No Samoa tour in 2024

[Mojo]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

The mid season internationals did not make Tonga or Samoa elite. Tonga got to the RLWC semi final in 2017 before them. What made then elite is stacks of quality heritage players to pick from.

The NRL also didn't invest heavily. They did the couple of mid season internationals on the cheap with double headers in suburban grounds and sold the TV rights, sponsorship and pushed the NRL brand.

@NRL did fund the mid season tests & have invested significantly in the Pacific & related Internationals for many years. I believe their investment was greater then the financial return & is a key reason Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, PNG & Cooks are on an accelerated upward trend.

That's the tweet from the international rugby board Chairman.

The main thing is the NRL did something but the international rugby board did nothing.

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Mojo said:

I believe their investment was greater then the financial return

Presumably this explains the removal of mid season internationals from the calendar.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Mojo said:

Before the mid test games Samoa and Tonga only played in the world cup. None of the heritage players wanted to risk there careers playing for them at the time. The mid test games brought that excitement back for the island fans and in a way inspired the younger players at the time to want to play for there heritage nations. The Samoa vs Tonga games was always full on with the island fans and most of the current players now were at those games as little kids. I watched a few interviews from those current players when they said there parents used to take them to those games when they were little and they loved the passion the players had against each other. The more years went by the fanbase started growing and for me that had a huge part for Taumalolo and Fifita to have the choice to commit to Tonga and inspired more players to play for there heritage countries. It wasn't 100% all the mid test matches but it had a huge part to why the island nations are so stacked right now. Without those mid test games none of those heritage players would be committed to a country that you only see at the world cup every 4 years

That is a long, irrelevant post to what was discussed.

I'm not sure why you are ignoring the fact that Tonga got to the World Cup semi final in 2017 with Taumalolo and Co. That was before the NRL mid season games began. Samoa did better last year because they had better heritage players to choose from and a core of quality Penrith Grand Final winners.

Look I'm all for mid season matches, I'd have 3 and standalone Origin weekends. However they are not what got Tonga and Samoa to where they are now as was your assertion. That isn't to say though that they wouldn't improve more with more mid season matches, they will.

[Damien]

16 minutes ago, Mojo said:

@NRL did fund the mid season tests & have invested significantly in the Pacific & related Internationals for many years. I believe their investment was greater then the financial return & is a key reason Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, PNG & Cooks are on an accelerated upward trend.

That's the tweet from the international rugby board Chairman.

The main thing is the NRL did something but the international rugby board did nothing.

If you believe NRL spin then that is up to you. How much did the TV rights sell for? How much sponsorship was sold? What were the gate receipts? What was the value to the NRL in plastering its branding all over TV for several hours in a multitude of countries? What was the advertising revenue? I'm not sure why a double header at a suburban ground in Sydney, featuring players almost exclusively based in Australia and getting paid a pittance, would cost much at all. How much did this actually cost the NRL fund?

I would like to see cold, hard facts, not what you believe.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Damien

[Mojo]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

That is a long, irrelevant post to what was discussed.

I'm not sure why you are ignoring the fact that Tonga got to the World Cup semi final in 2017 with Taumalolo and Co. That was before the NRL mid season games began. Samoa did better last year because they had better heritage players to choose from and a core of quality Penrith Grand Final winners.

Look I'm all for mid season matches, I'd have 3 and standalone Origin weekends. However they are not what got Tonga and Samoa to where they are now as was your assertion. That isn't to say though that they wouldn't improve more with more mid season matches, they will.

The pacific cup started way before 2017. Samoa and Tonga played each other regularly mid year starting from 2013. A young Jason Taumalolo played that match. Obviously it made a impression on him because he ended up playing for Tonga at the next world cup after that. You guys are looking at the final product which is now, when all the star players are playing for there island nations. But you guys aren't looking at what led to them making that choice. Maybe it's a cultural thing that you guys don't get. As a pacific islander myself, I get why they made that choice. For example  Frank Pritchard in 2014 choosing to play for samoa over the Kiwis was huge at the time. That probably inspired the next few star players coming up that they can choose the island nations. Heritage players were always good players but getting them to play for the island nations over the Kiwis and kangaroos was basically the thing will only happen in your dreams. Taumalolo and Fifita changed that mindset. You English fans never had that problem because you guys were always elite every year.

