The World Cup

[Damien]

For me the issue is having squad numbers in the first place. I don't like what Australia have done but if you accept the concept of squad numbers then they really haven't done anything wrong. I can easily see why they may not want to pick people 1-17 at this stage.

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

For me the issue is having squad numbers in the first place. I don't like what Australia have done but if you accept the concept of squad numbers then they really haven't done anything wrong. I can easily see why they may not want to pick people 1-17 at this stage.

How come other sports manage to do this. Why is this such an issue for RL ?

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Maybe I am.  You tend to overestimate the things you personally care about.

But when Australia walk out on to Old Trafford for the World Cup final in their crazy numbers to be refereed by a fellow Australian, I will cringe and wonder why we can't just do the simple things right to present our sport professionally. 

I understand your position on this and agree to an extent. But the Aussies are just being stupid on this. The majority of players could wear a number that matches their traditional position. It won't be a million miles off for England. 

[Dunbar]

13 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Then give it to the senior players based on their normal positions. It really isn't that complex.

Again, the question is why should they?  They have been told the tournament has squad numbers and they have allocated squad numbers.  They are not the one's who have made a bad decision.  I am sure St Helens started Super League with their preferred team in 1 to 13 and this is how they ended up lining up for the Grand Final.

27

2

23

4

3

1

6

17

9

10

12

16

13

Edited October 6, 2022 by Dunbar

[jim_57]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

For me the issue is having squad numbers in the first place. I don't like what Australia have done but if you accept the concept of squad numbers then they really haven't done anything wrong. I can easily see why they may not want to pick people 1-17 at this stage.

It may have been mentioned already but when is the cut-off to name numbers? I can only see Australia & Wales who have announced them so far.

On Monday or Tuesday they could have named their 19/21 man team for the Fiji game and those numbers are set for the tournament with the remaining based on  their seniority/alphabetical idea. That would have been the simplest way of avoiding any player disgruntlement.

[Damien]

7 minutes ago, Spidey said:

How come other sports manage to do this. Why is this such an issue for RL ?

What do you mean such an issue? RL have done this quite easily it doesn't mean people have to like them or have to think they are a good thing.

[WN83]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Again, the question is why should they?  They have been told the tournament has squad numbers and they have allocated squad numbers.  They are not the one's who have made a bad decision.  I am sure St Helens started Super League with their preferred team in 1 to 13 and this is how they ended up lining up for the Grand Final.

27

2

23

4

3

1

6

17

9

10

12

16

13

Mainly because of injuries, which has nothing to do with why Addo-Carr will run out in the 9 shirt and Mitchell and Wighton in 8 and 10. 

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Again, the question is why should they?  They have been told the tournament has squad numbers and they have allocated squad numbers.  They are not the one's who have made a bad decision.  I am sure St Helens started Super League with their preferred team in 1 to 13 and this is how they ended up lining up for the Grand Final.

27

2

23

4

3

1

6

17

9

10

12

16

13

Which is exactly what I have said in this thread already, Squad numbers either out of position or into the later digits are often a clear visual indication that "something has changed" and that a team is adapting.

It was a massive moment for Lewis Dodd when he was given the number 7 shirt for this season I'm sure, by your logic he should be as happy with 24.

They're doing it either to be different for the sake of it or just awkward. Players cherish their numbers, having a starting number is important for many, which is why every other team will be using them like normal teams do.

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I understand your position on this and agree to an extent. But the Aussies are just being stupid on this. The majority of players could wear a number that matches their traditional position. It won't be a million miles off for England. 

The 'traditional numbers' being where they play for their clubs?  Well there are three that play at 6 for their clubs in the squad, three that play at 13 and three that play at 7.

And I would suggest that many of those would make the 17.

Look, what I am saying is that this system forces the coach to name what his preferred 1 to 17 is from a 24 man squad before the tournament event starts and if a coach doesn't want to do that then I think that is a fair response.

[Tommygilf]

15 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I understand your position on this and agree to an extent. But the Aussies are just being stupid on this. The majority of players could wear a number that matches their traditional position. It won't be a million miles off for England. 

Exactly, Welsby is prime example of someone who could get a starting 13 number and may very well replace a 1st 13 squad number in the tournament. Not a problem with that at all.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

The 'traditional numbers' being where they play for their clubs?  Well there are three that play at 6 for their clubs in the squad, three that play at 13 and three that play at 7.

And I would suggest that many of those would make the 17.

Look, what I am saying is that this system forces the coach to name what his preferred 1 to 17 is from a 24 man squad before the tournament event starts and if a coach doesn't want to do that then I think that is a fair response.

I mean the fact that they are the only ones that will do this shows how silly it is. People know how to do squad numbers. 

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Players cherish their numbers, having a starting number is important for many

But surely, that is exactly the reason why Meninga doesn't want to do it - when he has to decide as the tournament progresses who out of Cleary or DCE has earned the #7 shirt or Grant or Hunt for #9 and so on.

