War of the Roses (Again)

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, N2022 said:

Am I missing something here? Origin is massive in NRL and this is our closest equivalent, isn't it? 

I'll repeat something I've said before.

Around the world, in pretty much every sport, there is basically one example of a representative fixture between club and internationals, becoming a major event. And that is rugby league's State of Origin.

It wasn't because it was rugby league as a sport that made State of Origin a success, it was because of an unrepeatable set of circumstances about NSW and QLD, and the set up of RL at the time, that laid the foundations.

Yorkshire v Lancashire means something in cricket. Yorkshire and Lancashire play each other all the time in other sports and, aside from a bit of banter, literally no one cares.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Over the passed few years the RFL turned down 2 offers of test matches at Premier league grounds.

In fact in both cases they failed to even follow up on the offer (Not the current regime) one club even offered their stadium for free in London for a New Zealand test match.

Madness  

What Premier League clubs are these? I would be amazed if these Premier League clubs even knew about future internationals without the RFL approaching them first.

[sam4731]

44 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I'll repeat something I've said before.

Around the world, in pretty much every sport, there is basically one example of a representative fixture between club and internationals, becoming a major event. And that is rugby league's State of Origin.

It wasn't because it was rugby league as a sport that made State of Origin a success, it was because of an unrepeatable set of circumstances about NSW and QLD, and the set up of RL at the time, that laid the foundations.

Yorkshire v Lancashire means something in cricket. Yorkshire and Lancashire play each other all the time in other sports and, aside from a bit of banter, literally no one cares.

NSW vs QLD wasn't always a success. It was marketing that made it.

[Rolymole]

As others have said: too much of “Lancashire” is Merseyside or Cheshire.

If the RFL had ever really invested in London in the past then by now North vs South might have the appropriate spice.

Micky taking about Grandstand aside, putting the game in front of eyeballs on free to air might have been a better idea at the time.  That’s all over now though.

At the end of the day, I don’t think advancing RL in the UK can be done by copying the Australian model.

[Dave T]

38 minutes ago, Damien said:

What Premier League clubs are these? I would be amazed if these Premier League clubs even knew about future internationals without the RFL approaching them first.

It does seem odd that two clubs went out of their way to approach the RFL and both were ignored. And one offered their ground for free!

[Hopie]

There are a number of goals that the Roses game achieves that the other realistic options don't. If there were better alternatives then I'd be happy to see them.

If they go with the roses match they need to decide what they want to achieve by doing so, how they can link that to other goals for the game in the short, medium and long term, and not just sack it off because the clubs don't want a mid season window, or expect it to make them loads of money.

There will always be people saying things that are factually inaccurate because they don't like it, or prefer something else, but this isn't supposed to be State of Origin level of income and interest, even if they use the County of Origin branding again. 
 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Hopie said:

There are a number of goals that the Roses game achieves that the other realistic options don't. If there were better alternatives then I'd be happy to see them.

If they go with the roses match they need to decide what they want to achieve by doing so, how they can link that to other goals for the game in the short, medium and long term, and not just sack it off because the clubs don't want a mid season window, or expect it to make them loads of money.

There will always be people saying things that are factually inaccurate because they don't like it, or prefer something else, but this isn't supposed to be State of Origin level of income and interest, even if they use the County of Origin branding again. 
 

What do you think it does achieve that other things don't? 

 

[ATLANTISMAN]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

What Premier League clubs are these? I would be amazed if these Premier League clubs even knew about future internationals without the RFL approaching them first.

Chelsea 

Brighton 

[Padge]

State of origin is now a joke, a bloke from Ince if he once watched a game in a Bronco's jersey would qualify as available.

If someone chucked a £1m for five years at Lancs v Yorks and backed it up with £1m promotion each year then you may make a dent, a small one, in the national conscious. 

You need the £1m prize money, paid between the players on a winner takes all basis, to get the players to really go for it.

RL will never attract that money.

Roses is a dead duck.

[Hopie]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

What do you think it does achieve that other things don't? 

 

As a starting point, there are my previous posts, and I will say again that my main priority for representative rugby is to build England up to the point where they beat Australia and/or win tournaments. Of the available opponents for England mid-season, no international is better than an uncompetitive international. Splitting the England players into two squads and pitting them against each other is the best way to test them quickly adapting to new partnerships in a game where England squad places are on the line, and is an extension of the existing county of origin pathway at other levels of the game.

Which other things are you suggesting are better, and what do they achieve? Your question is very open!

[Dave T]

23 minutes ago, Hopie said:

As a starting point, there are my previous posts, and I will say again that my main priority for representative rugby is to build England up to the point where they beat Australia and/or win tournaments. Of the available opponents for England mid-season, no international is better than an uncompetitive international. Splitting the England players into two squads and pitting them against each other is the best way to test them quickly adapting to new partnerships in a game where England squad places are on the line, and is an extension of the existing county of origin pathway at other levels of the game.

Which other things are you suggesting are better, and what do they achieve? Your question is very open!

I have doubts about the benefits the England team gets out of something like this. I accept your point on why it may be valuable, but i think because of the nature of it you will end up with weak selections and odd combinations that aren't helpful.

If your sole aim is England prep, ignoring commercial aspects, I'd rather we have an England v England A (probables vs possibles, etc). This allows for a genuine England camp, plus testing combinations and fringe players on the other side. It allows Wane to earn his wages.

