England vs Samoa Series

[Sports Prophet]

8 hours ago, Hopie said:

Just because you keep posting the same thing doesn't make it true. Your main point to show that the NRL doesn't hamper the international game is that there still is an international game, and we all should be super grateful for the crumbs we are getting. That the number of fixtures is lower than in previous years, that they are announced at shorter notice, that the attendances are poor etc etc, is all just a coincidence right? Or somebody else's fault, who will you pick to blame in your next post? 

 

5 hours ago, Damien said:

This is the trouble isn't it? It's like completely whitewashing the past and ignoring that we've actually had all of this much better than the crumbs we should be grateful for now.

My position is clear. The end of season fixtures we have this year, outside a WC, is actually pretty good, even when compared to whatever heyday people may want to refer to. Eight tests between six of the top seven Pacific nations and then a two test series between another two nations in the top 5. That’s 10 tests featuring eight of the top ten nations in the space of around 5 weeks. Has that really been replicated before?

Would I like a mid-season international window? Hell yes. Three consecutive weekends of SOO with non Aussie internationals taking place at the same time, awesome. Is that what most on here are calling for? Yeah, pretty much.

The difference being, I at least can appreciate the NRL’s commercial decision to have SOO stand-alone on Wednesday nights mid season. Does that business decision constitute the NRL sabotaging international RL? Absolutely not.

 

Edited September 23 by Sports Prophet

[RP London]

20 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

RP London mentioned club players are rested all around Origin. I simply clarified that none are rested before Origin. Players have been rested after Origin (most commonly by table topping teams after game III) for years. That is specifically why I clarified.

So again, there are no holes, everything I’ve said is accurate, despite us drawing seperate conclusions.

no its ok.. you change the goalposts on other peoples arguments as much as you like that's ok that's normal behaviour.. honestly it is.. 

the argument was specifically that players are rested by the NRL around Origin, which is correct as you say and always has happened. Therefore, why can this not happen with Internationals and the NRL not kick off and be all "damage the NRL" etc? 

Don't worry I'm not expecting an answer you'll just shift the goalposts again becuase it doesn't suit you.. hence the pigeon and chess comment which you are proving marvellously.

 

[Sports Prophet]

10 hours ago, RP London said:

…the argument was specifically that players are rested by the NRL around Origin, which is correct as you say and always has happened. Therefore, why can this not happen with Internationals and the NRL not kick off and be all "damage the NRL" etc? 

 

Insults aside RP, if you don’t think SOO has negative consequences on the standard of the NRL, then I don’t think you will ever understand why compounding that negative effect by supporting international football at the same time is not in the NRLs interests.

How many mid season internationals would you want before you are satisfied, as it seems the ten tests we have at the end of the year featuring top 10 nations is not enough for you?

[Dave T]

35 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Insults aside RP, if you don’t think SOO has negative consequences on the standard of the NRL, then I don’t think you will ever understand why compounding that negative effect by supporting international football at the same time is not in the NRLs interests.

How many mid season internationals would you want before you are satisfied, as it seems the ten tests we have at the end of the year featuring top 10 nations is not enough for you?

On your last para if i may. Whilst there are some things to like about the PN Cup, it cant be ignored that compared to ten years ago, Aus, NZ, England will all play fewer games this year. Samoa will too. 

The structure brought to the PN teams and PNG os a real positive, but Euro teams and the top nations are doing less than ever. Thats being covered somewhat by Tonga, Samoa, Fiji etc.

[The Rocket]

 @Sports Prophetwe may soon end up having the best of both world`s : 

From today`s SMH.

 

V`landys joined NRL chief executive Andrew Abdo for a two-part interview on Nine’s rugby league program on Monday night to discuss all the big issues in the game.

One of the code’s major talking points is the blueprint to get from 17 teams to a 20-team competition in the next eight years.

V’landys believes a 20-team competition could result in a shortened season, with emphasis to be placed on growing the international game and a potential standalone Origin period.

“That’s the ambition – to get 20 teams,” V’landys said.

“If you don’t have ambition, you shouldn’t be there. Our ambition is to make the competition as fair as possible. The draw would be fantastic if everyone played [each other] once, so you need 20 teams for that. Talking about conferences and all those sorts of things is part of the process that we’re going to go through with the business case.

