Damien Posted November 13, 2024 Posted November 13, 2024 10 minutes ago, Dave T said: I agree. I think this is the end gamr as I've said a fair bit here recently The Aussies don't want other nations dictating, taking financial rewards, or forcing them to play more games. 3 matches appears to be their limit, plus a World Cup that probably won't be much more than 3. That would be fine if they weren't also choosing to dictate and limit everyone else too. That is the real issue. If all other countries could play 5 or 6 games a year and the Aussies chose not to then that would be fine. It's not like that though. 1
Dave T Posted November 13, 2024 Posted November 13, 2024 19 minutes ago, Damien said: That would be fine if they weren't also choosing to dictate and limit everyone else too. That is the real issue. If all other countries could play 5 or 6 games a year and the Aussies chose not to then that would be fine. It's not like that though. Yup. They basically have control of all of the strongest RL nations with the exception of England. None of these nations are doing anything without the NRL controlling it. The Kiwis dared to try and do their own thing, partnering with the RFL, and Denver was the final act of insubordination that the Aussies would take. Since then, they have absolutely been pulled back in line. We now see a campaign of negging towards the England game, so much so that the takeover of the English game by the Aussies is on the agenda and would be happy-clapped through by many.  1
Damien Posted November 13, 2024 Posted November 13, 2024 Just now, Dave T said: Yup. They basically have control of all of the strongest RL nations with the exception of England. None of these nations are doing anything without the NRL controlling it. The Kiwis dared to try and do their own thing, partnering with the RFL, and Denver was the final act of insubordination that the Aussies would take. Since then, they have absolutely been pulled back in line. We now see a campaign of negging towards the England game, so much so that the takeover of the English game by the Aussies is on the agenda and would be happy-clapped through by many.  Nope. We even saw it in the aftermath of RLWC2017 when Tonga complained that they weren't allowed to arrange their own matches and had to play in the Pacific tests with NRL branding because the NRL had sold the them as part of their TV deal. Anytime a country has tried to go their own way or be independent they have been reigned in. 2
Just Browny Posted November 13, 2024 Posted November 13, 2024 1 hour ago, The Rocket said: Getting beaten before the first Test would be a disaster. PNG sounds like a better idea, get the combinations working, run up a score and get your confidence up. Agree with your conclusion but for a different reason. We can only wrest our players away for England so many days a year; we should be using as much of that time as possible for 'proper' internationals. 3 I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.
WN83 Posted November 13, 2024 Posted November 13, 2024 55 minutes ago, Dave T said: I agree. I think this is the end gamr as I've said a fair bit here recently The Aussies don't want other nations dictating, taking financial rewards, or forcing them to play more games. 3 matches appears to be their limit, plus a World Cup that probably won't be much more than 3. I watched Shane Flannagan on James Grahams podcast recently and his attitude summed up the challenges we face. It was basically that the NRL should throw England a bone by having an Ashes every couple of years but that there should be a year with no internationals at all, in every 4 year cycle. He said the players want a year where they get to the end of the Grand Final and put their feet up until the back end of November. On the flip side, he was outraged that James Graham suggested one way of getting rep players extra rest was to do away with game 3 in Origin if it was a dead rubber (an idea I don't agree with but amusing all the same that many Aussies would be happy to throw internationals in the bin but not game 3 of an already dead Origin series). The whole plan for internationals currently seems to be to get a calendar in place over the next 4-6 years, which is great but at the same time, ensure there is no scope for increasing the amount of games we play and therefore safeguarding the rest periods NRL players get. International fans will be given just enough to keep them quiet. 3
Damien Posted November 13, 2024 Posted November 13, 2024 1 minute ago, WN83 said: I watched Shane Flannagan on James Grahams podcast recently and his attitude summed up the challenges we face. It was basically that the NRL should throw England a bone by having an Ashes every couple of years but that there should be a year with no internationals at all, in every 4 year cycle. He said the players want a year where they get to the end of the Grand Final and put their feet up until the back end of November. On the flip side, he was outraged that James Graham suggested one way of getting rep players extra rest was to do away with game 3 in Origin if it was a dead rubber (an idea I don't agree with but amusing all the same that many Aussies would be happy to throw internationals in the bin but not game 3 of an already dead Origin series). The whole plan for internationals currently seems to be to get a calendar in place over the next 4-6 years, which is great but at the same time, ensure there is no scope for increasing the amount of games we play and therefore safeguarding the rest periods NRL players get. International fans will be given just enough to keep them quiet. The thing is nothing from the players indicates this is the case. It's just agenda driven. Even if it was I'm certain that for every player that wants to put his feet up there would be a dozen to take his place. 1