[UTK]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

I'm not sure why you are ignoring the fact that Tonga got to the World Cup semi final in 2017 with Taumalolo and Co. That was before the NRL mid season games began. Samoa did better last year because they had better heritage players to choose from and a core of quality Penrith Grand Final winners.

This is just not true at all.

The mid season internationals began in 2013, predating even Samoa's 2014 4N performance let alone Tonga's 2017 RLWC. Of the 2017 Tongan RLWC squad 14/24 players played in mid-season matches for Tonga between the 2013 WC and the 2017 WC, an additional 3 of that 2017 squad played in the 2013 mid-season match. The overwhelming majority of those players made their international debuts in these matches.

During the same period in the early 2010s junior heritage representative sides became commonplace in annual tournaments across NSW and QLD, every polynesian/melanesian player debuting in the mid-late 2010s had now represented their heritage in a representative capacity while rising through the junior ranks. 

Insinuating the mid-season matches and indeed the NRL had nothing to do with the rise of the pacific nations is being willfully ignorant at best. The change in direction on the International front coincided entirely with the installation of V'landys/Abdo and has set us back years now but there is no question that during the 2010s the NRL promoted several initiatives that had significant positive impacts on the state of the Islands today.

 

 

[Dave T]

10 hours ago, ghost crayfish said:

I suspect this is pointless, but I'll make one more attempt. If you're a follower of other sports, you're surely familiar with these kinds of conversations: "we should blood X player in this series, to give them experience before we tour X next year." ... or "we've won our last series against *lesser opposition* so hopefully if X players kick on from this, we should be in with a good chance next year against X"...

Ashes series were always a big talking point in Australia, even in conversation that was otherwise about the club competition - kangaroo tour years had an added glow of anticipation about them that other years just didn't have, and speculation about who might make the tour was constant. Nowadays, it comes up a bit in World Cup years, but otherwise not at all. If you dot the schedule with 'special events', out of the norm, it adds hype. You don't get those story lines if you play basically the same tournament every year.

You also don't build up rivalry against nations by playing what is essentially an endless series of annual one-off tests (even if the sit as part of a tournament) against them. I believe that happens better over a 3-match series. So, by mixing those in among regular 4N tournaments and world cups, which I also support, we introduce a variety of formats and opponents, promote rivalry and introduce a build up to big series. 

All fair points.

I should add I have no issues with an Ashes as such, but I'm not a fan that they become the activity - I think putting too much focus on a series like this inevitably ignores many other nations and we end up with little activity in those years - we've seen this happen in the past.

4N were credible tournaments, despite your description of them, and had grown to be more popular than the most recent Ashes series that had been held - pulling in bigger crowds. The 3/4N concept hit the ground running and in the UK made all the major channels before England once again collapsed in the decider at Elland Road! It was a tournament that had a multi-year sponsor - something no Ashes or RLWC has ever managed, and that was mainly because of its regularity. And we threw that away. 

The main reason I disagree on your narrative point is that we see this done through Union's 6N for example - it shows that annual tournaments absolutely can create cut-through, stories and interest. 

[Damien]

42 minutes ago, Mojo said:

The pacific cup started way before 2017. Samoa and Tonga played each other regularly mid year starting from 2013. A young Jason Taumalolo played that match. Obviously it made a impression on him because he ended up playing for Tonga at the next world cup after that. You guys are looking at the final product which is now, when all the star players are playing for there island nations. But you guys aren't looking at what led to them making that choice. Maybe it's a cultural thing that you guys don't get. As a pacific islander myself, I get why they made that choice. For example  Frank Pritchard in 2014 choosing to play for samoa over the Kiwis was huge at the time. That probably inspired the next few star players coming up that they can choose the island nations. Heritage players were always good players but getting them to play for the island nations over the Kiwis and kangaroos was basically the thing will only happen in your dreams. Taumalolo and Fifita changed that mindset. You English fans never had that problem because you guys were always elite every year.

The NRL started funding Pacific Cup matches in 2018 after selling the rights to them as part of the NRL TV deal. That was on the back of the 2017 World Cup. That was when the NRL made a big song and dance about funding these matches and marketing them as NRL Pacific Tests with NRL rules.

