Kangaroos Selection - 2024 including Pong-gate

[Farmduck]

4 hours ago, MatthewWoody said:

But there in no attractive team in Europe other than England. And it's not that England attracts Origin or rugby union-like crowds when they play at home. 

Origin started and become a hit not to fight International rl but because Int rl wasn't attractive anymore. 

 

No. It was because interstate RL wasn't attractive anymore, certainly in Sydney. In 1979 and 1980 games in Sydney pulled below 5,000 and were played at Leichhardt. Qld hadn't won a series since 1960 even in years when they played four games with 3 of them in Brisbane. They still got reasonable crowds in Brisbane.

QRL officials invented this fantasy about how NSW was only beating them because the Sydney clubs could afford to buy top Qlders who then became eligible for NSW. Of course this doesn't explain all those games NSW won without any Qlders in the team nor did it mention that in the 1960 Qld series win they had at least 2 NSWers playing for Qld.

NSW's only import in that series was Keith Barnes from Port Talbot. (under today's rules, Keith wouldn't have been eligible for SOO. Even though Wales would be considered a Tier 2 country, Keith was already 15 when he arrived in OZ.) I think there was 1 game in 1979 where 3 Qlders played for NSW - Morris, Reddy and Boustead - but that may have been the only game with 3. 

[MatthewWoody]

3 hours ago, Damien said:

That's just not true.

Australia always won and there were (are, if you don’t use heritage players) few International teams who could compete

[MatthewWoody]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

.  A player playing Origin and then going on to represent England or New Zealand later in the season would surely water down the state vs state rivalry that has been so important to Origin becoming the institution it is now.

I don't think they'd care. 

[John m]

5 hours ago, Dunbar said:

So, joining in properly on the context of the discussion.  It is an interesting question and one that has come about only because Origin has been elevated above international rugby in the SH (no blame there, there is plenty of reasons why).

So players now ask themselves how they can play Origin first and foremost and then make an international decision on the back of that.

So there are three options really.

1.  Keep it as it is, you play Origin and play for Australia or any country other than another tier 1 (England or New Zealand).

2. Open it up completely allow any international player to play Origin if they are otherwise eligible.

3. Close it down to just players who are eligible for and commit to playing for the Kangaroos.  Make it a genuine Kangaroo trial series.

Each of the latter two would have their benefits and risks and would be interesting to see how they would play through over time.

I would be very interested to hear from the Australians on here how option 2 would be received.  A player playing Origin and then going on to represent England or New Zealand later in the season would surely water down the state vs state rivalry that has been so important to Origin becoming the institution it is now.

Judging by the amount of players that currently represent Queensland and NSW whilst also playing for pacific island nations I’d say no to the concept of origin being watered down as it’s as popular today as it’s ever been.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

19 hours ago, MatthewWoody said:

Australia always won and there were (are, if you don’t use heritage players) few International teams who could compete

There's very few state teams that can compete with NSW. I can only think of one...

[stookie]

On 29/09/2024 at 22:07, Dunbar said:

So, joining in properly on the context of the discussion.  It is an interesting question and one that has come about only because Origin has been elevated above international rugby in the SH (no blame there, there is plenty of reasons why).

So players now ask themselves how they can play Origin first and foremost and then make an international decision on the back of that.

So there are three options really.

1.  Keep it as it is, you play Origin and play for Australia or any country other than another tier 1 (England or New Zealand).

2. Open it up completely allow any international player to play Origin if they are otherwise eligible.

3. Close it down to just players who are eligible for and commit to playing for the Kangaroos.  Make it a genuine Kangaroo trial series.

Each of the latter two would have their benefits and risks and would be interesting to see how they would play through over time.

I would be very interested to hear from the Australians on here how option 2 would be received.  A player playing Origin and then going on to represent England or New Zealand later in the season would surely water down the state vs state rivalry that has been so important to Origin becoming the institution it is now.

Honestly, I think you'd find a complete mix if you ran a survey of a big enough group. There doesn't seem to be a single consensus in the discussions I've seen.

