Rhodri Jones on the growth of international Rugby League

[Click]

Not sure why people are comparing the Football WC to ours.. You know they are actually a global game right? Even if they did/do have filler teams in their WC as well.

I am not sure exactly what I missed, but what do people think we lose by having these "made up" nations in our WC? 

Is it simply down to "we can't pay for them, their stadiums" etc? 

There have been many good stories that came out of the last WC from the lesser nations, about some of their home grown players, etc. You don't need to be watching world class players every game to be entertained or drawn in by a game of RL. 

I think the majority of people that watch sport, watch it for the entertainment, not only because only the best players in the world are playing.

[Pulga]

58 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I'm not sure whether I agree with the point being made or not, but where is the xenophobia?

Do you even know @eal's nationality?

The only point being made is that the sport's credibility isn't raised by having international teams composed largely of Australian citizens (representing nations their families are from) where the sport is otherwise only played at a low standard on public parks.

You may not agree with that, but it is a valid point of view and I don't think it displays a dislike of people from those counties.  

The only people that know or care about whether someone is a heritage player are a certain demographic of mainly (and not limited to) English fans. 

The vast majority of casuals couldn't tell you. The ones making the judgement on perceived "credibility" are the ones we least need to be listening to.

I do want to temper this by saying I know a good number of fantastic, progressive English fans.

Credibility is certainly tied to the number of teams, especially to outsiders. Let's also not forget our heritage rules barely differ from many larger sports. The problem is our own fans.

[MattSantos]

1 hour ago, Pulga said:

Again, people spouting about things they don't know about. It's a little frustrating having to correct this over and over. 

To get to a WC you first need a domestic competition. The earlier you start your qualifiers the more domestic players you need as is the rules (it's a %). 

I agree there are better ways to develop the game. The World Cup is not about development.

Does it? 

What's the domestic comp in Scotland?

Edited September 13, 2023 by MattSantos

[Pulga]

5 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

Does it? 

What's the domestic comp in Scotland?

It's not big but it's there.

 

 

[Mathius Hellwege]

6 minutes ago, Pulga said:

It's not big but it's there.

 

 

proves exactly the opponents with the empty spectator ranks 

ans how many of the players of this league were part of the WC squad

[gingerjon]

Just now, Mathius Hellwege said:

 

ans how many of the players of this league were part of the WC squad

Shall we do the same with the current men’s soccer World Champions?

[Barley Mow]

5 minutes ago, Pulga said:

The only people that know or care about whether someone is a heritage player are a certain demographic of mainly (and not limited to) English fans. 

The vast majority of casuals couldn't tell you. The ones making the judgement on perceived "credibility" are the ones we least need to be listening to.

I do want to temper this by saying I know a good number of fantastic, progressive English fans.

Credibility is certainly tied to the number of teams, especially to outsiders. Let's also not forget our heritage rules barely differ from many larger sports. The problem is our own fans.

I don't think your first sentence is correct - I know lots of people who dislike heritage rules in a number of different sports from a wide range of demographic backgrounds.

I agree that a lot of casual viewers wouldn't know who was a heritage player, or what the qualification requirements are - that is simply because they are casual viewers and not as heavily invested in the sport as those who watch regularly and know players and playing nations.

Credibility is very subjective and what some people think gives added credibility, others may think reduces it - The credibility of RL in Greece is likely to be increased to someone there who sees a news article about their national team making the world cup. A casual viewer might think that the sport is played more widely by noticing Greece in the world cup - enhancing its credibility. To some existing RL fans in UK or Australia the same Greek team being represented my reduce the credibility of the international game due to their standard compared to England, Australia, etc.

All of those positions are valid and none show a dislike of Greece or its people - I can see nothing in any of those points of view, or @eal's that suggest xenophobia, just a position on what is most credible for the international game from an entirely sporting point of view.

You think there is thinly veiled xenophobia in questioning people representing their grandparent's country of birth - grandparent is a relatively arbitrary cut-off point, why are the rules not xenophobic for not allowing it to be great-grandparents?

[StandOffHalf]

What a depressing downer of a thread to read through...

[fighting irish]

Here's my take on it.

I'm really saddened by the reduction in teams. I wish we had stuck to 16 (or at least 12) for the next one.

I think the (predictable) blowouts may have affected attendance as Martin suggested in his podcast and I agree with his suggestion that some form of seeding should have been employed by the organisers to ensure more even competition throughout the tournament.

As an aside, I think the governments insistence that games be played in the North may have adversely affected total numbers of spectators also.

Some of you will know of my personal commitment to ''expansion'' and I'm aligned with Pulga and most of his arguments about the positive effect of inclusion in this major tournament on the players and administrators struggling to grow the game in places like Greece and Jamaica.

So gentlemen, I want it all.