Dave T Posted November 13, 2024 Posted November 13, 2024 18 minutes ago, Damien said: The thing is nothing from the players indicates this is the case. It's just agenda driven. Even if it was I'm certain that for every player that wants to put his feet up there would be a dozen to take his place. Yeah. Speaking generally, the players do put their hand up to play.  1
Exiled Wiganer Posted November 13, 2024 Posted November 13, 2024 I took a look at the games the Kangaroos have played over the last 50 years. It was a good read. If we reach a point at which they play 3/4 matches a year and world cups every 4 years (where they have never played fewer than 5 games from what I could deduce), then they will be about par for the course in the modern era. Incidentally, there are more than a few years where they played zero, 1 or 2 games. In addition, we are planning on Tonga, Samoa, Fiji and PNG playing that number of high quality well supported games. All of these nations draw heavily on the NRL. So we end up with historically high numbers of high level games. Where we let ourselves down is in the NH. France and Wales are the answer and have always been the answer and we have never made it a priority to allow them to reach their potential. One of these days that penny will drop. 3
Sports Prophet Posted November 13, 2024 Author Posted November 13, 2024 13 hours ago, Eddie said: Is there any evidence that younger people, or indeed anyone, prefers 9s to actual rugby league? I think there is. The World 7s years ago was huge, especially amongst the younger of us back then. Other shortened formats of sports are popular with the kids ie 20/20, RU 7s, the hundred. They are all created as a razzmatazz product popular among the less purist of us. It’s a tried and tested model deployed similarly again and again. If RL9s isn’t succeeding with that strategy, I would say it’s more about the ability to deliver the product rather than the product itself. Just my opinion though. 2
WN83 Posted November 13, 2024 Posted November 13, 2024 1 hour ago, Damien said: The thing is nothing from the players indicates this is the case. It's just agenda driven. Even if it was I'm certain that for every player that wants to put his feet up there would be a dozen to take his place. I agree. I think the majority of the players want to turn out for their countries whenever possible. You will always get the odd Ponga, Crichton etc but when Flanagan speaks about 'the players' wanting a break, as though it's every single one of them, it is done with no other intention then to make his own club job easier. The international game or the WCC is always the first thing they look to kick in to the long grass when they talk about player welfare. They're fine with letting players play Origin on a Wednesday and then backing up a couple of days later but they can't knock a couple of days off a mandatory rest period for a player to get a World Club Challenge on. It's why I love the thought of a long term International calendar but ultimately feel it's being put in place to just stop people asking or expecting anything more than the bare minimum.  1
Exiled Wiganer Posted November 13, 2024 Posted November 13, 2024 I have spent a few minutes looking into the history of Tonga and Samoa’s international sides. They have come a long long way. If anyone wants to take a cup half full approach other than me, then the combined effect of each of 7 South Pacific teams having at least 3 high level games in front of historically massive crowds outweighs sadness about losing mid season Kangsroo internationals.  I could well see NZRL, Tonga and Samoa  wanting to play mid season. Give the people what they want and boost their own coffers. 2
Dave T Posted November 13, 2024 Posted November 13, 2024 14 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said: I have spent a few minutes looking into the history of Tonga and Samoa’s international sides. They have come a long long way. If anyone wants to take a cup half full approach other than me, then the combined effect of each of 7 South Pacific teams having at least 3 high level games in front of historically massive crowds outweighs sadness about losing mid season Kangsroo internationals.  I could well see NZRL, Tonga and Samoa  wanting to play mid season. Give the people what they want and boost their own coffers. It doesn't need to be either/or. We can have the Kangaroos committing to 5-7 tests a year as they have for large parts of this century and still have huge tests involving Tonga. You seem to have been taken in by the Aussie mindset. And 3 of those 7 Pacific teams didn't play three tests this year. 2
Exiled Wiganer Posted November 13, 2024 Posted November 13, 2024 51 minutes ago, Dave T said: It doesn't need to be either/or. We can have the Kangaroos committing to 5-7 tests a year as they have for large parts of this century and still have huge tests involving Tonga. You seem to have been taken in by the Aussie mindset. And 3 of those 7 Pacific teams didn't play three tests this year. When have they committed to that? I can’t see it, aside from World Cups, once they ditched the long tours. I can honestly say that we are in complete agreement that we want to see more Kangaroo matches. I am disappointed that you appear to think that my argument is based on delusion, and think that shows an uncharacteristic disdain.Â
Sports Prophet Posted November 13, 2024 Author Posted November 13, 2024 1 hour ago, Exiled Wiganer said: I have spent a few minutes looking into the history of Tonga and Samoa’s international sides. They have come a long long way. If anyone wants to take a cup half full approach other than me, then the combined effect of each of 7 South Pacific teams having at least 3 high level games in front of historically massive crowds outweighs sadness about losing mid season Kangsroo internationals.  I could well see NZRL, Tonga and Samoa  wanting to play mid season. Give the people what they want and boost their own coffers. Not sure what any of that has to do with the Ashes in 2028?