I know matches were played before that but this is you now moving the goalposts. The discussion was about the NRL funding these matches at a loss.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Damien

[Damien]

39 minutes ago, UTK said:

This is just not true at all.

The mid season internationals began in 2013, predating even Samoa's 2014 4N performance let alone Tonga's 2017 RLWC. Of the 2017 Tongan RLWC squad 14/24 players played in mid-season matches for Tonga between the 2013 WC and the 2017 WC, an additional 3 of that 2017 squad played in the 2013 mid-season match. The overwhelming majority of those players made their international debuts in these matches.

During the same period in the early 2010s junior heritage representative sides became commonplace in annual tournaments across NSW and QLD, every polynesian/melanesian player debuting in the mid-late 2010s had now represented their heritage in a representative capacity while rising through the junior ranks. 

Insinuating the mid-season matches and indeed the NRL had nothing to do with the rise of the pacific nations is being willfully ignorant at best. The change in direction on the International front coincided entirely with the installation of V'landys/Abdo and has set us back years now but there is no question that during the 2010s the NRL promoted several initiatives that had significant positive impacts on the state of the Islands today.

I know all that. I watched strong Samoan and Tongan teams in person at the 2013 World Cup. You do seem to miss the point though.

To repeat I do not question the value of mid season matches. They should happen and more than once a year too. What I do question is how much they made the nations elite and the assertion that the NRL funded these at heavy losses out of the kindness of their hearts, as they bleated from when they began controlling them from 2018 as part of the TV deal.

[Damien]

Also it is the NRL that set out to control the Pacific nations once they saw the popularity of the PI nations rise. They then proceeded to scrap mid season internationals so that they couldn't compete with Origin and to prevent Pacific Island players from choosing to play for their country over Origin by removing choice.

Every move that V'Landys and Abbo have made has been about keeping the genie in the bottle with regard the international game and keeping Origin on top. Its pretty hard to sell SOO as the pinnacle when some of the world's, and NRL's, best players are playing for their countries instead. It is Tonga, Samoa, PNG and Fiji, and even NZ, that have suffered as a consequence. The international game should be flying in the southern hemisphere but self interest sees it limited at a time when we should be seeing some blockbuster sell outs between these nations.

[Mojo]

39 minutes ago, Damien said:

The NRL started funding Pacific Cup matches in 2018 after selling the rights to them as part of the NRL TV deal. That was on the back of the 2017 World Cup. That was when the NRL made a big song and dance about funding these matches and marketing them as NRL Pacific Tests with NRL rules.

I know matches were played before that but this is you now moving the goalposts.

The nrl started the pacific test in 2016 or 2015 before the world cup. I remember it well because Matt Parish called out the nrl for not paying the island nations a cent but the kangaroos and the Kiwis got paid instead. Anyways my point was those mid test games did wonders for the growth of the island nations, and they need to play more regularly. Hopefully they do come out with the schedule instead of a joke of a calender that they put out recently that basically only had the ashes tour and a few tri nations and 4 nations that had no date on it.

[Mojo]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Also it is the NRL that set out to control the Pacific nations once they saw the popularity of the PI nations rise. They then proceeded to scrap mid season internationals so that they couldn't compete with Origin and to prevent Pacific Island players from choosing to play for their country over Origin by removing choice.

Every move that V'Landys and Abbo have made has been about keeping the genie in the bottle with regard the international game and keeping Origin on top. Its pretty hard to sell SOO as the pinnacle when some of the world's, and NRL's, best players are playing for their countries instead. It is Tonga, Samoa, PNG and Fiji, and even NZ, that have suffered as a consequence. The international game should be flying in the southern hemisphere but self interest sees it limited at a time when we should be seeing some blockbuster sell outs between these nations.

Your right but let's not put all the blame on the nrl. The international board surely can set up these games without the nrl or is there no money at all for them to set it up? 

[Mojo]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

Also it is the NRL that set out to control the Pacific nations once they saw the popularity of the PI nations rise. They then proceeded to scrap mid season internationals so that they couldn't compete with Origin and to prevent Pacific Island players from choosing to play for their country over Origin by removing choice.