“[The players] are going to be playing less football because at the moment there are [27] rounds. If you go to 19 rounds you’ve got all those weeks we can do other things and that’s where you can fix your problem with the State of Origin.”

Usually if he says it, he means it.

 

 

 

[RP London]

7 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Insults aside RP, if you don’t think SOO has negative consequences on the standard of the NRL, then I don’t think you will ever understand why compounding that negative effect by supporting international football at the same time is not in the NRLs interests.

How many mid season internationals would you want before you are satisfied, as it seems the ten tests we have at the end of the year featuring top 10 nations is not enough for you?

First paragraph just shows you aren't getting what is being said! The NRL are hypocritical is the exact point being made, it's ok for SOO to damage the comp but woe betide Jonnie foreigner gets to play a game as it will damage the NRL.. yet it can all be solved, as it was at one stage, with an international window that the NRL can put origin in if it really wants instead of aus playing but let the rest of the world play.. 

End of season is not enough no, I thought that was pretty obvious and i am shocked anyone thinks it is! It's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick yes but it is poorly organised and is always organised far too late.. there is not enough international rugby played and mid season is, as has been argued and pointed out far too often to fully repeat, more important due to the ability to get those that have been introduced to the game at those matches into watching the domestic game.. to miss that point and that opportunity is idiotic, shortsighted but is exactly what the NRL is causing. Yet the solution for all and to not damage the precious NRL is staring everyone in the face. 

[gingerjon]

7 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

the ten tests we have at the end of the year featuring top 10 nations is not enough for you?

It shouldn't be enough for anyone. It's a tiny amount.

[Sports Prophet]

33 minutes ago, RP London said:

First paragraph just shows you aren't getting what is being said! The NRL are hypocritical is the exact point being made, it's ok for SOO to damage the comp but woe betide Jonnie foreigner gets to play a game as it will damage the NRL.. yet it can all be solved, as it was at one stage, with an international window that the NRL can put origin in if it really wants instead of aus playing but let the rest of the world play.. 

No I get exactly what is being said. Unfortunately what you consider hypocritical is actually not understanding the lie of the land.

Whilst yes, from a very basic standpoint it may seem hypocritical of the NRL to sacrifice its peak players to the club game during the Origin period, but then not afford international partners the same opportunity.

That position clearly neglects the insurmountable benefits SOO gives the NRL for the sacrifice. Unfortunately, releasing a bunch of other players to represent other nations simply does not compensate the NRL for the further sacrifices you would want them to suffer.

Your wish for standalone Origin weekends and internationals alongside is a great one for us fans of international footy. Commercially, at this point in time it doesn’t stack up as the financial benefit to running Origin over six weeks and played on Wednesday nights far exceeds the financial benefit of running Origin over 3 consecutive weekends.

So it is simply a commercial decision. Nothing personal, nothing untoward, just a blindingly obvious financial decision.

Edited September 24 by Sports Prophet

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

No I get exactly what is being said. Unfortunately what you consider hypocritical is actually not understanding the lie of the land.

Whilst yes, from a very basic standpoint it may seem hypocritical of the NRL to sacrifice its peak players to the club game during the Origin period, but then not afford international partners the same opportunity.

That position clearly neglects the insurmountable benefits SOO gives the NRL for the sacrifice. Unfortunately, releasing a bunch of other players to represent other nations simply does not compensate the NRL for the further sacrifices you would want them to suffer.

So it is simply a commercial decision. Nothing personal, nothing untoward, just a blindingly obvious financial decision.

So we agree. The NRL stifles international competition for its own gain.

[Sports Prophet]

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

On your last para if i may. Whilst there are some things to like about the PN Cup, it cant be ignored that compared to ten years ago, Aus, NZ, England will all play fewer games this year. Samoa will too. 

The structure brought to the PN teams and PNG os a real positive, but Euro teams and the top nations are doing less than ever. Thats being covered somewhat by Tonga, Samoa, Fiji etc.

Sounds like the Euro teams need to get their act together to me.

I am all for a six nations every two years either side of the WC with a middle season for continental cups or vice versa. Global six nations events do come with considerable costs.

