Rob Burrow Award - no more Harry Sunderland Trophy

[Damien]

47 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

There may also be a very sad impetus to doing this now rather than waiting 9 months.

That leads to a whole different debate and one that would be in bad taste.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Damien said:

That leads to a whole different debate and one that would be in bad taste.

I agree, but I think they are negating that by doing something that has been talked about for years anyway.

[Click]

14 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I've argued on this forum previously that we shouldn't change the name of our leading awards and this announcement has taken me by surprise even though it was proposed by the RLWBA, of which I am a member.

I agree with you that Burrow is a worthy name to attach to a trophy for the player of the match in the Grand Final, although I would have named it the Burrow-Sinfield Trophy in that case, because those two names are inextricably linked in the public consciousness for obvious reasons and both of them won the HS Trophy twice (as did Danny McGuire).

Harry Sunderland's name was proposed by the Rugby League Writers' Association to be attached to the man of the match award in the Championship Grand Final after his death in 1964 and it was first awarded in 1965, with Terry Fogerty becoming the first winner.

When the Championship Final in its old form was ended in 1973, with the advent of two divisions, that would have been a possible time to retire Harry Sunderland's name from the award rather than transferring it to what was effectively a new competition.

Similarly, when the Super League Grand Final was established, that would have been another opportunity to retire the Harry Sunderland Trophy.

But there is no obvious logic to doing this now and the announcement sheds little light on the decision.

There is no indication that Harry Sunderland's descendants were consulted about this, although perhaps they were.

I agree with you that if you are going to retire an award, you do it with a fanfare and create a handover scenario from one name to the other.

But as it is, the decision looks a very clumsy one to me.

I don't understand why everything has to be now Sinfield-Burrow rather than just Burrow. I get it, Sinfield has raised a lot of money for charity for his best mate but if the NRL didn't have their current trophy, I don't even think anyone would recommend for it to be a "joint" trophy for us over here.

I also don't see how there is no obvious logic to doing it now, why not now? We're pretty much relaunching SL this year, or because we didn't change it in the 70s or when the SLGF started we now can't change it again?

I also don't think you can create much fanfare for retiring this award when there is a high % of fans who have no real idea who Harry Sunderland was.

[Rowan]

Like Martyn I am a member of the RLWBA (for more than 45 years) and when the suggestion was put to me I was also a bit reluctant to make the change purely on the grounds that it has a part in the sports history - just like the Lance Todd Trophy. I hear the argument that the name Harry Sunderland means nothing to the modern players or fans but few people in tennis know about Dwight F. Davis (founder of the Davis Cup) or in Golf (Sam Ryder of Ryder Cup) or the guy Stanley who gave ice hockey the Stanley Cup. It is therefore important that the Rob Burrow Award  is a brand new Trophy and replica and the Harry Sunderland Cup is retired to the RFL's own trophy cabinet. Having  said all that, if the change is to be made,  Rob Burrow is a fine choice.  I just hoe nobody comes along in a few years time and demands further change. After all, IMG have a 12-year contract and heaven knows what they have planned. At least the names Harry Sunderland and Lance Todd are reminders that the sport of Rugby League was played before 1996. 

[Gerrumonside ref]

Maybe this gives a timely boost to Rob and his loved ones.

Edited February 7 by Gerrumonside ref

[sam4731]

I'd prefer the trophy to be named after him. I think the Super League trophy as a name is boring.

[Worzel]

4 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I've argued on this forum previously that we shouldn't change the name of our leading awards and this announcement has taken me by surprise even though it was proposed by the RLWBA, of which I am a member.

I agree with you that Burrow is a worthy name to attach to a trophy for the player of the match in the Grand Final, although I would have named it the Burrow-Sinfield Trophy in that case, because those two names are inextricably linked in the public consciousness for obvious reasons and both of them won the HS Trophy twice (as did Danny McGuire).

Harry Sunderland's name was proposed by the Rugby League Writers' Association to be attached to the man of the match award in the Championship Grand Final after his death in 1964 and it was first awarded in 1965, with Terry Fogerty becoming the first winner.

When the Championship Final in its old form was ended in 1973, with the advent of two divisions, that would have been a possible time to retire Harry Sunderland's name from the award rather than transferring it to what was effectively a new competition.

Similarly, when the Super League Grand Final was established, that would have been another opportunity to retire the Harry Sunderland Trophy.

But there is no obvious logic to doing this now and the announcement sheds little light on the decision.

There is no indication that Harry Sunderland's descendants were consulted about this, although perhaps they were.

I agree with you that if you are going to retire an award, you do it with a fanfare and create a handover scenario from one name to the other.

But as it is, the decision looks a very clumsy one to me.

