penrith choosing to line up for Tonga, beating Australia and England in recent years, to create a fourth tier one nation, and having genuine and realistic ambitions of reaching a World Cup Final this winter.

Rugby League internationals and people representing their heritage and families should be encouraged, not treated like some sort of Priti Patel passport party, this one even more than usual due to the high number of Brazilian based players that travelled. 

Rugby League is in its infancy across most recognised nations that play the game, if part of a particular countries player pool is playing games, that’s fine with me. It would be great if Brazil or Macedonia were playing in Porto Alegre or Skopje but given how long the game has been played in those countries and in some cases, finance and geography playing an issue, it’s somewhat unrealistic for these sort of games at this stage of their journey in the sport. 

Long live international rugby league, the more of it, the better. 

[The Rocket]

21 hours ago, Damien said:

They hosted the 2010 Football World Cup, I'm sure they could host the RU version.

Like the head of the South African union, the head of the NZ union said the same thing a few weeks ago. Ageing stadiums, small economies and the lack of Gov`t revenue to fund stadium upgrades all make those countries increasingly unattractive destinations for the mega-event that the union WC has become.

I think union have made it clear now that their preference is for hosting WC`s in large wealthy first world economies like the U.S, Japan, and European countries. Australia may well be on it`s last chance as well but for other reasons.

Given that so many of the participants in the League World Cup: England, France , New Zealand, Australia and some of the Pacific Islands,  would be recognizable to Union fans in a country like South Africa there would be a good chance if it ever got to the situation that that country could no longer afford to host a union WC there may be an appetite, even out of curiosity, for a League WC.

The thing with a League WC as well is that it doesn`t need to generate the same amount of revenue as a union WC, probably would require much more modest levels of Gov`t subsidisation and having the latest cutting edge stadiums probably wouldn`t be a requirement as well.

 

 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, The Rocket said:

Like the head of the South African union, the head of the NZ union said the same thing a few weeks ago. Ageing stadiums, small economies and the lack of Gov`t revenue to fund stadium upgrades all make those countries increasingly unattractive destinations for the mega-event that the union WC has become.

I think union have made it clear now that their preference is for hosting WC`s in large wealthy first world economies like the U.S, Japan, and European countries. Australia may well be on it`s last chance as well but for other reasons.

Given that so many of the participants in the League World Cup: England, France , New Zealand, Australia and some of the Pacific Islands,  would be recognizable to Union fans in a country like South Africa there would be a good chance if it ever got to the situation that that country could no longer afford to host a union WC there may be an appetite, even out of curiosity, for a League WC.

The thing with a League WC as well is that it doesn`t need to generate the same amount of revenue as a union WC, probably would require much more modest levels of Gov`t subsidisation and having the latest cutting edge stadiums probably wouldn`t be a requirement as well.

 

 

"Rugby League: It's the budget alternative to the rugby you know"

The slogans write themselves.

[The Rocket]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

"Rugby League: It's the budget alternative to the rugby you know"

The slogans write themselves.

That`s the problem with you, you`re beat before you start. Only you would think of that.

[OriginalMrC]

14 hours ago, Jughead said:

I look forward to you being on passport patrol for the World Cup. What do you mean, you won’t? The best thing that’s happened to Rugby League in a generation (maybe even longer) is a load of lads from Manly, Auckland, Newcastle and Penrith choosing to line up for Tonga, beating Australia and England in recent years, to create a fourth tier one nation, and having genuine and realistic ambitions of reaching a World Cup Final this winter.

Rugby League internationals and people representing their heritage and families should be encouraged, not treated like some sort of Priti Patel passport party, this one even more than usual due to the high number of Brazilian based players that travelled. 

Rugby League is in its infancy across most recognised nations that play the game, if part of a particular countries player pool is playing games, that’s fine with me. It would be great if Brazil or Macedonia were playing in Porto Alegre or Skopje but given how long the game has been played in those countries and in some cases, finance and geography playing an issue, it’s somewhat unrealistic for these sort of games at this stage of their journey in the sport. 

Long live international rugby league, the more of it, the better. 

Once again completely missed the point of what I was saying but never mind you crack on. 

[gingerjon]

11 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

That`s the problem with you, you`re beat before you start. Only you would think of that.

Not really. All of that approach is offering rugby league as a budget alternative that's coming to town only because the version they know and want isn't around right now.

If I wanted to hold a World Cup in South Africa, I would, right now, be investing in rugby league in South Africa. That would be the foundation-building approach that would deliver long-term results.

We're not doing that. Not in South Africa or, really, anywhere.