But I agree with your point on working out what we're aiming for - my view is either Exiles or England A is a better match for England development, but I don't think any of these, or Roses are commercially compelling.

[Pulga]

6 hours ago, sam4731 said:

All you naysayers are not in such a majority as you think as the poll on this thread suggests, with the results being tighter than opinions on Brexit.

This is brilliant in its irony.

[Dunbar]

As a fan, I am quite interested is a Lancashire vs. Yorkshire game (old school Yorkshire Lancashire, I'm not interested in boundaries, East of Pennines vs. West of Pennines).

When I was growing up, I supported Wigan vs. whoever they were playing, then Lancashire, then England, then Great Britain.  Of course there was not much Lancashire and England but if they played then I supported then as that was who I identified with.

A roses game or series could work but Rugby League couldn't make it work.  The NRL takes players out of club games before State of Origin, we would never do that. 

They prioritise it, we wouldn't. And so it would be irregularly scheduled with players withdrawing and no effort made to create an event. That's just how we do everything. 

So focus on what the fans and clubs want, the club competition, and make it ad strong and competitive as we can.

[Damien]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

I have doubts about the benefits the England team gets out of something like this. I accept your point on why it may be valuable, but i think because of the nature of it you will end up with weak selections and odd combinations that aren't helpful.

If your sole aim is England prep, ignoring commercial aspects, I'd rather we have an England v England A (probables vs possibles, etc). This allows for a genuine England camp, plus testing combinations and fringe players on the other side. It allows Wane to earn his wages.

But I agree with your point on working out what we're aiming for - my view is either Exiles or England A is a better match for England development, but I don't think any of these, or Roses are commercially compelling.

I just don't think 2 average teams playing each other in a poor, low intensity game benefits England just because they all happen to be English. A high intensity SL club game benefits the English players involved much more than that. 

I fail to see how this concept helps the national team in the slightest beyond what cant be done in other ways, it certainly hasnt before.

[Dave T]

Just now, Damien said:

I just don't think 2 average teams playing each other in a poor, low intensity game benefits England just because they all happen to be English. A high intensity SL club game benefits the English players involved much more than that. 

I fail to see how this concept helps the national team in the slightest beyond what cant be done in other ways, it certainly hasnt before.

I agree. Especially when you lose the benefit of staging an actual England camp.

[Phil W]

I'd rather money was thrown at Newcastle v Cornwall. Greggs v Cornish pasties, there's a modern day rivalry that the public are familiar with.

[gingerjon]

9 hours ago, sam4731 said:

NSW vs QLD wasn't always a success. It was marketing that made it.

It was the players prioritising it and the fans - and, crucially, casual fans of the kind who follow England football but no club here - giving a dang. Marketing can only get you so far.

There will not be a single fan who would rather Lancashire won the Roses match with their best player picking up a season-ending injury with the try saving tackle over that player missing the game and captaining their club to the play offs.

This is also the problem for internationals, of course. Marketing doesn't change that. 

[Archie Gordon]

When it comes to mid-season rep games, I confess to being more interested in supporting the likes of Cumbria, South Wales, Occitanie and London than helping Shaun Wane pick a test team later in the year. I think a Pacific Cup/Plate-style event over 3 weekends would be great. It's easy to say nothing other than SL will sell but we need to take steps away from being an M62 brand and the regions without a SL club need to have a point at the top of their pyramid.

[Dovster]

It is sad that this is our best option of a mid season rep game.

[Tommygilf]

9 hours ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Chelsea 

Brighton 

And the internationals they were offering?

[ATLANTISMAN]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

And the internationals they were offering?

England v New Zealand 1st Test 

England v France 

England v France Women

Rainbow tests 

As i said this was the old regime and Chelsea offered the stadium for free (Just security costs) through a friend  of my wife who was CEO at the time.

 

 

[Adelaide Tiger]

1 hour ago, Dovster said:

It is sad that this is our best option of a mid season rep game.

The only other option is England v France.  And some posters on here  complained that this game should be canned as it is one-sided and players pull out.

So what is your best option?

[Dovster]

2 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

The only other option is England v France.  And some posters on here  complained that this game should be canned as it is one-sided and players pull out.

So what is your best option?

This is the best option IMO.

France is failing to produce enough players of quality. Wales has failed. London has failed.

Until the people who run the game in England take "spreading the game" seriously, we will remain a regional sport.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Dovster said:

This is the best option IMO.

France is failing to produce enough players of quality. Wales has failed. London has failed.

Until the people who run the game in England take "spreading the game" seriously, we will remain a regional sport.

The people in England have taken it seriously. They recognised that to grow the game internationally it shouldn't be left to skint governing bodies of other countries to run and they need an international governing body that is funded via world cups and other major tournaments. 

The problem is that the other major RL nation in the world wants to cut corners and do it cheaply and in a way they directly control. 

[Adelaide Tiger]

9 minutes ago, Dovster said:

This is the best option IMO.

France is failing to produce enough players of quality. Wales has failed. London has failed.

Until the people who run the game in England take "spreading the game" seriously, we will remain a regional sport.

I agree with you that a mid season game v France should be the best option but the fixture has not attracted the buy-in from supporters or clubs.

IMHO If a War of the Roses goes ahead it should be: 1.  Elevated and promoted as a contest that is above the standard and ferocity of SL, and 2. Acts as a test trial for a mid season international against France.

Unfortunately, the closed minded club CEO’s will not reduce the fixtures by 2 games to accomodate the above.