Let's speak frankly: Rob is unlikely to be with us come October 2025. There is a real world timeline that explains the reason for why they're doing this now, rather than after "one final season" with the Harry Sunderland Trophy. Perhaps they could have announced it 6 months ago and done that, but ideas occur when they occur sometimes.

Harry Sunderland died 60 years ago, none of his children will still be alive and I'd be surprised if any grandchildren were. So all in all it seems a reasonable time to do things. 

 

 

Edited February 7 by Worzel

[graveyard johnny]

great idea and at the right time too - if any player can score a try half as good as Robs in the gf v saints and win it then its much deserved 

[Pie tries]

This is a very very good decision

[Padge]

This sounds harsh but trophy naming should be of past (deceased) people and usually is. Naming it now so Rob knows it has happened smacks of we know you haven't got long Rob so here is something to cheer you up.

I would sooner it was done later, but as others have said it seems rushed, it shouldn't have just been a press release it should have been an event. BBC breakfast would have been all over it.

Edited February 7 by Padge

[The Hallucinating Goose]

Great decision! 

[Dave T]

I don't personally think this is the best decision tbh, but I can understand why others would appreciate this decision, and I can understand the sport wanting to honour Rob. 

[JohnM]

16 hours ago, Worzel said:

Let's speak frankly: Rob is unlikely to be with us come October 2025. There is a real world timeline that explains the reason for why they're doing this now, rather than after "one final season" with the Harry Sunderland Trophy. Perhaps they could have announced it 6 months ago and done that, but ideas occur when they occur sometimes.

Harry Sunderland died 60 years ago, none of his children will still be alive and I'd be surprised if any grandchildren were. So all in all it seems a reasonable time to do things. 

I guess that just about does it for Christmas Day and St George's Day, too, given that ......

Actually, I have no strong feelings about this either way, though precident has now been set and there may be  more name-changes in future.

 

[Martyn Sadler]

17 hours ago, Worzel said:

Harry Sunderland died 60 years ago, none of his children will still be alive and I'd be surprised if any grandchildren were. So all in all it seems a reasonable time to do things. 

He had three sons, two of whom died before their first birthday.

But the other, Sir Sydney Sunderland, achieved worldwide acclaim and great eminence in his field - far greater than Harry's - and died in 1993. He was the youngest ever professor appointed at the University of Melbourne and he pioneered research into the structure of nerves. He was often referred to as “the father of modern nerve surgery.” The Sunderland Society, based in America, celebrates his memory and holds regular meetings and symposia in his honour. Harry named his son after his favourite city.

After Harry's death, Sydney gave his approval to the RLWA's proposal to honour his father and I would have thought it appropriate to consult his descendants about the decision to discontinue having his name attached to the award.

For all I know, they might have done that, but if they had, I suspect they would have made reference to it in the press release.

It would just have looked a bit classier, especially given the coincidence that Harry's son was a pioneer in research in a field related to the condition that Rob suffers from.

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

I guess that just about does it for Christmas Day and St George's Day, too, given that ......

Actually, I have no strong feelings about this either way, though precident has now been set and there may be  more name-changes in future.

 

Martin referenced the family's feelings, I was just picking up on that specific. To be honest it was a bit weird that it was named after Sunderland anyway. Presumably journalists used to select the winner and so they decided to name it after one of their own which was fair enough at the time, but we can definitely do better now. 

[Worzel]

41 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

He had three sons, two of whom died before their first birthday.

But the other, Sir Sydney Sunderland, achieved worldwide acclaim and great eminence in his field - far greater than Harry's - and died in 1993. He was the youngest ever professor appointed at the University of Melbourne and he pioneered research into the structure of nerves. He was often referred to as “the father of modern nerve surgery.” The Sunderland Society, based in America, celebrates his memory and holds regular meetings and symposia in his honour. Harry named his son after his favourite city.

After Harry's death, Sydney gave his approval to the RLWA's proposal to honour his father and I would have thought it appropriate to consult his descendants about the decision to discontinue having his name attached to the award.

For all I know, they might have done that, but if they had, I suspect they would have made reference to it in the press release.

It would just have looked a bit classier, especially given the coincidence that Harry's son was a pioneer in research in a field related to the condition that Rob suffers from.

Yes, to be fair I agree, but only for appearances sake and the opportunity you highlight to draw the direct relevance out. But I'm not sure it's that big a deal in terms of how they might feel about it, I have no emotional relationship with my great grandfather who I never met and I doubt any Sutherlands do theirs.  

[JohnM]

49 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Martin referenced the family's feelings, I was just picking up on that specific. To be honest it was a bit weird that it was named after Sunderland anyway. Presumably journalists used to select the winner and so they decided to name it after one of their own which was fair enough at the time, but we can definitely do better now. 

