Jump to content

Victor the Inflictor

Tommygilf

Recommended Posts

Bedfordshire Bronco

Bedfordshire Bronco

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

If Australia want to say if you’ve played for country X then you can’t play Origin that’s up to them. Playing Origin has no effect on your international eligibility. 

I think they are begining to realise dinner of the consequences of Origin eligibility rules. The RL world down under is changing 


  • Replies 300
  • Created
  • Last Reply
DavidM

DavidM

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, Knowles is a machine.

I would have Radley in the England squad in a heartbeat.

In a nutshell . I don’t see it as Knowles v Radley . It’s great squad depth in a long hard tournament where that depth is often key . With the attrition it’s a 24 man squad tournament . Radley ticks the boxes with his quality experience and versatility , and whatever his size on paper he sure doesn’t play that size.

DavidM

DavidM

Posted
Posted

Victor doing some inflicting on YouTube , and as we know YouTube clips are how coaches make all their decisions 

 

Pulga

Pulga

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Young Blood said:

I'm not sure if he is eligible, I may have read somewhere being named in a Origin squad makes you ineligible for NZ or England. 

SOO has no bearing on the international game whatsoever. It has no power to do that. It is a state All-Stars game.

new rise.jpg

Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Bateman, Knowles, Radley is some back row. 

Which of Knowles and Radley are you expecting to play as an edge forward? A role they don't play in club rugby.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

DavidM

DavidM

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, SydneyRoosters said:

I think he should be England’s starting 9 he is a great ball player and has played there several times for the roosters

I don’t think this is out of the question to start a game with a Clark type player on the bench when there’s a bit of fatigue creeping in . Radley and Knowles are both middle players and it gives options and versatility with your rotation and both are 80 minute players 

Young Blood

Young Blood

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Pulga said:

SOO has no bearing on the international game whatsoever. It has no power to do that. It is a state All-Stars game.

It does, why can't Ponga play for NZ or Taumalolo  who played for NZ can't play for Queensland. 

Barley Mow

Barley Mow

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

It does, why can't Ponga play for NZ or Taumalolo  who played for NZ can't play for Queensland. 

The NRL or Australian Commission set rules for Origin - that is entirely up to them because Origin is their 'all star' game.

IRL set the rules for internationals.

The rules that have been set for Origin are that if someone has played for England or NZ, they are not eligible for Origin. That is why Taumalolo (having played for NZ) can't play for Queensland.

People like Ponga decide not to make themselves available for NZ because they know it would rule them out of Origin. They are not band from playing for NZ, but choose Origin instead - forsaking NZ in order to remain eligible for whichever state.

IRL rules have no concern for Origin which is an internal Australian matter.

Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

It does, why can't Ponga play for NZ or Taumalolo  who played for NZ can't play for Queensland. 

There is no mention of State of Origin at all in the international Rugby League eligibility regulations. 

What Australia do with eligibility for State of Origin is for them to decide.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

UTK

UTK

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

It does, why can't Ponga play for NZ or Taumalolo  who played for NZ can't play for Queensland. 

Ponga can play for NZ if he wants to but as suggested above chooses not to so he can continue playing for QLD. 

We have an example of this happening already, Chris McQueen played 6 Origins for QLD and then chose to represent England ruling him out of potential Origin selection from that point forward.

Young Blood

Young Blood

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, UTK said:

Ponga can play for NZ if he wants to but as suggested above chooses not to so he can continue playing for QLD. 

We have an example of this happening already, Chris McQueen played 6 Origins for QLD and then chose to represent England ruling him out of potential Origin selection from that point forward.

Ponga cant play for NZ, as he played for Australia in the 9s World Cup. 

jim_57

jim_57

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

Ponga cant play for NZ, as he played for Australia in the 9s World Cup. 

He can’t but players like Nanai, Fotuaika or Taulagi could still as they haven’t played for Australia. If they did play for NZ they wouldn’t be able to play Origin again though.

Pulga

Pulga

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Barley Mow said:

The NRL or Australian Commission set rules for Origin - that is entirely up to them because Origin is their 'all star' game.

IRL set the rules for internationals.

The rules that have been set for Origin are that if someone has played for England or NZ, they are not eligible for Origin. That is why Taumalolo (having played for NZ) can't play for Queensland.

People like Ponga decide not to make themselves available for NZ because they know it would rule them out of Origin. They are not band from playing for NZ, but choose Origin instead - forsaking NZ in order to remain eligible for whichever state.

IRL rules have no concern for Origin which is an internal Australian matter.

Spot on. Except Taumololo not playing origin is because he isn't eligible. Not because he played for NZ. He moved to Australia too late.

new rise.jpg

Young Blood

Young Blood

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Pulga said:

Spot on. Except Taumololo not playing origin is because he isn't eligible. Not because he played for NZ. He moved to Australia too late.

No he is eligible he moved at 13 to Australia. 

Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted

So, for the purposes of this discussion, playing internationally may effect Origin eligibility but playing Origin doesn't effect international eligibility. 

(That's not to say Australia may have some selection policy based on Origin but that is not the same as international eligibility).

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

DavidM

DavidM

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

So, for the purposes of this discussion, playing internationally may effect Origin eligibility but playing Origin doesn't effect international eligibility. 

(That's not to say Australia may have some selection policy based on Origin but that is not the same as international eligibility).

I don’t know if it’s only me , but I’m staying out of it as I’m confused 

Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, DavidM said:

I don’t know if it’s only me , but I’m staying out of it as I’m confused 

It's really simple. State of Origin makes no difference to what country you can play for. 

It's only complicated in the other direction. 

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

SydneyRoosters

SydneyRoosters

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, DavidM said:

I don’t think this is out of the question to start a game with a Clark type player on the bench when there’s a bit of fatigue creeping in . Radley and Knowles are both middle players and it gives options and versatility with your rotation and both are 80 minute players 

My England 17 would be this

1- Tomkins

2- Makinson

3- Connor

4- Farnworth

5- Handley

6- Williams

7- Welsby

8- Walmsley

9- Radley

10- Thompson

11- Bateman

12- Farrell

13- Knowles

14- Leeming

15- Burgess

16- Oledski

17-McMekenn 

Davo5

Davo5

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Which of Knowles and Radley are you expecting to play as an edge forward? A role they don't play in club rugby.

Either,it’s not a massive transition especially for 2 players who seem to be pretty switched on.

Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Either,it’s not a massive transition especially for 2 players who seem to be pretty switched on.

You think so? Personally I think it is a big transition in the modern game and I don't think Radley or Knowles would be anywhere near as effective there as a specialist edge forward.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Young Blood said:

Radley will be wasted at 9. Needs to play 13 his biggest strength is his ball playing and linking with the halves. 

So is Morgan Knowles.  

Both are also very strong middle defenders.

Having Radley at 9 for the the start of the game then playing him as a ball handling middle later and a specialist 9 coming on means we could have both Knowles and Radley shift the ball both sides of the ruck when the game opens up allowing the halves/full back to play a pass wider.   I think that could be an exciting option.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Mr Frisky

Mr Frisky

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

Radley will be wasted at 9. Needs to play 13 his biggest strength is his ball playing and linking with the halves. 

But Knowles is a better all round player.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.