jamaica

[Eddie]

42 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

The aim has to be both. Clearly has worked for Australian Samoans hasn’t it ? Are participation numbers so fantastic in the UK that not seeing it as a useful tool to get lads in London or Leeds to pick up the game because it offers them the chance to go to world cups a bad thing?

Not a bad thing at all, but I want to see a Jamaican national team with a team full of players from Jamaica, and a stronger league there. That’s what I’m talking about and a load of English lads playing against Scotland in London probably won’t help that, whereas Jamaica v USA in  Jamaica with a team half full of local players might? 

Edited November 15, 2022 by Eddie

[Jughead]

5 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Not a bad thing at all, but I want to see a Jamaican national team with a team full of players from Jamaica, and a stronger league there. That’s what I’m talking about and a load of English lads playing against Scotland in London probably won’t help that, whereas Jamaica v USA in  Jamaica with a team half full of local players might? 

Why wouldn’t it? Is representation less impactive in one place compared to another?

[Eddie]

6 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Why wouldn’t it? Is representation less impactive in one place compared to another?

Almost certainly. 

[RP London]

9 hours ago, Griff said:

There was a West Indies team about 20 years ago. They beat South Africa at Skolars' ground.

Lets be fair on this one... (I played for London against Dublin on the same day).. that was a group of UK based West Indian  players vs a group of UK based South Africans.. it is where this Jamaica team started and it was the beginning of the road (West Indies had played some 9s tournaments prior to this to be fair) but it wasnt "South Africa".

[MatthewWoody]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

Not a bad thing at all, but I want to see a Jamaican national team with a team full of players from Jamaica, and a stronger league there. That’s what I’m talking about and a load of English lads playing against Scotland in London probably won’t help that, whereas Jamaica v USA in  Jamaica with a team half full of local players might? 

You can have both things.

[Eddie]

6 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

You can have both things.

I know, I was replying to someone who seems to think the UK option is the priority though. 

[Big Picture]

6 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

You can have both things.

Who's going to take Jamaica vs USA seriously if it's Jamaica's B team and not their A team????

[Eddie]

Just now, Big Picture said:

Who's going to take Jamaica vs USA seriously if it's Jamaica's B team and not their A team????

If it’s a team of Jamaicans playing in Jamaica? Probably more people on the island than would take English Jamaica v English Scotland at Loftus Road seriously. 

[MatthewWoody]

6 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Who's going to take Jamaica vs USA seriously if it's Jamaica's B team and not their A team????

Not a problem imho. 

If it's sanctioned as a test, it is a test. 

You can have both, you should have both. And try (if you have the money) to fly some UK based Jamaican to North America for the test and do the same with some domestic players. 

The same should do Italy, Lebanon, etc.

Having test matches with heritage players takes nothing away from development. 

Edited November 15, 2022 by MatthewWoody

[MatthewWoody]

4 minutes ago, Eddie said:

If it’s a team of Jamaicans playing in Jamaica? Probably more people on the island than would take English Jamaica v English Scotland at Loftus Road seriously. 

Are you calling the team who made the WC final "Australian Samoa"? 

[Eddie]

Just now, MatthewWoody said:

Are you calling the team who made the WC final "Australian Samoa"? 

No. 

[Jughead]

Just now, Eddie said:

If it’s a team of Jamaicans playing in Jamaica? Probably more people on the island than would take English Jamaica v English Scotland at Loftus Road seriously. 

I’d be shocked if anyone is that bothered and want to play Border Force Kingston, in all honesty. 

I’m not sure the people of Samoa, who can be seen on another thread on here celebrating a World Cup Semi Final win, are that bothered that there’s three Samoan born players in their twenty-four man squad and I’m not sure many who watched England are bothered Victor Radley speaks with a funny accent. 

The effects of a Jamaican side in the tournament, with a handful of Jamaican born players, has been seen in terms of educational scholarships. Obsessing over birthplaces, it seems at least, is rudimentary.

[Big Picture]

Just now, MatthewWoody said:

Are you calling the team who made the WC final "Australian Samoa"? 

That would be an accurate description wouldn't it.

[MatthewWoody]

1 minute ago, Big Picture said:

That would be an accurate description wouldn't it.

Not to me. 

Only for trolls, maybe.