I wasn't  intending to pick an argument. Just that if were to go about changing  award names becuase the original neams were historic...etc etc.

I think, though, that precident has now been set and that particular award may be changed in future because of some even more deserving but as yet unknown reason.

[Worzel]

33 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I wasn't  intending to pick an argument. Just that if were to go about changing  award names becuase the original neams were historic...etc etc.

I think, though, that precident has now been set and that particular award may be changed in future because of some even more deserving but as yet unknown reason.

Aye, true enough

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I'm more comfortable with this renaming than I am the MOS Award being named after Prescott. 

Prescott was a legend, and a 'man of steel' in a different context. But in the context of being the player of the season (which the trophy is about), he was never even a contender let alone a winner.

Burrow on the other hand, absolutely connected to this trophy. No one more fitting. I don't think anyone will argue he deserves it; just the timing of the announcement.

Personally, the timing isn't a big issue. There are pros and cons. I get the sentiment about finishing up the HS Trophy properly and having an event to launch the new RB Trophy. Great points. I also get the sentiment about having Rob be around to see that it's named after him.

[Martyn Sadler]

2 hours ago, Worzel said:

Yes, to be fair I agree, but only for appearances sake and the opportunity you highlight to draw the direct relevance out. But I'm not sure it's that big a deal in terms of how they might feel about it, I have no emotional relationship with my great grandfather who I never met and I doubt any Sutherlands do theirs.  

If Harry Sunderland had been your great grandfather I suspect you would have felt a relationship with him because of your shared love of Rugby League and you wouldn't have been too happy not to be consulted about his name being excised from the Grand Final.

Another relatively minor point, but one that's worth making, is that Harry was a great promoter of the game and went to considerable lengths to try to develop the game in the USA. At the start of the 1950s he submitted a plan to the Australian Rugby League Board of Control to promote Rugby League in America and he helped the Americans play a five-match tour of France at the end of 1953, losing to the French national side 31-0 in front of 20,000 spectators at the Parc des Princes in Paris in January 1954.

The International Board, in its infinite wisdom, subsequently withdrew an invitation to play in the first World Cup in 1954.

So it seems ironic that, just as the game is going to America this year, Sunderland's name disappears from the Grand Final.

[Worzel]

53 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If Harry Sunderland had been your great grandfather I suspect you would have felt a relationship with him because of your shared love of Rugby League and you wouldn't have been too happy not to be consulted about his name being excised from the Grand Final.

Another relatively minor point, but one that's worth making, is that Harry was a great promoter of the game and went to considerable lengths to try to develop the game in the USA. At the start of the 1950s he submitted a plan to the Australian Rugby League Board of Control to promote Rugby League in America and he helped the Americans play a five-match tour of France at the end of 1953, losing to the French national side 31-0 in front of 20,000 spectators at the Parc des Princes in Paris in January 1954.

The International Board, in its infinite wisdom, subsequently withdrew an invitation to play in the first World Cup in 1954.

So it seems ironic that, just as the game is going to America this year, Sunderland's name disappears from the Grand Final.

To be fair he's still honoured in the international game with an award still bearing his name. We don't have many awards, so it seems reasonable to share them out. 

His being the name on the Grand Final MoM award was always a bit odd on reflection, the first SL GF was probably a better opportunity to change things up but we didn't then so c'est la vie, here we are. 

[Chrispmartha]

2 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If Harry Sunderland had been your great grandfather I suspect you would have felt a relationship with him because of your shared love of Rugby League and you wouldn't have been too happy not to be consulted about his name being excised from the Grand Final.

Another relatively minor point, but one that's worth making, is that Harry was a great promoter of the game and went to considerable lengths to try to develop the game in the USA. At the start of the 1950s he submitted a plan to the Australian Rugby League Board of Control to promote Rugby League in America and he helped the Americans play a five-match tour of France at the end of 1953, losing to the French national side 31-0 in front of 20,000 spectators at the Parc des Princes in Paris in January 1954.

The International Board, in its infinite wisdom, subsequently withdrew an invitation to play in the first World Cup in 1954.

So it seems ironic that, just as the game is going to America this year, Sunderland's name disappears from the Grand Final.

Wasn’t he also a little bit racist?

[gingerjon]

35 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Wasn’t he also a little bit racist?

OH YOU HAD TO GO THERE

[Chrispmartha]

37 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

OH YOU HAD TO GO THERE

Just something I learned recently about him and Roy Francis

[Padge]

4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Just something I learned recently about him and Roy Francis

Oooohhh do tell, people have been searching for this evidence for years.