Well Done RLWC Team! Best yet!

[David Shepherd]

On 19/11/2022 at 20:30, Madrileño said:

Ah. The old TRL favourite:

"I don't like this person's opinion on an Internet forum, so I will call him a troll". 

Very good. Its the sort of tactics my kids pull in a playground argument. 

If you think this tournament has been a success, then great.

I don't, and have tried to outline some reasons why I don't. 

Seems to me you're just going out of your way to be the biggest dick you can.  You're on ignore sunshine.

[RL Tragic]

7 hours ago, iangidds said:

As much as there has been a few positives this to me is the most accurate reflection of events, we as a game still dont understand how important it is to do the small things correctly and I feel that RL fans accept absolute rubbish.

We are going to be lucky to break even so even if we attract a few more to our sport we will have no additiinal finances to help them progress, maybe we should all hang our heads in shame that we as a sport did not get behind the tournament by getting to more matches but the powers that be are meant to lead that side of things by inspiring us with marketing ideas that entice people who are new , exisisting or lost from the game.

Missing the target audience attendance by nearly 50% is incredible and because we are starved of RL on terrestrial tv we just accept it , there was really only one great match and we missed out on the alot of the top teams playing each other by having emerging nations playing.

Been inclusive etc maybe great in some eyes but we have to focus on the pinnacle of the game to inspire the future generations .

Brilliant.

[Oxford]

I was going to start a "miserable g*ts, sad pundits,  gloomy coaches and disconsolate ex-players" thread  but I think there's enough on here to be sufficient for now.

 

[The Masked Poster]

There were obviously great parts of this WC, some very, very great, like after the final on the pitch and the Elland Rd semi. Or the wheelchair and women's games. 

But it's somewhat stretching it to say it was the best ever. In fact it would be to blatantly ignore reality. Too many uncompetitive games and too many poor crowds just can't be ignored.

That doesn't mean it wasn't hugely enjoyable in parts but let's not become a cult that discourages honest analysis. 

 

[Chrispmartha]

1 hour ago, The Masked Poster said:

There were obviously great parts of this WC, some very, very great, like after the final on the pitch and the Elland Rd semi. Or the wheelchair and women's games. 

But it's somewhat stretching it to say it was the best ever. In fact it would be to blatantly ignore reality. Too many uncompetitive games and too many poor crowds just can't be ignored.

That doesn't mean it wasn't hugely enjoyable in parts but let's not become a cult that discourages honest analysis. 

 

Which World Cup hasn't had uncompetitive games?

[fighting irish]

1 hour ago, The Masked Poster said:

There were obviously great parts of this WC, some very, very great, like after the final on the pitch and the Elland Rd semi. Or the wheelchair and women's games. 

But it's somewhat stretching it to say it was the best ever. In fact it would be to blatantly ignore reality. Too many uncompetitive games and too many poor crowds just can't be ignored.

That doesn't mean it wasn't hugely enjoyable in parts but let's not become a cult that discourages honest analysis. 

 

It was a festival (a coming together) of World Rugby League.

Uncompetitive games is the price we have to pay for inclusion

I'm pleased we've brought in the likes of Greece, Jamaica , Wales et al to show the world that this game isn't confined to England and Australia and that although these fledgling nations are in their infancy, we respect them and value them as part of our global community and want them to grow and succeed.

You can't have you cake and eat it.

You can't let them in and keep all the games competitive (for the foreseeable future).

We have to start somewhere.

So you pays your money and takes your choice. I'd rather have them in.

For me, it's been the best ever. 

[The Masked Poster]

23 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Which World Cup hasn't had uncompetitive games?

It's not that they happen though, it's the frequency. 

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

It's not that they happen though, it's the frequency. 

Id counter that by saying having Greece and Jamaica in has enhanced the WC even though they got beaten by a lot.

At least in this WC we had competitive Quarter finals and semis.

In 2013 the QFs no result was within 18 points

In the SF we had a 64 - 0 blow-out 

And the `final was less competitive than this years with a new name in there

 

 

[The Masked Poster]

33 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

It was a festival (a coming together) of World Rugby League.

Uncompetitive games is the price we have to pay for inclusion

I'm pleased we've brought in the likes of Greece, Jamaica , Wales et al to show the world that this game isn't confined to England and Australia and that although these fledgling nations are in their infancy, we respect them and value them as part of our global community and want them to grow and succeed.

You can't have you cake and eat it.

You can't let them in and keep all the games competitive (for the foreseeable future).

We have to start somewhere.

So you pays your money and takes your choice. I'd rather have them in.

For me, it's been the best ever. 

And that's ok. I just don't agree. 

