International: Brazil 0-82 South Africa

[gingerjon]

14 minutes ago, RP London said:

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. 

I’m willing to bet that in every sport that claims a Brazilian national team that that team plays a majority of its home games in Brazil.

[Pulga]

38 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

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.

You might need to brush up on your terms.

There are three "levels" to IRL membership. Observer, Affiliate and Full.

All three are able to play fully sanctioned test matches for world ranking points.

I'm unsure how long the rankings have been around but South Africa has been ranked for at least a decade.

Brazil has been able to play for rankings for a few years.

[Dave T]

26 minutes ago, RP London said:

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. 

Yup. I support Scotland RL as well as England and have watched them many times in Scotland. I have been critical when they have taken the cheaper option of just playing in England and would criticise them if they just played their games there.

[Damien]

38 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

Its really not the same though and this is always a stupid come back. As much as I may wish it was not the case. RU is played in Scotland, it has 2 professional teams. It is absolutely nothing like the case in Scottish RL. If Scottish RL was like that then it wouldn't get the criticism it does.

[OriginalMrC]

45 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

This has nothing to do with anything that I said. I couldn't care less whether the players qualify through grandparents or whatever. I asked a simple question on whether it was a sanctioned test match. No one seems to be able to answer that, and I've been labeled as being against international expansion. This is absolutely not true. 

There is a huge difference between a Scotland Rugby Union team that plays its home games in Scotland, that enters international competitions etc. than an international game played by 2 countries in a small park thousands of miles away from those countries. Call that international development or whatever but unless it was an officially sanctioned international then it is arguable that it does nothing to develop the game in either of those countries. 

[RP London]

19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yup. I support Scotland RL as well as England and have watched them many times in Scotland. I have been critical when they have taken the cheaper option of just playing in England and would criticise them if they just played their games there.

totally agree.. why play in Rochdale or Whitehaven (nothing wrong with either) when you can play in Edinburgh... Its laziness really as "the crowd will come because its international RL".. your working on your crowd being die hard RL fans who will watch anything even a country that is not theirs playing a country that is not theirs, and die hard Scotland RL fans that will travel.. The better option surely is to put the work in and play in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee or wherever is tactically best, and put the work into getting Scottish supporters through the door who you can develop for the good of the nation as a whole going forward.. maybe a smaller crowd than in Rochdale or Whitehaven but for the future of the sport its probably a "better" more valuable crowd.

[RP London]

10 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

This has nothing to do with anything that I said. I couldn't care less whether the players qualify through grandparents or whatever. I asked a simple question on whether it was a sanctioned test match. No one seems to be able to answer that, and I've been labeled as being against international expansion. This is absolutely not true. 

There is a huge difference between a Scotland Rugby Union team that plays its home games in Scotland, that enters international competitions etc. than an international game played by 2 countries in a small park thousands of miles away from those countries. Call that international development or whatever but unless it was an officially sanctioned international then it is arguable that it does nothing to develop the game in either of those countries. 

I played for London and the South East vs Dublin in the "Capital challenge" (we won) in 2004 or 5 and just before that game was the West Indies vs South African Wilddogs match... basically all the players were based in the UK (mostly in London) but were from South Africa (travelling and/or working in London) or West Indian backgrounds... I doubt this was internationally sanctioned or had caps associated, it was great as an end of season game and it meant a lot to the players but it wasn't international expansion.

That said i believe the few years of the West Indies team playing in 9s tournaments etc did help lead to Jamaica starting to play etc...  so maybe it can do some good, as Lebanon also shows but how much is debatable. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by RP London

[Pulga]

48 minutes ago, RP London said:

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.

To put your mind at ease I can say that if given the option of making a World Cup on the back of "heritage" players or having a 6 team domestic comp at what we would consider a "Pub League" level, no developing nations administrator would chose the World Cup. 

Everyone's goal is domestic activity. I can't think of an exception.

The problem is it doesn't work to plan. I can tell you I founded the El Salvador RL in 2013 from an idea. The goal has always been domestic activity. It will always be domestic activity. But I've devoted 10 years of my life and not seen a single game played in El Salvador. It's unbelievably frustrating. Sometimes you get close but it's out of reach. We've had trouble with the RU over there. We've had setback after setback. COVID put a complete stop to things since early 2020. Hell, it's practically impossible to get balls there. But we continue to push on.