Every move that V'Landys and Abbo have made has been about keeping the genie in the bottle with regard the international game and keeping Origin on top. Its pretty hard to sell SOO as the pinnacle when some of the world's, and NRL's, best players are playing for their countries instead. It is Tonga, Samoa, PNG and Fiji, and even NZ, that have suffered as a consequence. The international game should be flying in the southern hemisphere but self interest sees it limited at a time when we should be seeing some blockbuster sell outs between these nations.

I also agree on the reason why they scrapped the mid season test matches because of fear that the SOO will suffer if the star players will turn them down. But not having a calender for the island nations for this year and the next few years especially the tonga vs samoa games is truly shocking to me. The product is right there! They can sell out Eden Park right now if they set up a match between Samoa and Tonga. They need to play each other every year! There's a huge fanbase out there waiting for it to booked.

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, Mojo said:

The nrl started the pacific test in 2016 or 2015 before the world cup. I remember it well because Matt Parish called out the nrl for not paying the island nations a cent but the kangaroos and the Kiwis got paid instead. Anyways my point was those mid test games did wonders for the growth of the island nations, and they need to play more regularly. Hopefully they do come out with the schedule instead of a joke of a calender that they put out recently that basically only had the ashes tour and a few tri nations and 4 nations that had no date on it.

I think we are arguing at slightly different cross purposes somewhat so am happy to agree to disagree. I do completely agree that there needs to be more matches and mid season internationals are a must. And more than 1 match too. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Mojo said:

I also agree on the reason why they scrapped the mid season test matches because of fear that the SOO will suffer if the star players will turn them down. But not having a calender for the island nations for this year and the next few years especially the tonga vs samoa games is truly shocking to me. The product is right there! They can sell out Eden Park right now if they set up a match between Samoa and Tonga. They need to play each other every year! There's a huge fanbase out there waiting for it to booked.

There is certainly a tournament there just waiting to be as big as Origin in skill and intensity and I think there would be huge crowds. And the NRL administrators know that and that is the problem.

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, Mojo said:

Your right but let's not put all the blame on the nrl. The international board surely can set up these games without the nrl or is there no money at all for them to set it up? 

I honestly think someone like Grant wouldn't have done as he was little more than a NRL stooge and he wouldnt go against them.

I can't see the NRL letting it happen either and like the scrapping of the Denver test and the scrapping of the mid season test they would simply put obstacles in their way. Its a battle the IRL can't win or afford if it goes belly up. The IRL putting these on would certainly be my preference though.

It would probably need someone like NZ to take the lead, similarly to England inviting Tonga for this year's tour, but they too always seem afraid to go against their paymaster.

[welshmagpie]

FWIW, I remember the 2009 Pacific Cup when the Cook Islands shocked everybody in defeating Samoa in Queensland with a bunch of kids - Johnathan Ford was one of them. 
 

The tournament was then played in PNG, who went on to win it. Coverage and information was scarce, I remember some highlights eventually emerging online somewhere. Maybe, maybe SkySports showed a replay of the final (May have made that up!?)

[Mojo]

2 hours ago, welshmagpie said:

FWIW, I remember the 2009 Pacific Cup when the Cook Islands shocked everybody in defeating Samoa in Queensland with a bunch of kids - Johnathan Ford was one of them. 
 

The tournament was then played in PNG, who went on to win it. Coverage and information was scarce, I remember some highlights eventually emerging online somewhere. Maybe, maybe SkySports showed a replay of the final (May have made that up!?)

I don't think the game was televised but I remember looking it up on the newspaper to find the result and I was shocked samoa lost. That was the playoffs tournament on who would qualify for the four nations. I think the cook islands beat Tonga after that too, but ended up losing in the final against PNG.

[welshmagpie]

11 minutes ago, Mojo said:

I don't think the game was televised but I remember looking it up on the newspaper to find the result and I was shocked samoa lost. That was the playoffs tournament on who would qualify for the four nations. I think the cook islands beat Tonga after that too, but ended up losing in the final against PNG.

Just found this after a little search:

 

[ghost crayfish]

11 hours ago, Dave T said:

All fair points.

I should add I have no issues with an Ashes as such, but I'm not a fan that they become the activity - I think putting too much focus on a series like this inevitably ignores many other nations and we end up with little activity in those years - we've seen this happen in the past.