The WC, any WC, is supposed to be the elite. I understand the thinking behind having nations like Greece in there and would never dismiss their hard work. But it doesn't make for an exciting tournament and the number of truly competitive games was not enough. 

[The Masked Poster]

17 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Id counter that by saying having Greece and Jamaica in has enhanced the WC even though they got beaten by a lot.

At least in this WC we had competitive Quarter finals and semis.

In 2013 the QFs no result was within 18 points

In the SF we had a 64 - 0 blow-out 

And the `final was less competitive than this years with a new name in there

 

 

Of course it was good to see them and I wouldn't necessarily argue that they shouldn't be allowed to enter. It's just that the number of strong RL nations isn't that great. 

And although it enhanced it for you (and I know exactly what you mean) you are looking at it through the eyes who would turn up to watch Outer Mongolia V Kazakhstan (which isn't a criticism) Whereas the majority of people just see it as a turnoff. That's the difference.

Edited November 21, 2022 by The Masked Poster

[Chrispmartha]

9 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Of course it was good to see them and I wouldn't necessarily argue that they shouldn't be allowed to enter. It's just that the number of strong RL nations isn't that great. 

And although it enhanced it for you (and I know exactly what you mean) you are looking at it through the eyes who would turn up to watch Outer Mongolia V Kazakhstan (which isn't a criticism) Whereas the majority of people just see it as a turnoff. That's the difference.

The only way they will get stronger is to get into competitions like this.

italy used to get regularly spanked in the six nations but they stuck with it

Didnt Japan get 145 put on them in a ruwc? But they stuck with it.

 

[The Masked Poster]

30 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

The only way they will get stronger is to get into competitions like this.

italy used to get regularly spanked in the six nations but they stuck with it

Didnt Japan get 145 put on them in a ruwc? But they stuck with it.

 

Yes but those countries have improved. Our smaller nations don't. 

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, The Masked Poster said:

Yes but those countries have improved. Our smaller nations don't. 

Apart from one of them just been in the final!

They don’t improve because of the way the international game is run, that needs to change but it won’t change if we don’t let them compete.

[The Masked Poster]

10 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Apart from one of them just been in the final!

They don’t improve because of the way the international game is run, that needs to change but it won’t change if we don’t let them compete.

But I aren't saying don't let them compete. Just maybe not against England or Australia or NZ,  until they can make a reasonable fist of it. 

[Chrispmartha]

5 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

But I aren't saying don't let them compete. Just maybe not against England or Australia or NZ,  until they can make a reasonable fist of it. 

Im 50/50 on the super group idea we have used before i can see the merits for and against it

[The Masked Poster]

14 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Im 50/50 on the super group idea we have used before i can see the merits for and against it

Yes I understand the reasons for and against also. 

[meast]

13 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

Where is evidence for your claim that thousands of arsenal season ticket holders saw the game? Did they get a special deal, and if so how many took it up?

Evidence? I'm just offering my opinion on what I think the positives were, I didn't realise it was a court case  

[yipyee]

22 hours ago, Just Browny said:

Ok yeah that would have been great.

NZ would have come, Aussies players wanted to come, if it went ahead they would have come. Instead we had a farcical world cup

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, yipyee said:

NZ would have come, Aussies players wanted to come, if it went ahead they would have come. Instead we had a farcical world cup

Total rewriting of history, also this WC wasn’t farcical at all.

[yipyee]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

Total rewriting of history, also this WC wasn’t farcical at all.

It was right from the failed opening ceremony.

Isnt a rewrite of history either...

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, yipyee said:

It was right from the failed opening ceremony.

Isnt a rewrite of history either...

Yes it is

 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-league/57925720.amp

[yipyee]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

Yes it is

 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-league/57925720.amp

Maybe now find the report from the players union that released a statement saying they wanted to come....

BBC are hardly the best source for RL material either, they are just quoting the official releases.

NZ would have come, they were bullied into it by australia, infact check out the press release prior to this one where all other nations said they were still coming...

[Oxford]

There is a choice to all this you can be a grade A Wilkin or an Alpha Ace Vossy, and it's entirely up to you.

It isn't a question of half full or half empty outlooks, it's about whether your view of your chosen sport is full of great things or overloaded with refs' decisions and Gus Goulds.

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Oxford

[Chrispmartha]

7 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Maybe now find the report from the players union that released a statement saying they wanted to come....

BBC are hardly the best source for RL material either, they are just quoting the official releases.

NZ would have come, they were bullied into it by australia, infact check out the press release prior to this one where all other nations said they were still coming...

It’s not up to the players union as to wether they came or not.

[yipyee]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

It’s not up to the players union as to wether they came or not.

I know, the players wanted to come, I think if the tournament went ahead the players union would have forced the issue and they would have come.