Phil Gould on International RL

[rlno1]

Gus Gould was on The Bloke in a Bar podcast this week. He gave his thoughts on international league it's at the end around the 1hr 36min when he is talking about a 20 team NRL then into International RL.

 

[StandOffHalf]

Thanks for the link. Something to listen to.

I don't really like Gus's take on things international all that much, but I do enjoy listening to him pontificate and opine in his rather portentous manner.

[Sports Prophet]

Nothing new from Gus there. He’s demonstrated the same position previously and appears not to have changed.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

Phil Gould is a blow-hard at times, anything that works was his idea, anything that fails was down to someone else or "events", but he's right on that point: Only the NRL has the resources to develop the international game, and if they choose to do that with their resources (rather than just focus it on their own club sides' short-term interest) then the international game would have a far better chance of growing. 

That's also in the NRLs own long-term self-interest to, as international game offers growth potential and is their key USP versus their local competition (the AFL) for TV rights money. But the short-term question will always be, "do we spend $30m/year investing in non-Australian nations, or do we give each club (and their players) and extra £2m per season?". That isn't always an argument that head office can easily win in a debate with the clubs. 

[Man of Kent]

Haven't listened to it but there does seem to be recognition from the powers that NRL can/will trump AFL via the international game, and that there is a strategy to grow it.

Depending on how you look at it, fortunately/unfortunately it doesn't revolve around England or Great Britain.

 

 

[StandOffHalf]

I fast-forwarded to the last five minutes. I find it sad that it's even a conversation point that the NRL should be running internationals.

[Barley Mow]

4 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

I fast-forwarded to the last five minutes. I find it sad that it's even a conversation point that the NRL should be running internationals.

I find it very odd.

It would make perfect sense to say that the ARLC should play a leading role in developing the international game worldwide. I think the vast majority of us would support that.

But the NRL, as a club competition, running internationals just seems wrong.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

8 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I find it very odd.

It would make perfect sense to say that the ARLC should play a leading role in developing the international game worldwide. I think the vast majority of us would support that.

But the NRL, as a club competition, running internationals just seems wrong.

The ARLC is the NRL, it doesn't exist without it, it would never do anything the NRL disagreed with. It was merely a construct to get the NRL away from News Limited. But that's done now, so to all intents and purposes they're synonymous. 

"He who pays the piper..." and all that. 

 

[The Rocket]

11 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

I fast-forwarded to the last five minutes. I find it sad that it's even a conversation point that the NRL should be running internationals.

 

4 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I find it very odd.

It would make perfect sense to say that the ARLC should play a leading role in developing the international game worldwide. I think the vast majority of us would support that.

But the NRL, as a club competition, running internationals just seems wrong.

We very rarely here the ARLC referenced, but I suspect, and especially in cases like this, that when the term NRL is used, they are actually referring to the ARLC.

 

[UTK]

12 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Haven't listened to it but there does seem to be recognition from the powers that NRL can/will trump AFL via the international game, and that there is a strategy to grow it.

Depending on how you look at it, fortunately/unfortunately it doesn't revolve around England or Great Britain.

 

 

While I broadly disagree with the reasoning behind Gould's approach here I think it's pretty clear it does involve England. 

There was no real reason to bring the Ashes back to Australia in 2025, to be honest it seems like quite a bizarre decision. I would entirely understand doing it in England, but in the Pacific region you have NZ, Tonga and Samoa that are all now on a competitive level with Australia and each of those 3 Nations are far bigger drawcards for fans in the region. If England wasn't a key part of the "plan" that series would not be happening.

[Man of Kent]

16 minutes ago, UTK said:

While I broadly disagree with the reasoning behind Gould's approach here I think it's pretty clear it does involve England. 

There was no real reason to bring the Ashes back to Australia in 2025, to be honest it seems like quite a bizarre decision. I would entirely understand doing it in England, but in the Pacific region you have NZ, Tonga and Samoa that are all now on a competitive level with Australia and each of those 3 Nations are far bigger drawcards for fans in the region. If England wasn't a key part of the "plan" that series would not be happening.

