Underwhelming start to the pacific tournaments

[StandOffHalf]

Ben Gardiner is in favour of mid-season tests.

Pacific Championships 2023: Samoa vs New Zealand, Ben Gardiner, rugby league news, reaction, 50-0, Eden Park (foxsports.com.au)

[JM2010]

I’d love to see a mid season International window in both hemispheres. An SH team would have to travel over here or England over there for England to get a competitive game though

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

I've got a really radical idea: Why don't we stick with a plan for longer than 5 seconds, follow-through, build some momentum and allow a routine, habit and product recognition the time to grow that it needs?

Having a dedicated 3-4 week international window after the season is great. Stick with it. 

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I've got a really radical idea: Why don't we stick with a plan for longer than 5 seconds, follow-through, build some momentum and allow a routine, habit and product recognition the time to grow that it needs?

Having a dedicated 3-4 week international window after the season is great. Stick with it. 

We've always had that though. Not having games has never been anything to do with a lack of an international window.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

We've always had that though. Not having games has never been anything to do with a lack of an international window.

We haven't had the NRL comp's long-term commitment to it. Everyone knows that. 

My core point is that we need to stick with the tournament ideas for this cycle, learn the smaller lessons and build on them. Not start coming up with yet more random different matches or tournaments that we could be playing, at different times in the season. 

[StandOffHalf]

19 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I've got a really radical idea: Why don't we stick with a plan for longer than 5 seconds, follow-through, build some momentum and allow a routine, habit and product recognition the time to grow that it needs?

Having a dedicated 3-4 week international window after the season is great. Stick with it. 

A month end-of-season is great. We need a mid-season window as well, though.

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

We haven't had the NRL comp's long-term commitment to it. Everyone knows that. 

My core point is that we need to stick with the tournament ideas for this cycle, learn the smaller lessons and build on them. Not start coming up with yet more random different matches or tournaments that we could be playing, at different times in the season. 

There has always been a 1 month international window. There has been nothing stopping games being played at the end of the season.

I am not blaming you but there is an awful lot of revisionism and PR bull when it comes to the NRL statements on this and their justification for scrapping the mid season international window. The recent situation of the last few years and lack of games has not been the norm so to take it away and give back a little doesn't amount to much.

It largely downs to a lot of spin to sell people less when it comes to the international game. We were told scrapping the mid season international window would mean a longer end of season window. That hasn't happened. 2-3 matches is shorter than we had for many a year.

[Damien]

7 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

Ben Gardiner is in favour of mid-season tests.

Pacific Championships 2023: Samoa vs New Zealand, Ben Gardiner, rugby league news, reaction, 50-0, Eden Park (foxsports.com.au)

It should never have been taken away and was a huge backwards step for the international game. All so SOO wasn't undermined. Again this Pacific Cup should be over SOO weekends without Australia. It would be perfect. Then end of season for other competitions.

Expecting the likes of Samoa and Tonga to compete cold against Australia in a couple of matches at the end of the season is setting them up, and the international game, to fail. Australia have 3 SOO camps and games to get ready for international Rugby League and yes the best players are split over to teams but it still gets combinations etc working. That is a huge advantage when the players of other countries are expected to take up the slack in the NRL and still turn out for their clubs.

[Keith989]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

It should never have been taken away and was a huge backwards step for the international game. All so SOO wasn't undermined. Again this Pacific Cup should be over SOO weekends without Australia. It would be perfect. Then end of season for other competitions.

Expecting the likes of Samoa and Tonga to compete cold against Australia in a couple of matches at the end of the season is setting them up, and the international game, to fail. Australia have 3 SOO camps and games to get ready for international Rugby League and yes the best players are split over to teams but it still gets combinations etc working. That is a huge advantage when the players of other countries are expected to take up the slack in the NRL and still turn out for their clubs.

Once it's taken away, it's very hard to get back too. Should've never been allowed happen... the mid season pacific tests were fantastic. Much more interesting than this comp. 