Awarding these numbers now is exactly what he is trying to avoid and you point here backs up his decision.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I mean the fact that they are the only ones that will do this shows how silly it is. People know how to do squad numbers. 

I simply disagree.  I can fully understand why, with a competitive squad, Meninga will not want to name his preferred 17 before the competition kicks off.

[WN83]

If I were an Aussie kid back in the 80’s/90’s, I’d have dreamt of running out in the number 7 jersey after watching Sterling or Langer or the 6 jersey because of watching guys like Kenny, Lewis, Daley or Lockyer but that’s gone now. 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Dunbar said:

But surely, that is exactly the reason why Meninga doesn't want to do it - when he has to decide as the tournament progresses who out of Cleary or DCE has earned the #7 shirt or Grant or Hunt for #9 and so on.

Awarding these numbers now is exactly what he is trying to avoid and you point here backs up his decision.

They're never going to get those numbers, duh!

If two weeks out from a tournament you don't even have an idea what team you're likely going to put out, that is an objectively poor excuse.

Australia aren't anyone special here, yet just going along with everyone else isn't good enough for them

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, WN83 said:

If I were an Aussie kid back in the 80’s/90’s, I’d have dreamt of running out in the number 7 jersey after watching Sterling or Langer or the 6 jersey because of watching guys like Kenny, Lewis, Daley or Lockyer but that’s gone now. 

Hope you like your number 18 because though you have played 4 test matches previously, your teammates in different positions have all played 5 and your surname begins with a T. Tough luck bro!

Its stupid and will look stupid.

[Dunbar]

Just now, WN83 said:

If I were an Aussie kid back in the 80’s/90’s, I’d have dreamt of running out in the number 7 jersey after watching Sterling or Langer or the 6 jersey because of watching guys like Kenny, Lewis, Daley or Lockyer but that’s gone now. 

Which is exactly the reason why we should be angry at the decision to use squad numbers, not what Australia has done.

A kid would see Cleary or Cherry-Evans run out at 7 or Munster, Wighton or even Burton at 6 if the players were actually being given a number for each match.

 

[Gomersall]

46 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

What, they shouldn't have to sully themselves with proper squad numbers like such minnows as England, Brazil, France etc will be doing at the Football world cup this year too?

I think it will look silly, frankly. But yet again the Australians having no concern or awareness of the game outside their bubble doesn't surprise anyone.

Soccer isn’t the be all and end all of sport. I can remember Argentina naming their 1978 squad alphabetically hence why midfielder Ossie Ardiles wore the number 2 shirt. IIRC it wasn’t much appreciated at the time.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Gomersall said:

Soccer isn’t the be all and end all of sport. I can remember Argentina naming their 1978 squad alphabetically hence why midfielder Ossie Ardiles wore the number 2 shirt. IIRC it wasn’t much appreciated at the time.

Indeed, and this idiotic numbering system won't be appreciated now either.

[Gomersall]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I mean the fact that they are the only ones that will do this shows how silly it is. People know how to do squad numbers. 

I never realised there were rules to allocating squad numbers. See my post about Argentina in the 1978 FIFA WC.

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Which is exactly the reason why we should be angry at the decision to use squad numbers, not what Australia has done.

A kid would see Cleary or Cherry-Evans run out at 7 or Munster, Wighton or even Burton at 6 if the players were actually being given a number for each match.

 

So because you don't like squad numbers you think its fine for the Australians to be so silly with them?

What would your thoughts be if there were numbers for each match, yet they went with this system still?

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They're never going to get those numbers, duh!

If two weeks out from a tournament you don't even have an idea what team you're likely going to put out, that is an objectively poor excuse.

Australia aren't anyone special here, yet just going along with everyone else isn't good enough for them

No, it is the definition of a strong squad where every player has a legitimate claim for a starting berth.

Meninga wants to use the group games to decide his best team - from a squad where so many players can play multiple positions effectively.

He has decided that he doesn't want this competitive nature of the squad to be impinged by having to name a preferred 1 to 17 for the whole tournament before it even starts.  I am ok with that.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

What would your thoughts be if there were numbers for each match, yet they went with this system still?

Take a moment to think about that question again.

[Gomersall]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Indeed, and this idiotic numbering system won't be appreciated now either.

Squad numbers are idiotic IMO. Why not just a game day 1-17? They won’t be making a fortune from names on shirts IMO.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Dunbar said:

No, it is the definition of a strong squad where every player has a legitimate claim for a starting berth.

Meninga wants to use the group games to decide his best team - from a squad where so many players can play multiple positions effectively.

He has decided that he doesn't want this competitive nature of the squad to be impinged by having to name a preferred 1 to 17 for the whole tournament before it even starts.  I am ok with that.

Thats odd, because Tedesco has been given number 1. Doesn't seem that competitive.