I agree with Martin that a seeded tournament would have produced less blowouts and importantly, less predictable blowouts. This makes it easier to sell games between fledgling nations to new spectators, in new towns across the country (without the handicap of government interference). More spectators, means more new fans and of course, more money. It also allows the less competitive Nations to take part confidently, with pride and without the risk of an indelible drubbing in the record books (and god-forbid, the risk of appalling injury in a physical mis-match).

It also allows for inclusion of new nations (through a qualifying process) to aspire to playing in a world cup, knowing that they are very welcome and (again, just as importantly) will be made to feel welcome by a fraternity that is glad to have them, and eager for their ongoing participation, rather than view them with contempt and at best as an expensive embarrassment.

Let's not forget that this is the greatest game of all, and it's our attitude to it, that lets it down. 

 

 

[Sports Prophet]

3 hours ago, Pulga said:

There's a good reason for that. Because they've done precisely the opposite of the people calling for a reduction in numbers. Japan used to lose by upwards of 100 points. They no longer do because they weren't cut from the WC like Greece and Jamaica have been.

Are you sure it is not everything to do with what happens in Japan domestically in the three years and 10 months between each World Cup?

Edited September 13, 2023 by Sports Prophet

[Sports Prophet]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Second tier emerging nations tournaments do not unlock government recognition and support - or convince players to commit to those nations year after year.

We’ve decades of evidence to back that up.

I agree.

This is why I feel the tournament itself needs manipulating to be played over two consecutive stages to include more nations in it, without compromising the quality.

[Damien]

This has just turned into a carbon copy of this thread with all the same arguments and discussion. May as well just merge them:

 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Damien

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

2 hours ago, Pulga said:

Again, people spouting about things they don't know about. It's a little frustrating having to correct this over and over. 

To get to a WC you first need a domestic competition. The earlier you start your qualifiers the more domestic players you need as is the rules (it's a %). 

I agree there are better ways to develop the game. The World Cup is not about development.

"barely have any domestic rugby"

Show me the part in my sentence that says 'don't have a domestic competition'. I know the entry requirements bud, so save your supercilious frustration for the next bloke.

My point holds, however you misread it. 

[Sports Prophet]

28 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Here's my take on it.

I'm really saddened by the reduction in teams. I wish we had stuck to 16 (or at least 12) for the next one.

I think the (predictable) blowouts may have affected attendance as Martin suggested in his podcast and I agree with his suggestion that some form of seeding should have been employed by the organisers to ensure more even competition throughout the tournament.

As an aside, I think the governments insistence that games be played in the North may have adversely affected total numbers of spectators also.

Some of you will know of my personal commitment to ''expansion'' and I'm aligned with Pulga and most of his arguments about the positive effect of inclusion in this major tournament on the players and administrators struggling to grow the game in places like Greece and Jamaica.

So gentlemen, I want it all.

I agree with Martin that a seeded tournament would have produced less blowouts and importantly, less predictable blowouts. This makes it easier to sell games between fledgling nations to new spectators, in new towns across the country (without the handicap of government interference). More spectators, means more new fans and of course, more money. It also allows the less competitive Nations to take part confidently, with pride and without the risk of an indelible drubbing in the record books (and god-forbid, the risk of appalling injury in a physical mis-match).

It also allows for inclusion of new nations (through a qualifying process) to aspire to playing in a world cup, knowing that they are very welcome and (again, just as importantly) will be made to feel welcome by a fraternity that is glad to have them, and eager for their ongoing participation, rather than view them with contempt and at best as an expensive embarrassment.

Let's not forget that this is the greatest game of all, and it's our attitude to it, that lets it down. 

 

 

You bring up a good point. Which of the following would have more likely attracted new fans and sponsors to the sport.

- The existing format which in 2022 saw two of the Kangaroos six fixtures, against Scotland and Italy with collective crowds of 15k; or

- Two alternate fixtures against England and Tonga which would have occurred  with a top six round robin with an estimated combined crowd of 80k?

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

25 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Are you sure it is not everything to do with what happens in Japan domestically in the three years and 10 months between each World Cup?

Precisely this. Japan are strengthening because of huge domestic investment, backing from major corporations, foreign players and coaches working there improving standards. All that, building on 100 years of local rugby history. They're not improving because they are invited to an international tournament every 4 years, and pad their team out with ringers (although they do that too).

Rugby League administrators' favourite film is Kevin Costner's 'Field of Dreams'. Someone needs to tell them it was a fictional drama, not a documentary.  

[Keith989]

30 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Are you sure it is not everything to do with what happens in Japan domestically in the three years and 10 months between each World Cup?

As you allude to, Japan is a terrible example to use. They have massive attendances and TV audiences for their national team and have a pro/semi pro 3 tier domestic league system, along with a thriving university scene. 

A better example may be the south American sides but they are well backed financially by world rugby, so again not really a fair comparison. 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Keith989

[Pulga]

50 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

To some existing RL fans in UK or Australia the same Greek team being represented my reduce the credibility of the international game due to their standard compared to England, Australia, etc.

