International: Brazil 0-82 South Africa

[Pulga]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Vanity projects.

"Egos", "vanity projects", good grief. This is delusion beyond belief. You'd swear these players are being paid millions with press around the world.

Is it not enough for the English game to be a laughing stock? Let the rest of the world be free of the rot.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Vanity projects.

I think they have very good intentions Dave, And perhaps for very early shoots it is the best way. However it should not be a long term or ideally an official solution.

[RP London]

1 minute ago, Pulga said:

"Egos", "vanity projects", good grief. This is delusion beyond belief. You'd swear these players are being paid millions with press around the world.

Is it not enough for the English game to be a laughing stock? Let the rest of the world be free of the rot.

Yes thats exactly what we are all saying... FFS!

Everyone here is simply saying that they think this adds nothing to that development and i havent seen a good argument that it is actually adding to the development of the game in those nations or actually spreading the game at all. 

You certainly haven't argued that even with your vast experience. How does this actually help in development in those countries.. i would genuinely like to know.

[gingerjon]

Having mulled this ... it's Brazil women who are in the RLWC this year.

When was their last game?

When is their next one?

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think they have very good intentions Dave, And perhaps for very early shoots it is the best way. However it should not be a long term or ideally an official solution.

Well we can't judge that, because on there surface there looks to be very little logic, and 'experienced and knowledgeable' people just dismiss others  and have failed to sell any benefit other than travel was cheap.

And vanity project doesn't mean that the intentions aren't good. But imho it is pretty much the definition of it. Looks good on a list, that we have played a test match, but what has it done for Brazil or South Africa RL as developing nations?

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Pulga said:

You've missed my last point. Barely anyone travelled TO Australia. They were already there.

At this level then, ie not televised etc, what is the benefit to RL in Brazil or South Africa?

I can understand for effectively professional national sides, say the Pacific Islands, where the games are televised, beamed back home and have spawned a major domestic following. But at the amateur level, surely the emphasis of internationals should be reaping the maximum benefits in the home country?

[Pulga]

8 minutes ago, RP London said:

Yes thats exactly what we are all saying... FFS!

Everyone here is simply saying that they think this adds nothing to that development and i havent seen a good argument that it is actually adding to the development of the game in those nations or actually spreading the game at all. 

You certainly haven't argued that even with your vast experience. How does this actually help in development in those countries.. i would genuinely like to know.

That's right! Not playing at all is the way forward for the game....

 

Playing internationals gives all players something to aim for. But somehow playing in a neutral country voids this. 

The facts are, in an ideal world you'd be playing majority domestic players at home and away in far flung corners of the world. But, again, for the fiftieth time, it is prohibitively expensive. So expensive that one game would likely bankrupt nearly every nation outside the top 10 multiple times over.

[Pulga]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Well we can't judge that, because on there surface there looks to be very little logic, and 'experienced and knowledgeable' people just dismiss others  and have failed to sell any benefit other than travel was cheap.

And vanity project doesn't mean that the intentions aren't good. But imho it is pretty much the definition of it. Looks good on a list, that we have played a test match, but what has it done for Brazil or South Africa RL as developing nations?

Do you want to explain your apparent logic. So far it's: "don't play games unless it's a non-neutral ground". 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Pulga said:

That's right! Not playing at all is the way forward for the game....

 

Playing internationals gives all players something to aim for. But somehow playing in a neutral country voids this. 

The facts are, in an ideal world you'd be playing majority domestic players at home and away in far flung corners of the world. But, again, for the fiftieth time, it is prohibitively expensive. So expensive that one game would likely bankrupt nearly every nation outside the top 10 multiple times over.

So how do we go from internationals - that should be the absolute peak of the game - being something some blokes in Sydney do because it's too hard and expensive to do it in the way that every other sport does to a Brazilian (for example) team that is able to play in Brazil because there is a domestic set-up that enables that to happen?

And, frankly, do any of the people involved in this game actually want that anyway?

[Pulga]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

At this level then, ie not televised etc, what is the benefit to RL in Brazil or South Africa?

I can understand for effectively professional national sides, say the Pacific Islands, where the games are televised, beamed back home and have spawned a major domestic following. But at the amateur level, surely the emphasis of internationals should be reaping the maximum benefits in the home country?

It was livestreamed.

Again, how are they meant to "reap maximum benefit in the home country"?

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Pulga said:

how are they meant to "reap maximum benefit in the home country"?

You're the expert.

You tell us.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Pulga said:

Do you want to explain your apparent logic. So far it's: "don't play games unless it's a non-neutral ground". 

People have asked, in good faith, what the benefits of this game are for Brazil and South Africa being played in Australia. You have refused to engage, calling people white privileged POMS.

If you want to engage in serious discussion, feel free to tell us the benefits of staging a test between Brazil and SA in Aus. And if the benefit is 'it's cheaper to stage' then don't be surprised when people don't agree that is a good reason.

If you don't want to engage in a proper discussion, no problem, we can go about our day.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

So how do we go from internationals - that should be the absolute peak of the game - being something some blokes in Sydney do because it's too hard and expensive to do it in the way that every other sport does to a Brazilian (for example) team that is able to play in Brazil because there is a domestic set-up that enables that to happen?

And, frankly, do any of the people involved in this game actually want that anyway?

This is ultimately the problem.

If it costs a lot to stage internationals in Brazil then a plan needs to be created to secure that funding. You don;t just ignore that challenge and take an easy option.

Because tbh, staging these games in Oz will probably always be cheaper, so there may never be a desire to shift them away from Oz.

The failure of the game to support development of international teams whilst expanding the number of teams in the WC is shocking.