[RP London]

16 hours ago, welshmagpie said:

From memory (I may be wrong) I’m sure they will play an MEA competition next year as part of World Cup qualifying.

South Africa, Lebanon & MEA Championship winner (Nigeria, Morocco, Ghana, Cameroon) 

wont that mean they will have played more games than England in the last 2 years??

[RP London]

41 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Not really. All of that approach is offering rugby league as a budget alternative that's coming to town only because the version they know and want isn't around right now.

If I wanted to hold a World Cup in South Africa, I would, right now, be investing in rugby league in South Africa. That would be the foundation-building approach that would deliver long-term results.

We're not doing that. Not in South Africa or, really, anywhere.

Spot on..

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

"Rugby League: It's the budget alternative to the rugby you know"

The slogans write themselves.

Come and watch Rugby League because, well, what other Rugby is on? 

[The Rocket]

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Not really. All of that approach is offering rugby league as a budget alternative that's coming to town only because the version they know and want isn't around right now.

If I wanted to hold a World Cup in South Africa, I would, right now, be investing in rugby league in South Africa. That would be the foundation-building approach that would deliver long-term results.

We're not doing that. Not in South Africa or, really, anywhere.

More money than ever before is being invested in the Pacific Islands and even finally New Zealand has seen a big increase in funding. The problem with the PI`s though of course is that their economies are miniscule. and there`s no real money in them for the game probably just players.

New Zealand`s a different story and although not large enough to host a union WC any more if we can continue to grow the game there it may well be a viable alternative site for a League WC. Especially given the familiarity of many of the participating teams.

Regards South Africa, yeah sure it would be great to be investing there, shame is we just don`t have the money but if it got to the point where they weren`t holding union WC`s a League WC might have appeal and may kick start an interest in League in a country that already is big on contact sports.

 

[Big Picture]

48 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Not really. All of that approach is offering rugby league as a budget alternative that's coming to town only because the version they know and want isn't around right now.

If I wanted to hold a World Cup in South Africa, I would, right now, be investing in rugby league in South Africa. That would be the foundation-building approach that would deliver long-term results.

We're not doing that. Not in South Africa or, really, anywhere.

Investing what money though?  The game doesn't have it to invest and realistically won't because it doesn't generate the needed revenues.  As @The Rocketpoints out the Pacific Islands are much less expensive places to work in so what money there is has been going there.

[gingerjon]

24 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Investing what money though?  The game doesn't have it to invest and realistically won't because it doesn't generate the needed revenues.  As @The Rocketpoints out the Pacific Islands are much less expensive places to work in so what money there is has been going there.

The key bit was if I wanted to hold a World Cup in South Africa.

I don’t, particularly. But then I’m not the one proposing we hawk ourselves around the world as the Poundland rugby.

[Rugby&soccerfan]

On 06/06/2022 at 12:54, Damien said:

They hosted the 2010 Football World Cup, I'm sure they could host the RU version.

Alot of the staduims used for the 2010 Football World cup are now White Elephants and with the cost still being picked up today. 

One reason now why so many countries are wary about hosting International events Italy still paying for Italia 90.

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, Rugby&soccerfan said:

Alot of the staduims used for the 2010 Football World cup are now White Elephants and with the cost still being picked up today. 

One reason now why so many countries are wary about hosting International events Italy still paying for Italia 90.

You miss the point. They have the stadiums and hosted a far bigger World Cup 12 years ago.

[Pulga]

God there is some absolute ignorant drivel that pops up every time a developing nation plays a game.

I'd LOVE to see anyone point out any "shortcuts" being taken by playing games in Australia. It's an absolute slap in the face to the hard working volunteers that almost entirely fund these things. The IRL rule is you need at least one grandparent born in the nation to be able to represent said nation. It's very simple. If you have a problem with that you should email the IRL. All nations have the same rule.

It's also not as black and white as these idiots think. Take for example my ex Mother-in-law. She was born in El Salvador. She had two kids in El Salvador then war broke out. She fled on foot to Honduras where she had two more kids in a refugee camp. She flew to Australia pregnant and had her 5th child there. All kids grew up together in Australia speaking 80% Spanish at home. 

They could all represent El Salvador and Australia if they wanted. Only the third and 4th could represent Honduras additionally. 

These immigrants and refugees often find little communities of their own where they are living a completely different lifestyle to the rest of the country. 

Imagine telling my youngest brother-in-law that he's not Salvadoran enough to represent El Salvador.

Stop telling anyone to feel a certain way about their heritage. It's not up to you. As long as you meet the IRL rules it's all good.

I'd be very surprised if anyone making these comments isn't a white boomer from a politically stable nation. 