Does this mean the Salvadorans in Australia should go into hibernation? Absolutely not. The opposite really. You want to keep the brand going, you need something to show for your commitment. 

Contrast this with Nicaragua. I thought it would be a good idea to get the nations around El Salvador going for some competition so I put my feelers out to Nicaragua. I instantly found a group of young guys who were super keen to get things started. We've put on a full 4-team season in 2019 and a month-long 9s tournament in 2021 with 3 teams from just one city. The sport has government recognition in the capital state. It's nearly by accident it has happened really. There are a much smaller amount of Nicaraguans in Australia than Salvadorans so we've only been able to scrape together a single 9s team here. Just.

There are many reasons why nations play in Australia or don't. None of them are neglecting the game domestically over "heritage" players.

 

[Pulga]

18 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

I asked a simple question on whether it was a sanctioned test match. No one seems to be able to answer that

Sorry to have to spell it out but Yes, it was.

[Tonka]

Hard lines Brazil, if a few calls had gone their way they'd've had it

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, Pulga said:

To put your mind at ease I can say that if given the option of making a World Cup on the back of "heritage" players or having a 6 team domestic comp at what we would consider a "Pub League" level, no developing nations administrator would chose the World Cup. 

Everyone's goal is domestic activity. I can't think of an exception.

The problem is it doesn't work to plan. I can tell you I founded the El Salvador RL in 2013 from an idea. The goal has always been domestic activity. It will always be domestic activity. But I've devoted 10 years of my life and not seen a single game played in El Salvador. It's unbelievably frustrating. Sometimes you get close but it's out of reach. We've had trouble with the RU over there. We've had setback after setback. COVID put a complete stop to things since early 2020. Hell, it's practically impossible to get balls there. But we continue to push on.

Does this mean the Salvadorans in Australia should go into hibernation? Absolutely not. The opposite really. You want to keep the brand going, you need something to show for your commitment. 

Contrast this with Nicaragua. I thought it would be a good idea to get the nations around El Salvador going for some competition so I put my feelers out to Nicaragua. I instantly found a group of young guys who were super keen to get things started. We've put on a full 4-team season in 2019 and a month-long 9s tournament in 2021 with 3 teams from just one city. The sport has government recognition in the capital state. It's nearly by accident it has happened really. There are a much smaller amount of Nicaraguans in Australia than Salvadorans so we've only been able to scrape together a single 9s team here. Just.

There are many reasons why nations play in Australia or don't. None of them are neglecting the game domestically over "heritage" players.

 

Great thanks for that.. and great to hear that Nicaragua is starting to bear some fruit in playing numbers in the country etc. 

El Salvador playing in Australia with 17 players all living in Australia (as in with families etc rather than moving there specifically to play in the NRL) would be an example of 0 expansion, and i hate to say that to someone who has worked hard at it. Great that those people can represent their ancestry etc but they would be playing with or without the effort you have put in. Nicaragua is brilliant and shows expansion, there is more to be had, of course, but its great.. having 17 Aussies in Nicaraguan shirts in Australia would not make that any better or any worse. However, having those players in Nicaragua playing an international would be HUGE... take those 17 El Salvodor players to play an international in Nicaragua and that is a massive step forward, scraping together a Nicaraguan side to play in Aus of Australian-Nicaraguans and I dont see how that makes any difference to what is happening on the ground at all. 

Thats the point to this IMHO... I dont really see the point of Brazil v South Africa in Aus... in Brazil or South Africa yes absolutely but not in Aus. I dont see any other sport doing this.. 

[RP London]

10 minutes ago, Pulga said:

Sorry to have to spell it out but Yes, it was.

I find that slightly problematic and I think it plays into a lot of the nay sayers hands.. Union, for all its faults, has international teams playing international matches in their home nations with home teams, maybe with a lot of naturalised players or players with heritage but they play their home matches in their home countries. 

Take that match and play it in Brazil or South Africa and thats a different story... 