Is there a chance that Australia are setting this comp up to fail in order to justify having less international matches? I.e. They know the Pacific nations will be woefully under prepared and the resulting blowouts will be uninteresting. Thus justifying have less internationals a year. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

15 minutes ago, Damien said:

There has always been a 1 month international window. There has been nothing stopping games being played at the end of the season.

I am not blaming you but there is an awful lot of revisionism and PR bull when it comes to the NRL statements on this and their justification for scrapping the mid season international window. The recent situation of the last few years and lack of games has not been the norm so to take it away and give back a little doesn't amount to much.

It largely downs to a lot of spin to sell people less when it comes to the international game. We were told scrapping the mid season international window would mean a longer end of season window. That hasn't happened. 2-3 matches is shorter than we had for many a year.

The clubs were never previously signed up to an end of season window, and often did everything in their power to disrupt it. Now it's covered within the CBA, and shenanigans will be less likely to happen. I've not said we haven't had post-season internationals before, I've said 1) we chopped and changed them constantly and 2) they weren't committed to by all stakeholders.

We should try and continually improve the detail of this newly agreed model, not come up with yet more random different ideas. That's a rugby league disease. One that killed the golden goose that was the Tri/Four Nations, after a decade of work to create a product of value. 

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

The clubs were never previously signed up to an end of season window, and often did everything in their power to disrupt it. Now it's covered within the CBA, and shenanigans will be less likely to happen. I've not said we haven't had post-season internationals before, I've said 1) we chopped and changed them constantly and 2) they weren't committed to by all stakeholders.

We should try and continually improve the detail of this newly agreed model, not come up with yet more random different ideas. That's a rugby league disease. One that killed the golden goose that was the Tri/Four Nations, after a decade of work to create a product of value. 

Wanting a mid season international window is not a random, new idea though. Neither should it have any effect on an end of season window.

I also don't see why this Tri-Nations format should be stuck with well just because. You don't stick with bad ideas just for the sake of it. There are better concepts out there than teams having a week off and being limited to 2 games during the only period when international games can be played. That is nonsensical.

Edited October 23, 2023 by Damien

[UTK]

8 minutes ago, Keith989 said:

Once it's taken away, it's very hard to get back too. Should've never been allowed happen... the mid season pacific tests were fantastic. Much more interesting than this comp. 

Is there a chance that Australia are setting this comp up to fail in order to justify having less international matches? I.e. They know the Pacific nations will be woefully under prepared and the resulting blowouts will be uninteresting. Thus justifying have less internationals a year. 

It's not being setup to fail, it's just doing the bare minimum to tick boxes required to access government funding with minimal risk

The Australian government put $7 Million into the competition for the 2023 and 2024 tournaments to host games in PNG and Fiji. The games have been held in Townsville and Melbourne are to satisfy commitments made within deals with those respective state governments re: stadia use, and the NZ government fronted up to have the NZ fixtures at Eden Park and Waikato respectively as opposed to Mt Smart.

It's free money for minimal outlay on the NRL's behalf. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Wanting a mid season international window is not a random, new idea though. Neither should it have any effect on an end of season window.

I also don't see why this Tri-Nations format should be stuck with well just because. You don't stick with bad ideas just for the sake of it. There are better concepts out there than teams having a week off during the only period when international games can be played. That is nonsensical.

Barring a mid-season Test was an NRL clubs condition to other elements of the programme. You don't get to order a la carte in negotiations, trades are made.

The Tri-Nations format was not the choice of the NRL, they wanted a Four Nations. It was another compromise to enable one southern hemisphere team to tour England each year. Again, choices have to be made. I'd argue maintaining a first class northern hemisphere series is the best choice given those options. 

The 'Bowl' tournament means there are two games each weekend, not one. Yes, we could have a structure with 3 matches per weekend with the 6 teams, but that would involve less equitable match-ups and likely hinder teams development. Again, a reasoned compromise in the circumstances.  

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Barring a mid-season Test was an NRL clubs condition to other elements of the programme. You don't get to order a la carte in negotiations, trades are made.