Dave T Posted November 13, 2024 Posted November 13, 2024 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said: When have they committed to that? I can’t see it, aside from World Cups, once they ditched the long tours. I can honestly say that we are in complete agreement that we want to see more Kangaroo matches. I am disappointed that you appear to think that my argument is based on delusion, and think that shows an uncharacteristic disdain. If we look at 2001 to 2017, they played a minimum of 5 Test matches on 13 occasions. The years where they didn't was when they had their 'rest' years and only played one or two games. If we exclude World Cup's - they played 5+ games in 10 out of 14 years. in 2016 they played 6 matches, I think people have genuinely forgotten how much progress had been made with the development of regular Tri/Four nations and World Cups. Kangaroos games by year (*denotes WC year): 2017 7 * 2016 6  2015 1  2014 5  2013 7 * 2012 2  2011 6  2010 5  2009 5  2008 6 * 2007 2  2006 6  2005 7  2004 8  2003 8  2002 2  2001 5  Edited November 13, 2024 by Dave T 3 2
Welshleaguelover Posted November 14, 2024 Posted November 14, 2024 On 13/11/2024 at 08:51, The Rocket said: Getting beaten before the first Test would be a disaster. PNG sounds like a better idea, get the combinations working, run up a score and get your confidence up. It's better preparation than blowing PNG away and it also builds hype if they win. GB have lost club games before and gone on to win the odd test over there.
Jonty58 Posted November 15, 2024 Posted November 15, 2024 13 hours ago, Welshleaguelover said: It's better preparation than blowing PNG away and it also builds hype if they win. GB have lost club games before and gone on to win the odd test over there. Not the last GB tour from memory. 2
Father Gascoigne Posted November 15, 2024 Posted November 15, 2024 On 13/11/2024 at 22:28, Sports Prophet said: I think there is. The World 7s years ago was huge, especially amongst the younger of us back then. Other shortened formats of sports are popular with the kids ie 20/20, RU 7s, the hundred. They are all created as a razzmatazz product popular among the less purist of us. It’s a tried and tested model deployed similarly again and again. If RL9s isn’t succeeding with that strategy, I would say it’s more about the ability to deliver the product rather than the product itself. Just my opinion though. Cricket's T20 format should be removed from such discussions, as it is unlike any other example that could be cited. It is as popular with adults as it is with kids because, unlike Test cricket, it airs and finishes in a reasonable amount of time in the space of one evening. This has never been a problem with any other sport that has introduced a shorter format. While other sports attempt to quicken up the spectacle in a shorter format, T20 cricket is a reversion to a mean in what we consider a normal sporting event. When people point out how shorter formats can increase interest, what they're really referring to it cricket, which is misleading based on what I said above. Other sports with shorter formats have seen significantly less--if any--return for their buck, and none have come even close to usurping the popularity of the traditional format. 5
Damien Posted November 15, 2024 Posted November 15, 2024 On 13/11/2024 at 16:16, Dave T said: If we look at 2001 to 2017, they played a minimum of 5 Test matches on 13 occasions. The years where they didn't was when they had their 'rest' years and only played one or two games. If we exclude World Cup's - they played 5+ games in 10 out of 14 years. in 2016 they played 6 matches, I think people have genuinely forgotten how much progress had been made with the development of regular Tri/Four nations and World Cups. Kangaroos games by year (*denotes WC year): 2017 7 * 2016 6  2015 1  2014 5  2013 7 * 2012 2  2011 6  2010 5  2009 5  2008 6 * 2007 2  2006 6  2005 7  2004 8  2003 8  2002 2  2001 5  Stuff like this is just the uncomfortable truth to those that just believe and repeat everything the NRL tells them. 1
sam4731 Posted November 15, 2024 Posted November 15, 2024 14 hours ago, Father Gascoigne said: Cricket's T20 format should be removed from such discussions, as it is unlike any other example that could be cited. It is as popular with adults as it is with kids because, unlike Test cricket, it airs and finishes in a reasonable amount of time in the space of one evening. This has never been a problem with any other sport that has introduced a shorter format. While other sports attempt to quicken up the spectacle in a shorter format, T20 cricket is a reversion to a mean in what we consider a normal sporting event. When people point out how shorter formats can increase interest, what they're really referring to it cricket, which is misleading based on what I said above. Other sports with shorter formats have seen significantly less--if any--return for their buck, and none have come even close to usurping the popularity of the traditional format. Even 7s is considered a completely separate game from the 15 man code now. 1