Oh yes, I agree. But it doesn't revolve around England/GB, we're not going back to the Ashes every two years etc.

We've grown as a sport, fortunately. 

[Sports Prophet]

35 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I find it very odd.

It would make perfect sense to say that the ARLC should play a leading role in developing the international game worldwide. I think the vast majority of us would support that.

But the NRL, as a club competition, running internationals just seems wrong.

The NRL is governed by the ARLC. A choice for one is a choice for the other.

[StandOffHalf]

24 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 

We very rarely here the ARLC referenced, but I suspect, and especially in cases like this, that when the term NRL is used, they are actually referring to the ARLC.

 

You could be right. I increasingly hear Aussies saying NRL, when they mean the sport itself.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

29 minutes ago, UTK said:

While I broadly disagree with the reasoning behind Gould's approach here I think it's pretty clear it does involve England. 

There was no real reason to bring the Ashes back to Australia in 2025, to be honest it seems like quite a bizarre decision. I would entirely understand doing it in England, but in the Pacific region you have NZ, Tonga and Samoa that are all now on a competitive level with Australia and each of those 3 Nations are far bigger drawcards for fans in the region. If England wasn't a key part of the "plan" that series would not be happening.

Aye, agreed. When all Australia ever had as international football was playing England and New Zealand, and winning, the attraction of that wears off. If Australia are in a comp with teams other than England, and the games are competitive, it means that when England matches finally do come around then people will be more interested in them. It's a virtuous circle I reckon. The Aussies know the commercial value of their country playing the old dart, that's not rocket science eh, but if it's all the international game is then it's less valuable.

[fighting irish]

13 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Aye, agreed. When all Australia ever had as international football was playing England and New Zealand, and winning, the attraction of that wears off. If Australia are in a comp with teams other than England, and the games are competitive, it means that when England matches finally do come around then people will be more interested in them. It's a virtuous circle I reckon. The Aussies know the commercial value of their country playing the old dart, that's not rocket science eh, but if it's all the international game is then it's less valuable.

Yes, and of course the Old Dart has to have a reasonable chance of hitting the board. 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Phil Gould is a blow-hard at times, anything that works was his idea, anything that fails was down to someone else or "events", but he's right on that point: Only the NRL has the resources to develop the international game, and if they choose to do that with their resources (rather than just focus it on their own club sides' short-term interest) then the international game would have a far better chance of growing. 

That's also in the NRLs own long-term self-interest to, as international game offers growth potential and is their key USP versus their local competition (the AFL) for TV rights money. But the short-term question will always be, "do we spend $30m/year investing in non-Australian nations, or do we give each club (and their players) and extra £2m per season?". That isn't always an argument that head office can easily win in a debate with the clubs. 

The things is we can have a much improved and more vibrant international game without costing the NRL a penny. Stuff like 4 nations and tours have been very profitable in the past and can be again. 

All we need is time made available and international weekends. That is the single biggest thing the NRL can do.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

49 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Yes, and of course the Old Dart has to have a reasonable chance of hitting the board. 

To be fair England have been pretty competitive against Australia for a long time now. Australia have always won, but almost every single game has been a tight contest. 

[Anita Bath]

9 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

To be fair England have been pretty competitive against Australia for a long time now. Australia have always won, but almost every single game has been a tight contest. 

The problem is we have played then so rarely in recent years that those games have no bearing on current competitiveness.

We have played them 5 times in the last 10 years (the last game being 6 years ago) with an average losing margin of 10 points. In the 10 years prior to that we played them  6 times with an average losing margin of 24 points.

The last time England beat them was 28 years ago.

In that same 28 year period GB has a 3-12 record against them with an average losing margin in the 12 losses of 24 points.

[The Rocket]

1 hour ago, StandOffHalf said:

You could be right. I increasingly hear Aussies saying NRL, when they mean the sport itself.

I visited my university attending daughter on the weekend, her flatmate a girl from Sydney`s north shore told me that her South African father was watching the rugby, I assumed she referring to the union world cup, she said no the one with the Warriors in it, I said that`s Rugby League, she had no idea what I was referring to, she said do you mean NRL, that`s all she knew it by. Yes the term is getting quite powerful brand recognition now.