The Tri-Nations format was not the choice of the NRL, they wanted a Four Nations. It was another compromise to enable one southern hemisphere team to tour England each year. Again, choices have to be made. I'd argue maintaining a first class northern hemisphere series is the best choice given those options. 

The 'Bowl' tournament means there are two games each weekend, not one. Yes, we could have a structure with 3 matches per weekend with the 6 teams, but that would involve less equitable match-ups and likely hinder teams development. Again, a reasoned compromise in the circumstances.  

There are no negotiations or trades. You are kidding yourself. The NRL dictate.

That is incorrect. Tonga already arranged to tour the UK because the NRL hadn't organised anything. The Tri-Nations was organised much later and was a Tri-Nations because of that.

The last paragraph has nothing to do with my post. Teams have a week off under this structure and some teams will only playing 2 games a year. The most others will play is 3. That isn't good for international Rugby League and certainly isn't good enough when there is zero international Rugby League for 11 months of the year.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

59 minutes ago, Damien said:

There are no negotiations or trades. You are kidding yourself. The NRL dictate.

That is incorrect. Tonga already arranged to tour the UK because the NRL hadn't organised anything. The Tri-Nations was organised much later and was a Tri-Nations because of that.

The last paragraph has nothing to do with my post. Teams have a week off under this structure and some teams will only playing 2 games a year. The most others will play is 3. That isn't good for international Rugby League and certainly isn't good enough when there is zero international Rugby League for 11 months of the year.

There isn't a single 'NRL'. You're conflating multiple stakeholders in one phrase - the Commission, the NRL exec leadership, the clubs, and the players. They don't agree on anything (or indeed much), it's like herding cats, and this time the cats have been herded. 

Re: Tonga, the public record differs. England wanted Tonga to tour, the NRL preferred a 4-Nations, ultimately Tonga chose to take England's offer (there was not an agreement already in place)

On the final paragraph, please show me the last time PNG, Cook Islands, Samoa, Tonga and Fiji regularly played 2 matches a year? This isn't perfect, it certainly wouldn't be what I'd design, but it is progress... in a complex multi-stakeholder environment. Far better to lean into that and encourage its evolution, than just criticize it and call for yet another re-model. Don't assume all stakeholders are even fully happy about this model, it needs work to reinforce it and protect it. 

We live in the world as it is, not the world as we'd want it to be. 

[Damien]

26 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

There isn't a single 'NRL'. You're conflating multiple stakeholders in one phrase - the Commission, the NRL exec leadership, the clubs, and the players. They don't agree on anything (or indeed much), it's like herding cats, and this time the cats have been herded. 

Re: Tonga, the public record differs. England wanted Tonga to tour, the NRL preferred a 4-Nations, ultimately Tonga chose to take England's offer (there was not an agreement already in place)

On the final paragraph, please show me the last time PNG, Cook Islands, Samoa, Tonga and Fiji regularly played 2 matches a year? This isn't perfect, it certainly wouldn't be what I'd design, but it is progress... in a complex multi-stakeholder environment. Far better to lean into that and encourage its evolution, than just criticize it and call for yet another re-model. Don't assume all stakeholders are even fully happy about this model, it needs work to reinforce it and protect it. 

We live in the world as it is, not the world as we'd want it to be. 

I know.

The public record does not differ. Tonga confirmed what I said at the time. There was no 4 nations offer to Tonga because there was nothing in place to offer. Tonga decided to tour England as a result as it was the only offer. It wasnt some benevolent deed or compromise by the NRL as you claimed. This was all done to death on numerous threads on here. You obviously missed them.

I really dont need to go back that far to show you the last year these teams played 2 matches in a year. The last year before Covid in 2019:

Tonga played 3

Samoa played 2

Cook Islands played 2

PNG played 3

Fiji played 3

More games than this year too.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

I know.

The public record does not differ. Tonga confirmed what I said at the time. There was no 4 nations offer to Tonga because there was nothing in place to offer. Tonga decided to tour England as a result as it was the only offer. It wasnt some benevolent deed or compromise by the NRL as you claimed. This was all done to death on numerous threads on here. You obviously missed them.