[RP London]

12 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Who's going to take Jamaica vs USA seriously if it's Jamaica's B team and not their A team????

to be fair, he said you could have both he didnt say they had to be at the same time... there could be Jamaica v Scotland in London and, at a completely different time of the year, Jamaica v USA in Jamaica.. 

[MatthewWoody]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

to be fair, he said you could have both he didnt say they had to be at the same time... there could be Jamaica v Scotland in London and, at a completely different time of the year, Jamaica v USA in Jamaica.. 

In addition to this, having the Britain based players involved only in the World Cup and not playing anymore wouldn't help the team to gel, try combinations, etc. Wouldn't even help supporters know and appreciate the players. 

Jamaica, with the eligible players who are based in the UK, should play some tests v Wales, etc, while for geographical and economic reasons it should be easy for the domestic lads (+some Uk semi pro, if they can afford the trip) to play the North American test teams. 

Same goes imho with Lebanon, Italy, Ireland and Scotland. Local grassroots work is not undermined by the involvement of the Aus or Uk heritage players.

[Eddie]

1 minute ago, MatthewWoody said:

In addition to this, having the Britain based players involved only in the World Cup and not playing anymore wouldn't help the team to gel, try combinations, etc. Wouldn't even help supporters know and appreciate the players. 

Jamaica, with the eligible players who are based in the UK, should play some tests v Wales, etc, while for geographical and economic reasons it should be easy for the domestic lads (+some Uk semi pro, if they can afford the trip) to play the North American test teams. 

Same goes imho with Lebanon, Italy, Ireland and Scotland. Local grassroots work is not undermined by the involvement of the Aus or Uk heritage players.

I don’t think anyone is saying it’s undermining grass roots work. All I’m saying is (and it’s my personal preference only) that I’d rather see Jamaicans playing internationals for Jamaica in Jamaica than English lads playing for Jamaica in England. If you’d prefer the latter that’s fine. 
 

Also as I’m not from there I can’t say for sure, but hunch is that Jamaicans in Jamaica are more likely to engage with the sport after seeing the former rather than the latter. 

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I don’t think anyone is saying it’s undermining grass roots work. All I’m saying is (and it’s my personal preference only) that I’d rather see Jamaicans playing internationals for Jamaica in Jamaica than English lads playing for Jamaica in England. If you’d prefer the latter that’s fine. 
 

Also as I’m not from there I can’t say for sure, but hunch is that Jamaicans in Jamaica are more likely to engage with the sport after seeing the former rather than the latter. 

IF they can get it right surely its a mixture of both.. get the players out to Jamaica to play but also play here (bringing some of the Jamaican players over) as it may make more money to then spend on development?

[Eddie]

4 minutes ago, RP London said:

IF they can get it right surely its a mixture of both.. get the players out to Jamaica to play but also play here (bringing some of the Jamaican players over) as it may make more money to then spend on development?

Absolutely. So many times though I’ve seen people on this forum say let’s have Ireland v Jamaica in West London or Birmingham, as if in isolation that would make a jot of difference to development in either country. 

[MatthewWoody]

7 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I don’t think anyone is saying it’s undermining grass roots work. All I’m saying is (and it’s my personal preference only) that I’d rather see Jamaicans playing internationals for Jamaica in Jamaica than English lads playing for Jamaica in England. If you’d prefer the latter that’s fine. 
 

Also as I’m not from there I can’t say for sure, but hunch is that Jamaicans in Jamaica are more likely to engage with the sport after seeing the former rather than the latter. 

I don't think it's a matter of choice. I'd like to have both, as I said. 

+

Calling only "English" the English Jamaican players seems strange when we don't apply the same standard to Samoa, for example. 

[Midlands hobo]

4 hours ago, Ragingbull said:

Yep.  He's started a few recently.  Mods don't do anything about it sadly.

Are you implying they are Aussie mods

[Griff]

4 hours ago, RP London said:

Lets be fair on this one... (I played for London against Dublin on the same day).. that was a group of UK based West Indian  players vs a group of UK based South Africans.. it is where this Jamaica team started and it was the beginning of the road (West Indies had played some 9s tournaments prior to this to be fair) but it wasnt "South Africa".

It said South Africa on the programme. Whether or not it was a representative South African side, however, has nothing to do with Jamaica or West Indies.

[Guest]

Whatever happened to RL in South Africa?

[MatthewWoody]

That's a good question.

[Guest]

Made a WC in 2000.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_national_rugby_league_team#2019

Edited November 15, 2022 by Leonard