[Pulga]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

So how do we go from internationals - that should be the absolute peak of the game - being something some blokes in Sydney do because it's too hard and expensive to do it in the way that every other sport does to a Brazilian (for example) team that is able to play in Brazil because there is a domestic set-up that enables that to happen?

And, frankly, do any of the people involved in this game actually want that anyway?

These arguments just circle don't they? 

Brazil has a two-tier domestic comp. The problem is the countries around them are not so active. Likewise SA, who is their geographical closest rival? Nigeria? 

Again, there are no administrators worldwide who would chose anything over domestic progression. 

 

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Pulga said:

These arguments just circle don't they? 

Brazil has a two-tier domestic comp. The problem is the countries around them are not so active. Likewise SA, who is their geographical closest rival? Nigeria? 

Again, there are no administrators worldwide who would chose anything over domestic progression. 

 

And yet somebody has chosen to spend money on flying a handful of Brazilians to Sydney that might have supported a bit more domestic development?

Or even the women's team who have a World Cup coming up?

[Pulga]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

People have asked, in good faith, what the benefits of this game are for Brazil and South Africa being played in Australia. You have refused to engage, calling people white privileged POMS.

If you want to engage in serious discussion, feel free to tell us the benefits of staging a test between Brazil and SA in Aus. And if the benefit is 'it's cheaper to stage' then don't be surprised when people don't agree that is a good reason.

If you don't want to engage in a proper discussion, no problem, we can go about our day.

I don't think you realise the difference in cost. One game could potentially be the whole budget of a nation for a year or even two. Playing in Australia you could possibly break even.

When Australia play New Zealand in the world cup final this year it's obviously going to mean nothing because it's in neither country.

C'mon man, playing internationals gives every domestic player something to aim for. It promotes the brand of each nation. It brings eyeballs and possibly sponsors.

Playing no games, surprisingly, does nothing.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Pulga said:

C'mon man, playing internationals gives every domestic player something to aim for. It promotes the brand of each nation. It brings eyeballs and possibly sponsors.

So this game has made a profit, generated sponsorship and will support the domestic game?

[Pulga]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

And yet somebody has chosen to spend money on flying a handful of Brazilians to Sydney that might have supported a bit more domestic development?

Or even the women's team who have a World Cup coming up?

Yes, some domestic players were flown in. I'm not sure what your question is sorry.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Pulga said:

I don't think you realise the difference in cost. One game could potentially be the whole budget of a nation for a year or even two. Playing in Australia you could possibly break even.

When Australia play New Zealand in the world cup final this year it's obviously going to mean nothing because it's in neither country.

C'mon man, playing internationals gives every domestic player something to aim for. It promotes the brand of each nation. It brings eyeballs and possibly sponsors.

Playing no games, surprisingly, does nothing.

Did the South African domestic players have this game to aim for?

There is an argument the money may never be there in Brazil to stage regular tests, so what then?

There needs to be a plan for nations to be playing internationals in their nations.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Dave T

[Pulga]

Just now, gingerjon said:

So this game has made a profit, generated sponsorship and will support the domestic game?

Maybe not a monetary profit. Maybe not even a profit at all. But it wouldn't have bankrupted them.

[Pulga]

Just now, Dave T said:

Did the South African domestic players have this game to aim for?

I think so. Should check out the recent Chasing Kangaroos podcast. I think it's answered there.

[RP London]

32 minutes ago, Pulga said:

That's right! Not playing at all is the way forward for the game....

 

Playing internationals gives all players something to aim for. But somehow playing in a neutral country voids this. 

The facts are, in an ideal world you'd be playing majority domestic players at home and away in far flung corners of the world. But, again, for the fiftieth time, it is prohibitively expensive. So expensive that one game would likely bankrupt nearly every nation outside the top 10 multiple times over.

you say that and yet you yourself admit it is prohibitively expensive to travel, and especially from the nations you have mentioned (to the point of being quite insulting)... therefore it is not a pathway for those players to aim for as a player good enough from that nation cannot afford to fly to Sydney to play for their national team against another national team who also have the same issue as its not in their home country either.. so how is that a pathway?

Back to the question which you haven't answered, just given the same explanation for not holding it at home. How are these games expanding the sport or helping the players/expansion in the home country that they represent?

edit: you mention later, eye balls on, sponsors etc.. are Australian sponsors likely to sponsor these teams (genuine question)?? 

Edited June 8, 2022 by RP London

[Pulga]

5 minutes ago, RP London said:

you say that and yet you yourself admit it is prohibitively expensive to travel, and especially from the nations you have mentioned (to the point of being quite insulting)... therefore it is not a pathway for those players to aim for as a player good enough from that nation cannot afford to fly to Sydney to play for their national team against another national team who also have the same issue as its not in their home country either.. so how is that a pathway?

Back to the question which you haven't answered, just given the same explanation for not holding it at home. How are these games expanding the sport or helping the players/expansion in the home country that they represent?

edit: you mention later, eye balls on, sponsors etc.. are Australian sponsors likely to sponsor these teams (genuine question)?? 

Both teams flew in a very limited number of players hence giving domestic players something to play for in future. And hopefully it builds to a point where more could be flown in per game.

Yes, all of El Salvador's sponsors are from Australia with the majority Salvadoran Australian business owners. I can't comment on other nations as I don't know.

[Pulga]

33 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

You're the expert.

You tell us.

I've already told you the realities of what goes on in a developing nation. Some think there are some better ways to do it behind their keyboard.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Pulga said:

Both teams flew in a very limited number of players hence giving domestic players something to play for in future. And hopefully it builds to a point where more could be flown in per game.

Yes, all of El Salvador's sponsors are from Australia with the majority Salvadoran Australian business owners. I can't comment on other nations as I don't know.

Are there any details of the squads, players, who they play for etc? Can't find anything online?