I really dont need to go back that far to show you the last year these teams played 2 matches in a year. The last year before Covid in 2019:

Tonga played 3

Samoa played 2

Cook Islands played 2

PNG played 3

Fiji played 3

More games than this year too.

...and across the prior decade? There have been a series of sporadic matches, sometimes badged as "tournaments", with different opponents, across decades. What we need is a consistent, repeatable model. It might be imperfect, but we need one of those. 

Meanwhile, in other Tonga news, back in March... https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/inside-the-secret-plan-for-australia-and-samoa-to-meet-in-world-cup-rematch-20230326-p5cvdh.html

The RFL were waiting on baited breath for Tonga to confirm, in the context of the ongoing discussions about the nature of a post-season southern hemisphere calendar. To pretend otherwise is madness. It took until the last week in April to confirm it precisely because of that complexity. 

 

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

...and across the prior decade? There have been a series of sporadic matches, sometimes badged as "tournaments", with different opponents, across decades. What we need is a consistent, repeatable model. It might be imperfect, but we need one of those. 

Meanwhile, in other Tonga news, back in March... https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/inside-the-secret-plan-for-australia-and-samoa-to-meet-in-world-cup-rematch-20230326-p5cvdh.html

The RFL were waiting on baited breath for Tonga to confirm, in the context of the ongoing discussions about the nature of a post-season southern hemisphere calendar. To pretend otherwise is madness. It took until the last week in April to confirm it precisely because of that complexity. 

 

Oh so the last time isn't good enough now because taking away a World Cup year and Covid its as good as the last year.... I mean there's loads of examples in other years but you've had your question answered and I'm not going round in circles.

The rest of your comments are moving the goalposts stuff and you link is pretty pointless and I'm not sure what you are even trying to argue. The debate wasn't if the NRL wanted a 4 nations or not and it's like you are trying to disprove the original point you made just to argue, which was that the Tri-Nations was a benevolent act and a compromise by the NRL when it wasn't, you said "The Tri-Nations format was not the choice of the NRL, they wanted a Four Nations. It was another compromise to enable one southern hemisphere team to tour England each year.". The NRL had no choice and it was not a compromise because Tonga had already chosen to tour England as the NRL organised sweet fa until more recently. This is what Wolf said at the time on accepting the tour to England:

“Everything we do is player driven,” Woolf said. “It’s about the players. What they want to do and how they want to represent Tonga. They have shown plenty of times how much that means to them.

“These talks have been going on since the World Cup ended. There was no proposal for another opportunity. It came to a point where we had to make a decision on what was in front of us and in the end there was only one opportunity.”

Codesports.com.au | Subscribe to Code Sports for exclusive stories

I suggest we just leave it at that because I'm not really interested in your the grass is green because the sky is blue arguments.

[JM2010]

3 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Barring a mid-season Test was an NRL clubs condition to other elements of the programme. You don't get to order a la carte in negotiations, trades are made.

The Tri-Nations format was not the choice of the NRL, they wanted a Four Nations. It was another compromise to enable one southern hemisphere team to tour England each year. Again, choices have to be made. I'd argue maintaining a first class northern hemisphere series is the best choice given those options. 

The 'Bowl' tournament means there are two games each weekend, not one. Yes, we could have a structure with 3 matches per weekend with the 6 teams, but that would involve less equitable match-ups and likely hinder teams development. Again, a reasoned compromise in the circumstances.  

They should add the winner of the bowl tournament to Australia, NZ and Tonga next year so it’s a 4 Nations and add Lebanon to the bowl so that they can still have a Tri Nations 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, JM2010 said:

They should add the winner of the bowl tournament to Australia, NZ and Tonga next year so it’s a 4 Nations and add Lebanon to the bowl so that they can still have a Tri Nations 

Yeah I'm down with that. I'm all for evolving the concept, would just love to stick with a post-season "Pacific Tournament" involving Australia and New Zealand for a few years, only interrupted by World Cups and sometimes augmented with an English tour. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

Oh so the last time isn't good enough now because taking away a World Cup year and Covid its as good as the last year.... I mean there's loads of examples in other years but you've had your question answered and I'm not going round in circles.