Specifically for 2), my guess is that it would be the least supported. Radley is a bit different because from what I remember he chose England on heritage grounds (ie he really is from NSW). I don't remember the age Widdop arrived in Aus, I guess too old to qualify, but I feel you are correct and if he could choose, it would be weird, and the more like it the weaker the passion for origin would get.

(Everyone hated the idea of letting Sam Burgess play though, but I doubt that was ever really seriously considered).

[John m]

Keep it as it is but allow players to play for New Zealand.

[MatthewWoody]

On 30/09/2024 at 13:04, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

There's very few state teams that can compete with NSW. I can only think of one...

But they care. 

People actually showed they don't care very much about the International game. 

[Damien]

On 29/09/2024 at 16:57, MatthewWoody said:

Australia always won and there were (are, if you don’t use heritage players) few International teams who could compete

Your point was the supposed diminishing appeal of international RL resulting in the start of Origin.

International RL got way bigger crowds than the old interstate before Origin started. There was nothing to think that SOO would ever usurp international RL, and if many ducks hadn't aligned in a row it probably wouldn't and would have just had the same outcome. 

The 1979 Ashes got pretty much the same crowds as the first SOO in 1982. The 1984 Ashes got about the same as the 1984 SOO. Even 1988 only has a few thousand difference between the two over the 3 games.

There is zero basis for your argument.

Edited October 1 by Damien

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

3 hours ago, MatthewWoody said:

But they care. 

People actually showed they don't care very much about the International game. 

'People' is a bit of a sweeping generalisation. And if that is indeed the case, why do you think that is? And please don't just trot out the lazy cliche of 'competitiveness'. NZ have beaten Australia in plenty of big games over the years, plus Queensland won 8 consecutive SOO series from 2006 to 2013, so the 'competitiveness' argument just isn't convincing.

Edited October 1 by RugbyLeagueGeek

[MatthewWoody]

On 01/10/2024 at 14:26, Damien said:

Your point was the supposed diminishing appeal of international RL resulting in the start of Origin.

International RL got way bigger crowds than the old interstate before Origin started. There was nothing to think that SOO would ever usurp international RL, and if many ducks hadn't aligned in a row it probably wouldn't and would have just had the same outcome. 

The 1979 Ashes got pretty much the same crowds as the first SOO in 1982. The 1984 Ashes got about the same as the 1984 SOO. Even 1988 only has a few thousand difference between the two over the 3 games.

There is zero basis for your argument.

You're comparing the first years, at the beginning of SOO.

GB winning some series would have helped, you know.

I'll never understand this war against Origin in this forum. 

The whole idea (you're not saying but somehow...) that Australia should renounce/reduce Origin - which is well working as an event, supporters and players love it - to try to generate interest in an International game... I'll never understand. 

I love test rl but Origin, too. 

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

You're comparing the first years, at the beginning of SOO.

GB winning some series would have helped, you know.

I'll never understand this war against Origin in this forum. 

The whole idea (you're not saying but somehow...) that Australia should renounce/reduce Origin - which is well working as an event, supporters and players love it - to try to generate interest in an International game... I'll never understand. 

I love test rl but Origin, too. 

Your argument was why Origin started, not sure what else to compare other than the state of the game then before and what happened in the first decade.

[MatthewWoody]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

Your argument was why Origin started, not sure what else to compare other than the state of the game then before and what happened in the first decade.

So crowds are "the state of the game". And you pick Origin crowds of the very beginning. 

Give me an International scene with more teams (like rugby union, I'm not saying football or volleyball) and Origin maybe doen't even start. Or maybe it does and lives together with the test matches. 

Origin is in Australia, too, so it's easier to play during the season. England is in the other Hemisphere. Nz? Ok, but is there a real rivalry? 

The International game was and is stagnating. Britain winning some series would have helped. 

But I have a thought, in this forum lots of people believe Australia and SOO killed the International game. I simply don’t agree. 

[Dunbar]

On 02/10/2024 at 15:54, MatthewWoody said:

You're comparing the first years, at the beginning of SOO.

GB winning some series would have helped, you know.

I'll never understand this war against Origin in this forum. 