Frankly play it in Aus, thats fine as the odd one here and there which helps raise money due to match day sponsors and revenue etc but its happening all too often with a number of sides and it does make the sport look bad IMHO.

[Pulga]

24 minutes ago, RP London said:

having 17 Aussies in Nicaraguan shirts in Australia would not make that any better or any worse. 

I think this is probably the root of the problem. I hate to assume too much about you but it seems the English (especially the white ones) don't really understand that these people don't really identify as Australian. 

Like I've said earlier people should not tell people how they feel. 

I don't look at the players in Nicaragua playing the game any differently than I do the Nicaraguans playing here in Australia. 

If you satisfy the IRL's criteria you are the same to me.

I don't really look at my experience with either nation as better or worse than the other. Nicaragua has certainly been much easier. But to me they are weighted the same.

[Pulga]

41 minutes ago, RP London said:

I find that slightly problematic and I think it plays into a lot of the nay sayers hands.. Union, for all its faults, has international teams playing international matches in their home nations with home teams, maybe with a lot of naturalised players or players with heritage but they play their home matches in their home countries. 

Take that match and play it in Brazil or South Africa and thats a different story... 

Frankly play it in Aus, thats fine as the odd one here and there which helps raise money due to match day sponsors and revenue etc but its happening all too often with a number of sides and it does make the sport look bad IMHO.

I'm sure every administrator in the world would love your ideas on how to pay to fly 20 players plus staff out to wherever you seem to believe is the most authentic location for it.

 

[RP London]

9 minutes ago, Pulga said:

I think this is probably the root of the problem. I hate to assume too much about you but it seems the English (especially the white ones) don't really understand that these people don't really identify as Australian. 

Like I've said earlier people should not tell people how they feel. 

I don't look at the players in Nicaragua playing the game any differently than I do the Nicaraguans playing here in Australia. 

If you satisfy the IRL's criteria you are the same to me.

I don't really look at my experience with either nation as better or worse than the other. Nicaragua has certainly been much easier. But to me they are weighted the same.

Ok That is not what i am saying at all.. I am happy for them to be whatever they like, Nicaragua, Australian a mix of both, another nation that they have a call to.. As i say I have an Irish Wife and 2 half irish kids that very much feel Irish.. I have no issue with players playing for nations as long as they qualify and are good enough etc

what I don't think is worthwhile is this playing home matches on Australian soil... I dont think it makes the game look good, i dont think it actually helps anyone except for those 17 players massage their egos a little bit TBH

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, Pulga said:

I'm sure every administrator in the world would love your ideas on how to pay to fly 20 players plus staff out to wherever you seem to believe is the most authentic location for it.

 

Why pay... its an amateur set up, if they want to pay to get over and play they can.. if they dont then so be it. The ONLY authentic location for a home match for a nation is in their nation... if you want to travel to represent your nation then great thats fantastic, if you dont/cant then ok thats the way it is.. 

I just dont see the point in playing these games in Aus... how can that possibly be seen as anything other than a little silly?

Just to clarify I am a huge expansionist.. i just dont see this as expansion, a game at home would be expansion..

[Pulga]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

Ok That is not what i am saying at all.. I am happy for them to be whatever they like, Nicaragua, Australian a mix of both, another nation that they have a call to.. As i say I have an Irish Wife and 2 half irish kids that very much feel Irish.. I have no issue with players playing for nations as long as they qualify and are good enough etc

what I don't think is worthwhile is this playing home matches on Australian soil... I dont think it makes the game look good, i dont think it actually helps anyone except for those 17 players massage their egos a little bit TBH

Who calls them home games? 

So you vote on just not staging games at all?

I think you underestimate the extreme difficulty of playing tests in many nations. 

Egos! Haha! Unbelievable. Most RL fans wouldn't even know this game happened. 

[gingerjon]

22 minutes ago, Pulga said:

I think this is probably the root of the problem. I hate to assume too much about you but it seems the English (especially the white ones) don't really understand that these people don't really identify as Australian. 

I can see why you keep going down this line but it's not the point that anyone is really making.

[RP London]

6 minutes ago, Pulga said:

Who calls them home games? 

So you vote on just not staging games at all?

I think you underestimate the extreme difficulty of playing tests in many nations. 