The rest of your comments are moving the goalposts stuff and you link is pretty pointless and I'm not sure what you are even trying to argue. The debate wasn't if the NRL wanted a 4 nations or not and it's like you are trying to disprove the original point you made just to argue, which was that the Tri-Nations was a benevolent act and a compromise by the NRL when it wasn't, you said "The Tri-Nations format was not the choice of the NRL, they wanted a Four Nations. It was another compromise to enable one southern hemisphere team to tour England each year.". The NRL had no choice and it was not a compromise because Tonga had already chosen to tour England as the NRL organised sweet fa until more recently. This is what Wolf said at the time on accepting the tour to England:

“Everything we do is player driven,” Woolf said. “It’s about the players. What they want to do and how they want to represent Tonga. They have shown plenty of times how much that means to them.

“These talks have been going on since the World Cup ended. There was no proposal for another opportunity. It came to a point where we had to make a decision on what was in front of us and in the end there was only one opportunity.”

Codesports.com.au | Subscribe to Code Sports for exclusive stories

I suggest we just leave it at that because I'm not really interested in your the grass is green because the sky is blue arguments.

You can leave it where you want mate. What you don't seem interested in is an alternative point of view to yours, which makes participation in a discussion forum a bit weird. But hey ho, it takes all sorts. 

 

[JM2010]

13 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Yeah I'm down with that. I'm all for evolving the concept, would just love to stick with a post-season "Pacific Tournament" involving Australia and New Zealand for a few years, only interrupted by World Cups and sometimes augmented with an English tour. 

They can still play a Pacific tournament outside of WCs and just alternate which SH team comes north to play England.

Would like to see France get a game against whoever comes north also 

[Hopie]

Two windows is absolutely key, because that means even when England tour in the Southern Hemisphere at the end of the season, there will still be internationals in this country in the other window. I firmly believe we need internationals every year in this country in order to have a proper strategy of growth.

I'd happily let Australia sit out of the mid season window if they prefer to have 3 origin matches instead.

Everyone else can have 3 internationals . If they later released internationals are worth having too, they can then get involved.

[Damien]

42 minutes ago, Hopie said:

Two windows is absolutely key, because that means even when England tour in the Southern Hemisphere at the end of the season, there will still be internationals in this country in the other window. I firmly believe we need internationals every year in this country in order to have a proper strategy of growth.

I'd happily let Australia sit out of the mid season window if they prefer to have 3 origin matches instead.

Everyone else can have 3 internationals . If they later released internationals are worth having too, they can then get involved.

This is true. I couldn't really care less now if Australia play internationals or not. Obviously I would like them to but the international game could easily thrive without them. The trouble is when they don't want to play but also want to limit what everyone else does too.

[StandOffHalf]

1 hour ago, Hopie said:

Two windows is absolutely key, because that means even when England tour in the Southern Hemisphere at the end of the season, there will still be internationals in this country in the other window. I firmly believe we need internationals every year in this country in order to have a proper strategy of growth.

I'd happily let Australia sit out of the mid season window if they prefer to have 3 origin matches instead.

Everyone else can have 3 internationals . If they later released internationals are worth having too, they can then get involved.

Pretty much how I feel.

I kind of got the feeling from the 9 comms and the Aussie approach that they were in a some ways going through the motions and lacking just a little fire and passion.

What I fear is the contagion of that mindset to other teams in the Pacific. With the Pacific post-season Championships being a minimalist affair tacked-on at the conclusion of what the NRL really cares about, there is a bit of a hollow, bare-bones feel to it.

I don't want international football to have the life sucked out of it by vampires whose priorities lie elsewhere. At the same time, I think a month like this possesses promise, if aligned with several international weekends mid-season.

Edited October 23, 2023 by StandOffHalf