The whole idea (you're not saying but somehow...) that Australia should renounce/reduce Origin - which is well working as an event, supporters and players love it - to try to generate interest in an International game... I'll never understand. 

I love test rl but Origin, too. 

The only issue I have with State of Origin is how it is always talked up by the Australian commentators and media as the pinnacle of the game.  If a player is playing well then he is 'Origin class'.

To a degree this is down to how the international landscape became less competitive from the 80's but it didn't stop when the Kiwis won the World Cup and this year Origin was talked up as the pinnacle of the game despite the Kiwis beatinhg the Kangaroos 30-0 in last year’s Pacific final.

This is (in part) to keep the money spinning machine that is Origin at the top of the game but I think that damages the international game - while at the same time accepting that other countries have to beat the Kangaroos well and consistently to revive the international rivalries.

Edited October 3 by Dunbar

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

So crowds are "the state of the game". And you pick Origin crowds of the very beginning. 

Give me an International scene with more teams (like rugby union, I'm not saying football or volleyball) and Origin maybe doen't even start. Or maybe it does and lives together with the test matches. 

Origin is in Australia, too, so it's easier to play during the season. England is in the other Hemisphere. Nz? Ok, but is there a real rivalry? 

The International game was and is stagnating. Britain winning some series would have helped. 

But I have a thought, in this forum lots of people believe Australia and SOO killed the International game. I simply don’t agree. 

This is just all waffle. Your point was the supposed diminishing appeal of international RL resulting in the start of Origin. I have said why this isn't the case, as have others. If you want to move the goalposts then I'll leave you to it.

The old interstate competition ran from 1908-1978, SOO certainly was no conscious attempt to replace international RL it was just a tweaking of this.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

24 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

The International game was and is stagnating. Britain winning some series would have helped. 

And yet NZ have beaten Australia plenty of times over the years. So why is the international game stagnating?

[MatthewWoody]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

The only issue I have with State of Origin is how it is always talked up by the Australian commentators and media as the pinnacle of the game.  If a player is playing well then he is 'Origin class'.

 

But it is.

If you talk about the livel of the game, players involved, intensity, etc. 

[MatthewWoody]

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

And yet NZ have beaten Australia plenty of times over the years. So why is the international game stagnating?

Because of the Australian conspiracy, maybe. 

[MatthewWoody]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

This is just all waffle. Your point was the supposed diminishing appeal of international RL resulting in the start of Origin. I have said why this isn't the case, as have others. If you want to move the goalposts then I'll leave you to it.

The old interstate competition ran from 1908-1978, SOO certainly was no conscious attempt to replace international RL it was just a tweaking of this.

Would Origin have been as interesting as it is now if we had a proper International game like ru? 

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

Would Origin have been as interesting as it is now if we had a proper International game like ru? 

Yes. It was interesting when we did have a proper international game.

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

But it is.

If you talk about the livel of the game, players involved, intensity, etc. 

I see that you have selectively quoted me there and taken out the part about the international game needing to be consistently more competitive. 

But tell me, how many Origin players were in each side when the Kiwis beat the Kangaroos 30-0 in the last major international final?

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

But it is.

If you talk about the livel of the game, players involved, intensity, etc. 

That's not true though. Again.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

9 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

Because of the Australian conspiracy, maybe. 

So not prepared to sensibly try and answer the question then. Always evidence of a strong supporting argument.

[Anita Bath]

3 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

And yet NZ have beaten Australia plenty of times over the years. So why is the international game stagnating?

2 of the last 10 games and 10 of the 48 games played this millenium have been won by kiwis

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 hour ago, Anita Bath said:

2 of the last 10 games and 10 of the 48 games played this millenium have been won by kiwis

Between 2006 and 2013 Queensland won 8 consecutive SOO series, with an aggregate of 17-7. Did that kill SOO? And given that NZ won the last game between them and Australia 30-0, does that mean that international RL will suddenly be prioritised again with massive crowds? I think not. The level of 'competitiveness' is a lazy argument - there are other factors at play. SOO is the golden goose and held up as the pinnacle of the sport, and the NRL doesn't want to risk anything that will jeopardise or undermine that status.