Pandering to these people will kill the sport. It's already happening.

 

38 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

As an aside, I think the governments insistence that games be played in the North may have adversely affected total numbers of spectators also.

I think this was easily the biggest problem with the WC. 

[Pulga]

32 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Are you sure it is not everything to do with what happens in Japan domestically in the three years and 10 months between each World Cup?

Again, the WC is not for development but kicking teams to the curb will lead to the opposite happening.

[Barley Mow]

5 minutes ago, Pulga said:

Pandering to these people will kill the sport. It's already happening. 

I can see both sides of this argument, but if forced to choose one or the other, probably come down on the same side as you - if it is financially viable, I would stick with a 16 team world cup. But as I have said towards the beginning of the thread, I think consistency of numbers/format is probably more important - everyone should know where they stand a number of world cup cycles in advance.

The only thing I took issue with was your unfounded accusation of xenophobia.

[Pulga]

18 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I can see both sides of this argument, but if forced to choose one or the other, probably come down on the same side as you - if it is financially viable, I would stick with a 16 team world cup. But as I have said towards the beginning of the thread, I think consistency of numbers/format is probably more important - everyone should know where they stand a number of world cup cycles in advance.

The only thing I took issue with was your unfounded accusation of xenophobia.

The biggest letdown is it seems we sold a nice, steady progression to the Tories who were stroking the egos of those in the North of England.

The xenophobia is always present. It rears its head every time the international game is brought up.

[Barley Mow]

8 minutes ago, Pulga said:

The biggest letdown is it seems we sold a nice, steady progression to the Tories who were stroking the egos of those in the North of England.

I would have supported a wider geographic spread of fixtures for the 2021/22 world cup. The Government's definition of 'the north' and the percentage of matches required there would however have allowed a wider spread than we got.

Beyond which, I'm not sure if the world cup (or at least a 16 team one) have been viable without the significant Government backing.

8 minutes ago, Pulga said:

The xenophobia is always present. It rears its head every time the international game is brought up.

I'm happy for you to provide something to demonstrate that, but I didn't see anything in @eal's post that suggests dislike of people simply because they are from other countries.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Barley Mow

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Zaire and Haiti were there to make sure all confederations were represented,  and not just to expand the tournament for the sake of it.

That sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. 

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the RL World Cup would be as big as the football or union tournaments if we only persevered with these weaker nations, because there are loads of other issues at play. I was merely responding to somebody else's claim that they have never padded their tournaments out with dross (their word, not mine). There's lots of examples over the years of both sports including some 'dross' in their showpiece event. 

I think the argument from certain quarters is that persevering with 'dross' gives those nations something to aspire to, and affords them the opportunity to grow and become stronger over time. And by limiting our WC to just 10 teams, those opportunities for aspiring nations have now pretty much disappeared in one stroke.

But as other posters have noted, football and union both spend a lot of time, resource and money developing the sport in these nations over a prolonged period, whereas RL doesn't unfortunately. I can therefore see the pros and cons of 10-team vs 16-team RL world cups, and appreciate that there isn't a simple solution that is going to keep everyone happy.

I'm currently observing all of the hype and publicity around the RU world cup, and have to concede that theirs does genuinely look like a global event. I'm therefore watching on with envious eyes, wishing RL could be more like that. But RU has persevered with the likes of Italy and Argentina and helped them develop to become competitive international teams. Alas I don't see any desire from the powers-that-be in RL to provide that sort of long-term commitment to developing countries.

Nice avatar by the way - Travis off Blake's 7?

[The Masked Poster]

I haven't seen one second of the RUWC so far. And not through childishly holding my breath until I get my way either.....it genuinely hasn't come across my path yet. I reckon I can easily get through the whole thing without seeing it, except possibly if England win it. 

Union does a lot of things right but unfortunately the game is totally boring. But obviously that doesn't stop it. 

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, Pulga said:

Credibility is certainly tied to the number of teams, especially to outsiders. Let's also not forget our heritage rules barely differ from many larger sports. The problem is our own fans.

The first statement is true, but as I've shown a few times now, a majority of the team sports which have a  World Cup or World Championship have citizenship as the criteria for playing on national teams.  The fast and loose standards of RU and RL are used by a minority of such sports.

RL's problem is that without a lot of made-up teams (and we can include Fiji, Tonga and Samoa here) it doesn't have enough countries for a World Cup.

1 hour ago, Pulga said:

The biggest letdown is it seems we sold a nice, steady progression to the Tories who were stroking the egos of those in the North of England.

Indeed. I wonder just how many lies the organizers told the government about the benefits (political benefits included) of a tournament based in the North?

[Mathius Hellwege]

We could have brought (partially more) games to Liverpool, Blackpool, York, Sunderland, Middlesborough, Coventry, Birmingham, Wales instead of sticking too much in the M62 corridor

 

At least we learned our lesson and did not give the M62 corridor all the three games against Tonga