Egos! Haha! Unbelievable. Most RL fans wouldn't even know this game happened. 

Yes.. i would advocate playing "test" matches at the home of at least one of the test playing nations (someone is at home surely, or are we playing all our tests at neutral venues?? another first for RL!)... strange i know!

If you cant then dont stage it, yep i wouldnt disagree with that.. as you say if no one knows it was on then what the hell is the point?

what is it actually helping with? it does make us a little silly saying "look how many nations play our sport" when in reality do they?

Edited June 8, 2022 by RP London

[Pulga]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

Why pay... its an amateur set up, if they want to pay to get over and play they can.. if they dont then so be it. The ONLY authentic location for a home match for a nation is in their nation... if you want to travel to represent your nation then great thats fantastic, if you dont/cant then ok thats the way it is.. 

I just dont see the point in playing these games in Aus... how can that possibly be seen as anything other than a little silly?

Just to clarify I am a huge expansionist.. i just dont see this as expansion, a game at home would be expansion..

That certain demographic seems to be poking its head out again. Traveling overseas is a privilege most can not obtain. 

 

I'm unsure why you keep using the word "home". It's quite clearly a neutral venue.

 

I hate to repeat myself but these games happen because it is extremely difficult to do it any other way. 

I get you may be an expansionist but you don't seem to be able to understand how the rest of the world live. For example, my main man in Nicaragua, Alberto, was working in a medical lab for $1USD an hour.

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I’m willing to bet that in every sport that claims a Brazilian national team that that team plays a majority of its home games in Brazil.

In between doing some work (!), I am trying to locate ones where this isn't true and so far I've come up with ice hockey.

[Pulga]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

Yes.. i would advocate playing "test" matches at the home of at least one of the test playing nations... strange i know! If you cant then dont stage it.. as you say if no one knows it was on then what the hell is the point? what is it actually helping with? nothing.. but it does make us a little silly saying "look how many nations play our sport" when in reality do they?

You might want to brush up on how a nation becomes a member.

[Tommygilf]

I much prefer nations playing home games in their own countries.

In the Northern Hemisphere we have a strange mish mash of stuff. Most countries play test matches in their own nations, particularly at the more amateur levels. Yet oddly it is the pro/semi pro nations who we have seen use neutral venues. Jamaica vs Wales at Wakefield stands out to me on that front!

Jamaica to their credit though have often seen players fly out from the UK for qualifiers etc. That is great and is exactly how I would like these things to work. 

The problem with Australian based players is quite simply that it is so far away from everywhere else. 8 hours flight Brisbane to Hong Kong vs 2 hours for France vs Wales or a long coach trip for Serbia vs Bulgaria. It is just easier in Europe to operate at that amateur/minimal profit level.

I'm glad matches are being played, but ideally they should be at the home of one of the two teams.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I can see why you keep going down this line but it's not the point that anyone is really making.

It's easier to argue things that people aren't saying as opposed to trying to explain why many internationals are just held in Oz because it's cheap. 

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, Pulga said:

That certain demographic seems to be poking its head out again. Traveling overseas is a privilege most can not obtain. 

 

I'm unsure why you keep using the word "home". It's quite clearly a neutral venue.

 

I hate to repeat myself but these games happen because it is extremely difficult to do it any other way. 

I get you may be an expansionist but you don't seem to be able to understand how the rest of the world live. For example, my main man in Nicaragua, Alberto, was working in a medical lab for $1USD an hour.

Give your head a wobble a second...

I completely understand how privileged I am to be able to travel and how privileged I am to live where I do.. however, that is completely irrelevant to what is being said..

If you cannot afford it then you don't do it, that is a simple truth.. If you cannot fly in 20 people from Australia to play a game in Brazil, or South Africa or wherever then you don't do it (BTW no matter your privilege you still have to make these decisions, they are just at different levels). so you play domestic internationals with domestic based players because they are the ones that can play.. If you cannot do that then I fail to see how these matches help at all... (I am not questioning the players I am questioning the matches)

We wont agree on this so I wont go on but your skirting a very fine line, we understand the issues we just dont agree that this is a way to move the game forward.. why have an international like this which does no good but does make us look small