[The Rocket]

3 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

The problem is we have played then so rarely in recent years that those games have no bearing on current competitiveness.

We have played them 5 times in the last 10 years (the last game being 6 years ago) with an average losing margin of 10 points. In the 10 years prior to that we played them  6 times with an average losing margin of 24 points.

The last time England beat them was 28 years ago.

In that same 28 year period GB has a 3-12 record against them with an average losing margin in the 12 losses of 24 points.

Let me tell you this as an Australian, no matter how many times you come close will not count for a tinker`s cuss until you actually start beating us at least 50 % of the time, more would be even better. Most Aussies will assume the team was just in the ` doing enough ` mode.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

26 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

The problem is we have played then so rarely in recent years that those games have no bearing on current competitiveness.

We have played them 5 times in the last 10 years (the last game being 6 years ago) with an average losing margin of 10 points. In the 10 years prior to that we played them  6 times with an average losing margin of 24 points.

The last time England beat them was 28 years ago.

In that same 28 year period GB has a 3-12 record against them with an average losing margin in the 12 losses of 24 points.

They've cancelled more than one series with pretty weak reasons, so there's only so much we can do. Reality is though in the last decade we've been in a position to win every match. Even before then, we were competitive. I remember attending all 3 Ashes Tests in 2003, the series goes down as a whitewash and yet in every match we only lost by one score and the game was in the balance with 20 seconds on the clock.

Let's face it, Australia could put up 3 different sides which would probably beat England. Their strength in depth is beyond compare. But you're only allowed 13 players on the pitch at once and our best 13 have demonstrated over a long period of time that they can go toe-to-toe with them. That's not the same as winning, but it's certainly competitive.  

[hunsletgreenandgold]

The NRL should take over SL - there I said it (again). That will then give them the drive and impetus to expand it to the international level. 

[Anita Bath]

The NRL has become the Rugby League equivalent of the NFL, the MLB, the NBA and the NHL, all organisations far bigger than the international scene in their particular sports. They may tinker around with international competitions, but only insofar as the tinkering adds to the value of their own organisations.

The problem at the moment is that international competition in rugby league offers no significant benefit to the NRL.  So its a low priority. The NRL is managing to grow its market substantially without the need for the international ‘competition’.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

They've cancelled more than one series with pretty weak reasons, so there's only so much we can do. Reality is though in the last decade we've been in a position to win every match. Even before then, we were competitive. I remember attending all 3 Ashes Tests in 2003, the series goes down as a whitewash and yet in every match we only lost by one score and the game was in the balance with 20 seconds on the clock.

Let's face it, Australia could put up 3 different sides which would probably beat England. Their strength in depth is beyond compare. But you're only allowed 13 players on the pitch at once and our best 13 have demonstrated over a long period of time that they can go toe-to-toe with them. That's not the same as winning, but it's certainly competitive.  

Plus the lack of regular exposure to that highest level of competition makes it difficult for England to win a one-off game. It was normally the case (certainly from 1988 onwards) that in a 3-match series we'd manage to win one of them. But we haven't played a 3-match series against them since that 2003 one. Ironically, that was the only series we didn't manage to nick a game, despite it being so close.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

11 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Plus the lack of regular exposure to that highest level of competition makes it difficult for England to win a one-off game. It was normally the case (certainly from 1988 onwards) that in a 3-match series we'd manage to win one of them. But we haven't played a 3-match series against them since that 2003 one. Ironically, that was the only series we didn't manage to nick a game, despite it being so close.

Yes although to be fair Australia compensates for that for playing at a higher level of intensity week-in, week-out. Not only State of Origin which is basically international level, but in the club comp where the gap between top and bottom is much tighter than it is here. Guess those sort of things are more in our control, in terms of how we improve our own domestic comp?

Have to say though that this season in Super League has probably been the best yet for that, certainly across the top 9 clubs. I know at Hull KR we have beaten all the clubs above us for example, not a match-up you could give me where I'd say "no, we can't win here" and I think there's plenty more teams who could say similar things. Not sure that's been as true in previous years, so does feel like progress.