Bedfordshire Bronco Posted November 16, 2024 Posted November 16, 2024 On 15/11/2024 at 07:18, Father Gascoigne said: Cricket's T20 format should be removed from such discussions, as it is unlike any other example that could be cited. It is as popular with adults as it is with kids because, unlike Test cricket, it airs and finishes in a reasonable amount of time in the space of one evening. This has never been a problem with any other sport that has introduced a shorter format. While other sports attempt to quicken up the spectacle in a shorter format, T20 cricket is a reversion to a mean in what we consider a normal sporting event. When people point out how shorter formats can increase interest, what they're really referring to it cricket, which is misleading based on what I said above. Other sports with shorter formats have seen significantly less--if any--return for their buck, and none have come even close to usurping the popularity of the traditional format. I agree with this however.... With 9s tournaments isnt it more about shortening the event/league to a weekend or so rather shortening the length of individual games?
UTK Posted November 17, 2024 Posted November 17, 2024 Until England gets a win over Australia there is very little utility in Australia hosting an Ashes series. England/GB have not been a drawcard in Australia for many years while Tonga/Samoa are now opponents with much greater support/interest in Oceania at an equal level of competition. In a limited International calendar the choice for Australia to host an Ashes series effectively postpones Kangaroos matches against NZ/Tonga/Samoa and limits England/GB building consistency in matches against those same nations. England coming to Oceania should be as part of a tour to match up against as many nations as possible, not for three moderate-to-poorly supported Tests against the Kangaroos. The same logic is not attributable to an Ashes series in England which would likely be well-supported, give England a competitive advantage and is necessary to give England meaningful home fixtures against top-tier opposition. For this reason the decision to swap hemispheres for the 2025 Ashes is very fortunate as I suspect such a series played in Australia would have killed the possibility of future Ashes altogether. Â 4
MatthewWoody Posted November 17, 2024 Posted November 17, 2024 Yes only by beating them next year England can make the Ashes become rilevant to the Australian public. Let's hope. 1 Toronto Wolfpack Global Ambassador
Worzel Posted November 17, 2024 Posted November 17, 2024 On 12/11/2024 at 22:44, Hopie said: NRL Aussies only want 3 internationals a year, and no extension to the season, doubt they'd wait the 2 extra weeks for the start of the Ashes or let the English NRL players play 5 tests. We can control this by ending the SL season two or three weeks early and playing our additional matches before the Aussies are ready for the first TestÂ
Damien Posted November 17, 2024 Posted November 17, 2024 7 hours ago, UTK said: Until England gets a win over Australia there is very little utility in Australia hosting an Ashes series. England/GB have not been a drawcard in Australia for many years while Tonga/Samoa are now opponents with much greater support/interest in Oceania at an equal level of competition. In a limited International calendar the choice for Australia to host an Ashes series effectively postpones Kangaroos matches against NZ/Tonga/Samoa and limits England/GB building consistency in matches against those same nations. England coming to Oceania should be as part of a tour to match up against as many nations as possible, not for three moderate-to-poorly supported Tests against the Kangaroos. The same logic is not attributable to an Ashes series in England which would likely be well-supported, give England a competitive advantage and is necessary to give England meaningful home fixtures against top-tier opposition. For this reason the decision to swap hemispheres for the 2025 Ashes is very fortunate as I suspect such a series played in Australia would have killed the possibility of future Ashes altogether. The last 2 games GB played in Australia were back in 2006 and got 44,358 and 24,953. The only 3 games England played in Australia in the last decade got 40,033, 22,724 and 20,585. You can't make out GB/England aren't a drawcard yet PI nations are when attendances are no worse.  2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now