[UTK]

28 minutes ago, Pulga said:

God there is some absolute ignorant drivel that pops up every time a developing nation plays a game.

I'd LOVE to see anyone point out any "shortcuts" being taken by playing games in Australia. It's an absolute slap in the face to the hard working volunteers that almost entirely fund these things. The IRL rule is you need at least one grandparent born in the nation to be able to represent said nation. It's very simple. If you have a problem with that you should email the IRL. All nations have the same rule.

It's also not as black and white as these idiots think. Take for example my ex Mother-in-law. She was born in El Salvador. She had two kids in El Salvador then war broke out. She fled on foot to Honduras where she had two more kids in a refugee camp. She flew to Australia pregnant and had her 5th child there. All kids grew up together in Australia speaking 80% Spanish at home. 

They could all represent El Salvador and Australia if they wanted. Only the third and 4th could represent Honduras additionally. 

These immigrants and refugees often find little communities of their own where they are living a completely different lifestyle to the rest of the country. 

Imagine telling my youngest brother-in-law that he's not Salvadoran enough to represent El Salvador.

Stop telling anyone to feel a certain way about their heritage. It's not up to you. As long as you meet the IRL rules it's all good.

I'd be very surprised if anyone making these comments isn't a white boomer from a politically stable nation. 

Absolutely spot on. 

We've also seen before that much maligned "heritage" teams in Australia serve as the stimulus for introducing the game domestically in these emerging nations. Invariably this is due to the extremely close connections those involved share with these nations and the result is RL being introduced in places where it simply otherwise would not have existed without such activity.

 

[Dave T]

5 hours ago, Pulga said:

God there is some absolute ignorant drivel that pops up every time a developing nation plays a game.

I'd LOVE to see anyone point out any "shortcuts" being taken by playing games in Australia. It's an absolute slap in the face to the hard working volunteers that almost entirely fund these things. The IRL rule is you need at least one grandparent born in the nation to be able to represent said nation. It's very simple. If you have a problem with that you should email the IRL. All nations have the same rule.

It's also not as black and white as these idiots think. Take for example my ex Mother-in-law. She was born in El Salvador. She had two kids in El Salvador then war broke out. She fled on foot to Honduras where she had two more kids in a refugee camp. She flew to Australia pregnant and had her 5th child there. All kids grew up together in Australia speaking 80% Spanish at home. 

They could all represent El Salvador and Australia if they wanted. Only the third and 4th could represent Honduras additionally. 

These immigrants and refugees often find little communities of their own where they are living a completely different lifestyle to the rest of the country. 

Imagine telling my youngest brother-in-law that he's not Salvadoran enough to represent El Salvador.

Stop telling anyone to feel a certain way about their heritage. It's not up to you. As long as you meet the IRL rules it's all good.

I'd be very surprised if anyone making these comments isn't a white boomer from a politically stable nation. 

The heritage point wasn't really the point here tbh. 

What involvement did the SA and Brazil governing bodies have in staging this game? 

Why are SA and Brazil playing in Oz? What made them choose that venue now? 

[Pulga]

49 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The heritage point wasn't really the point here tbh. 

What involvement did the SA and Brazil governing bodies have in staging this game? 

Why are SA and Brazil playing in Oz? What made them choose that venue now? 

What do you mean? Nations can't put on officially sanctioned test matches without the involvement of their respective governing bodies....

I'm not sure what kind of disinformation you've been fed. I'm a little dumbfounded.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Pulga said:

What do you mean? Nations can't put on officially sanctioned test matches without the involvement of their respective governing bodies....

I'm not sure what kind of disinformation you've been fed. I'm a little dumbfounded.

Or maybe just chill and see that people are asking genuine questions. 

You clearly get very easily dumbfounded. 

What was it that made the Brazil and SA governing bodies arrange and stage a game in Oz? 

[Damien]

7 hours ago, Pulga said:

God there is some absolute ignorant drivel that pops up every time a developing nation plays a game.

I'd LOVE to see anyone point out any "shortcuts" being taken by playing games in Australia. It's an absolute slap in the face to the hard working volunteers that almost entirely fund these things. The IRL rule is you need at least one grandparent born in the nation to be able to represent said nation. It's very simple. If you have a problem with that you should email the IRL. All nations have the same rule.

It's also not as black and white as these idiots think. Take for example my ex Mother-in-law. She was born in El Salvador. She had two kids in El Salvador then war broke out. She fled on foot to Honduras where she had two more kids in a refugee camp. She flew to Australia pregnant and had her 5th child there. All kids grew up together in Australia speaking 80% Spanish at home. 

They could all represent El Salvador and Australia if they wanted. Only the third and 4th could represent Honduras additionally. 