I don’t necessarily think it’s solely the NRL blocking this though is it? Unless you know otherwise. England want tours to England for example. That comes at a cost of running elite intercontinental cup events. In saying that, I doubt the NRL have argued against England for hosting tours and running five/six nations events in its place, but again, the is doesn’t constitute the NRL scuppering the international game.

[Sports Prophet]

18 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

So we agree. The NRL stifles international competition for its own gain.

No we don’t. It is a weak argument to suggest the NRL is stifling international competition because it doesn’t want to disrupt its successful operation.

If you can demonstrate tangibly why it would be in the NRLs interest to support a mid year international window, then I  all ears. I’m sure the NRL are too.

I’ll even make it easier, if you can demonstrate how a mid year international window for the benefit of other international partners will not be a huge financial sacrifice for the NRL, its members and its commercial partners, I’m sure there is a chance the NRL will back it.

Until either of the above are addressed suitably, any suggestion that the NRL is stifling international competition is inconsiderate to the commitment the NRL has to its members and partners.

Edited September 24 by Sports Prophet

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Sports Prophet said:

No we don’t. It is a weak argument to suggest the NRL is stifling international competition because it doesn’t want to disrupt its successful operation.

If you can demonstrate tangibly why it would be in the NRLs interest to support a mid year international window, then I  all ears. I’m sure the NRL are too.

I’ll even make it easier, if you can demonstrate how a mid year international window for the benefit of other international partners will not be a huge financial sacrifice for the NRL, its members and its commercial partners, I’m sure there is a chance the NRL will back it.

Until either of the above are addressed suitably, any suggestion that the NRL is stifling international competition is inconsiderate to the commitment the NRL has to its members and partners.

We all understand why they are stifling international competition. You don't need to keep repeating the reasons for it.

[Sports Prophet]

7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

We all understand why they are stifling international competition. You don't need to keep repeating the reasons for it.

only in the same way you outrageously stifle my opportunity to spend four months a year including Christmas in Val d’Isere because you won’t take the financial hit to fund it.

 

[Damien]

On 23/09/2024 at 23:51, The Rocket said:

 @Sports Prophetwe may soon end up having the best of both world`s : 

From today`s SMH.

 

V`landys joined NRL chief executive Andrew Abdo for a two-part interview on Nine’s rugby league program on Monday night to discuss all the big issues in the game.

One of the code’s major talking points is the blueprint to get from 17 teams to a 20-team competition in the next eight years.

V’landys believes a 20-team competition could result in a shortened season, with emphasis to be placed on growing the international game and a potential standalone Origin period.

“That’s the ambition – to get 20 teams,” V’landys said.

“If you don’t have ambition, you shouldn’t be there. Our ambition is to make the competition as fair as possible. The draw would be fantastic if everyone played [each other] once, so you need 20 teams for that. Talking about conferences and all those sorts of things is part of the process that we’re going to go through with the business case.

“[The players] are going to be playing less football because at the moment there are [27] rounds. If you go to 19 rounds you’ve got all those weeks we can do other things and that’s where you can fix your problem with the State of Origin.”

Usually if he says it, he means it.

 

 

 

V'landys and Abdo have said all this before. Actions speak louder than words.

Edited October 23 by Damien

[Damien]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

It shouldn't be enough for anyone. It's a tiny amount.

It's absolutely pathetic. 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

First paragraph just shows you aren't getting what is being said! The NRL are hypocritical is the exact point being made, it's ok for SOO to damage the comp but woe betide Jonnie foreigner gets to play a game as it will damage the NRL.. yet it can all be solved, as it was at one stage, with an international window that the NRL can put origin in if it really wants instead of aus playing but let the rest of the world play.. 

End of season is not enough no, I thought that was pretty obvious and i am shocked anyone thinks it is! It's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick yes but it is poorly organised and is always organised far too late.. there is not enough international rugby played and mid season is, as has been argued and pointed out far too often to fully repeat, more important due to the ability to get those that have been introduced to the game at those matches into watching the domestic game.. to miss that point and that opportunity is idiotic, shortsighted but is exactly what the NRL is causing. Yet the solution for all and to not damage the precious NRL is staring everyone in the face. 