4N were credible tournaments, despite your description of them, and had grown to be more popular than the most recent Ashes series that had been held - pulling in bigger crowds. The 3/4N concept hit the ground running and in the UK made all the major channels before England once again collapsed in the decider at Elland Road! It was a tournament that had a multi-year sponsor - something no Ashes or RLWC has ever managed, and that was mainly because of its regularity. And we threw that away. 

The main reason I disagree on your narrative point is that we see this done through Union's 6N for example - it shows that annual tournaments absolutely can create cut-through, stories and interest. 

Fair enough, though I never said the 4N weren't credible - I actually said I support them. I enjoyed them, thought they were successful, and agree that letting them die was ridiculous. What I did say is that they didn't feed the rivalry between the major nations as much as I'd like. I want to see England and Australia have the chance to settle things over a series, at least occasionally, rather than only ever playing each other once or at best twice - in a tournament setting. Perhaps this is the cricket fan in me, or maybe it comes from following State of Origin. Regardless, I want to see them.

Your rugby union example discounts that their calendar does have a variety of events that help to feed the storylines, like GB Lions tours, series against SH nations home and away, etc. This is actually the variety of formats that I am essentially saying we need to replicate - and have said in other comments I hope England make mid-season space for an annual tournament with other NH nations - again, replicating the rugby union example you pointed to above. 

Edited August 14, 2023 by ghost crayfish

[Dave T]

6 hours ago, ghost crayfish said:

Fair enough, though I never said the 4N weren't credible - I actually said I support them. I enjoyed them, thought they were successful, and agree that letting them die was ridiculous. What I did say is that they didn't feed the rivalry between the major nations as much as I'd like. I want to see England and Australia have the chance to settle things over a series, at least occasionally, rather than only ever playing each other once or at best twice - in a tournament setting. Perhaps this is the cricket fan in me, or maybe it comes from following State of Origin. Regardless, I want to see them.

Your rugby union example discounts that their calendar does have a variety of events that help to feed the storylines, like GB Lions tours, series against SH nations home and away, etc. This is actually the variety of formats that I am essentially saying we need to replicate - and have said in other comments I hope England make mid-season space for an annual tournament with other NH nations - again, replicating the rugby union example you pointed to above. 

When they moved to the 4N they should never have reduced the format to one game each, the original Tri Nations saw us play each other twice and that was a good amount, even if it meant the tournament started Down under before moving to the UK for example. The 4N was a little too short for my liking. If you made the final, you played a team 3 times, which I thought worked well. 

 

[Damien]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

When they moved to the 4N they should never have reduced the format to one game each, the original Tri Nations saw us play each other twice and that was a good amount, even if it meant the tournament started Down under before moving to the UK for example. The 4N was a little too short for my liking. If you made the final, you played a team 3 times, which I thought worked well. 

As far as I recall that change was made to cut games as the Aussies complained it was too many.

[Damien]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

When they moved to the 4N they should never have reduced the format to one game each, the original Tri Nations saw us play each other twice and that was a good amount, even if it meant the tournament started Down under before moving to the UK for example. The 4N was a little too short for my liking. If you made the final, you played a team 3 times, which I thought worked well. 

 

I too liked the original Tri Nations format too as it was a great compromise between a tour and a tournament. It meant more of a rivalry could be created than was possible with just the one game and meant that everyone played each other twice. It also meant that a country had at least 4 end of season games, and maybe 5.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

As far as I recall that change was made to cut games as the Aussies complained it was too many.

Absolutely. There is a common theme here of the RFL wanting to play more internationals and the NRL wanting to play fewer.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

I too liked the original Tri Nations format too as it was a great compromise between a tour and a tournament. It meant more of a rivalry could be created than was possible with just the one game and meant that everyone played each other twice. It also meant that a country had at least 4 end of season games, and maybe 5.

I do think they could have stuck with two games against each nation even at Four teams. They could have been creative and even played some mid-season!

But, as you say, some stakeholders were always pushing for less.

I suppose the big failing here is in the organisers seriously monetising this. If you can't sell a tournament that guarantees England two tests against the Kiwis and two against the Kangaroos and make serious TV and sponsorship money then it's little wonder that people lose interest. These tournaments should have supported the build up of sponsors and tv companies that then go right through to the World Cups.