These immigrants and refugees often find little communities of their own where they are living a completely different lifestyle to the rest of the country. 

Imagine telling my youngest brother-in-law that he's not Salvadoran enough to represent El Salvador.

Stop telling anyone to feel a certain way about their heritage. It's not up to you. As long as you meet the IRL rules it's all good.

I'd be very surprised if anyone making these comments isn't a white boomer from a politically stable nation. 

Talk about completely missing the points on this thread. Nice rant though.

[Pulga]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Or maybe just chill and see that people are asking genuine questions. 

You clearly get very easily dumbfounded. 

What was it that made the Brazil and SA governing bodies arrange and stage a game in Oz? 

Does anyone really think this was some rebel test match completely unknown to the governing bodies of each nation? Do people honestly think you can get 13 mates together and say you're the Kazakhstan national team and then the IRL will actively promote you across all of their social media and website along with the two confederations?

I'm honestly baffled. 

The weird thing is it happens so often on here.

As for why in Oz? Rugby League is a massive sport in Australia. To find enough people of heritage from either nation with rugby league experience could only happen in Australia.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Pulga said:

Does anyone really think this was some rebel test match completely unknown to the governing bodies of each nation? Do people honestly think you can get 13 mates together and say you're the Kazakhstan national team and then the IRL will actively promote you across all of their social media and website along with the two confederations?

I'm honestly baffled. 

The weird thing is it happens so often on here.

As for why in Oz? Rugby League is a massive sport in Australia. To find enough people of heritage from either nation with rugby league experience could only happen in Australia.

You are quoting me but ranting about stuff I haven't said, you clearly are baffled. 

If discussion is beyond you, we can leave it. 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

17 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Or maybe just chill and see that people are asking genuine questions. 

You clearly get very easily dumbfounded. 

What was it that made the Brazil and SA governing bodies arrange and stage a game in Oz? 

https://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/teams/brazil/results.html

Looks like they've played all their most recent games in Oz. Apparently they played Uruguay in Oz last year as well and won 60-0 but that isn't listed on rugby league project, I saw that on Wikipedia. 

My valid question, which compliments your valid and genuine questions, is are Brazil a full test nation or do they just have affiliate status? I want to know so we can establish whether these games are fully sanctioned international tests or just exhibition games. 

Certain people please note, nothing about heritage players was mentioned in this post.

[The storm]

On 06/06/2022 at 09:51, OriginalMrC said:

Was this a proper international test match or another one these exhibition games in Australia with ex-pats

Same as many rugby union international teams

 

A few years ago 21 of the 39 man scottish squad were not scottish

[RP London]

To be fair to Pulga they have put a lot of work into development in South/central America etc and i can understand why they are a little bit "punchy" on the subject. As I've said often i have half Irish kids and they are very Irish in their outlook as well as English and if they were to represent Ireland at anything they would do it with a full heart... to tell people how they feel about a country is wrong and to tell them, just because you cannot understand it, that they are not xyzish is wrong. 

However, I think there are genuine questions to be asked on these types of matches. Its great to have more countries playing the game but this has to be balanced with development in those countries, without that it very much becomes what John Inverdale (spits on the floor) described many years ago as "just 13 players running around a park". 

I dont know of many, if any, other sports where this would happen. 2 very minor sports that I can think of which have dominant leagues spring to mind:

NFL: The British American football team play in Britain, the Germans in Germany etc etc there is no thought of these teams just picking good players in America, from college or whatever, and then flying in some others and to make the game happen between Britain and Germany in America (or any 2 other countries).. The British team is run by BAFL and (from what i can tell pre COVID) they almost played as many games as England did in RL! but they play the in Britain and across Europe including a European Cup style comp. 

Aussie Rules: The British Bulldogs play in Britain with British players from a British league. They play across Europe in the countries of the teams involved (including a European cup) they played 6 games in 2016 and 2017, we can dream! The British Team goes to aus every few years to play an international tournament and while they add some Aussie based Brits its mostly from British clubs. Yet they could probably pick a team every year from Aussie based brits to play a Irish Team or equivalent but Britain v Ireland is played in either the UK or Ireland. 

Would it do either of these sports any good to do what we do and play developing nation v developing nation in a totally different country or does it work better to give the players playing there a path way? I cannot think of any other sport that does it the way we do, it seems to have worked in Lebanon and arguably Tonga but its not got a massive track record of success.

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, The storm said:

Same as many rugby union international teams

 

A few years ago 21 of the 39 man scottish squad were not scottish

But they played their home matches in Scotland in front of the Scottish crowds who accepted them as Scottish as they qualified by the rules set out.