Internationals only at the end of the season, with 11 months without international Rugby League, is certainly not enough. Even the extended window to compensate was a lie and we get less match than before. It has been really harmful to the international game and severely limits the growth that can be achieved.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

So we agree. The NRL stifles international competition for its own gain.

exactly.. and the "commercial decision" is a short term one as the long term commercial benefit for the sport as a whole (and this may hurt the NRL a small amount hence its not happening, equally it may benefit but risk and reward) is a strong international game with more than one strong competition. and the 3 week v 6 weeks is rubbish.. you can have the 6 week origin period 1 of which is an international window to allow for even just 1 off internationals.. SP is talking about it like a zero sum game but its more nuanced than that.. 

Its all about the NRL protectionism and that is damaging to the international aspect (by which I mean development in other countries not just the international matches) of the sport. 

But the NRL and Aussies are fine.. so thats ok.. 

[Dunbar]

The Australians need to learn a lesson from the thriving Northern Hemisphere international Rugby League setup we have created in the last couple of decades.

[RP London]

55 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The Australians need to learn a lesson from the thriving Northern Hemisphere international Rugby League setup we have created in the last couple of decades.

Yes which was the point that started this tangent, the cause and the fix etc

Edited September 24 by RP London

[unapologetic pedant]

12 hours ago, The Rocket said:

“[The players] are going to be playing less football because at the moment there are [27] rounds. If you go to 19 rounds you’ve got all those weeks we can do other things and that’s where you can fix your problem with the State of Origin.”

Regular season would go from 24 games to 19.

Main on-field disadvantage is that those whose teams make the GF, and who also play Origin and internationals, could play around 10 games more than the majority of the player pool.

That would likely be deemed too many for some or too few for others.

[Sports Prophet]

I am liking England to win this series 2-0.

Do we expect the matches to be capacity? 

Without diving into another “this is why games should have been played outside the heartlands” discussion, what will it take for these matches to be sell outs?

[JonM]

58 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Do we expect the matches to be capacity? 

No - I don't think that's at all likely. We'll get similar crowds to the England v Tonga games from last year - maybe 15k apiece? Hopefully two games rather than three might give it a bit of a boost though.

I've been to literally hundreds of internationals over the years. Not going to buy tickets for these until the Samoans are actually in the country, just in case.

[Jack GB]

22 minutes ago, JonM said:

No - I don't think that's at all likely. We'll get similar crowds to the England v Tonga games from last year - maybe 15k apiece? Hopefully two games rather than three might give it a bit of a boost though.

I've been to literally hundreds of internationals over the years. Not going to buy tickets for these until the Samoans are actually in the country, just in case.

Whilst i'm not too motivated by the ground choice, for me Samoa is a much more exciting prospect than Tonga - esp looking at the potential calibre of player samoa have at the moment. I would hope other people have a similar view and it sees higher sales than the Tonga tests. 

[Dave T]

25 minutes ago, JonM said:

No - I don't think that's at all likely. We'll get similar crowds to the England v Tonga games from last year - maybe 15k apiece? Hopefully two games rather than three might give it a bit of a boost though.

I've been to literally hundreds of internationals over the years. Not going to buy tickets for these until the Samoans are actually in the country, just in case.

I'm hopeful of better attendances.

Ground selection is better. Wigan is better than Saints and generally returns better crowds, so I have some hope we will smash the 13k we got at Saints. I'd hope to be 17-20k. Leeds got the best crowd last year, and there is some scarcity in that there isn't another game in Yorkshire a week earlier this year. So I think we could see a little boost there. 

That said, I don't think we've learnt anything really - we aren't staging them better by the looks of it, marketing and sales appear to be not better - they'll probably look like last year's games instead of us trying to go big.

17.5k would be respectable. 20k would be good and 20k/24k sellouts would be real progress (and should be the aim!)

[stookie]

2 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Regular season would go from 24 games to 19.

Main on-field disadvantage is that those whose teams make the GF, and who also play Origin and internationals, could play around 10 games more than the majority of the player pool.

That would likely be deemed too many for some or too few for others.

Yes, that's the bit that doesn't get any mention by advocates for multiple & longer international windows. For a sport that was created in-part to provide for professional players, we would be telling mid and lower level players they only get 2/3 the games the stars do.