By Spiro Zavos
May 6th 2008 @ 12:01am
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates..
---------------
Why the Kiwis rarely beat the Kangaroos
Roy and H.G.Nelson, despite their joking, are well-informed about sport.
It was on one of their State of Origin broadcasts that they made the observation that the history of rugby league and its popularity can be understood by following the coal seams in England, Australia and New Zealand.
One of the reasons why the Kiwis rarely beat the Kangaroos - why NZ rugby league has never reached the eminence of NZ rugby union - is because it has only a couple of coal-mining regions, and the coal virtually ran out in these regions or became uneconomic to mine decades ago.
Up to the 1930s, the West Coast of New Zealand had a large coal-mining industry. Some of New Zealand’s greatest league players were West Coasters. There was coal-mining in the Huntly region, too, near Auckland, another former stronghold of rugby league.
There was no coal-mining in Auckland. But there were tough wharf communities that favoured rugby league over rugby. Carlaw Park, the famed home of NZ rugby league, was on the Auckland waterfront.
In Auckland, too, there were working class suburbs where rugby league was strong, a bit like the western suburbs of Sydney.
Up to the First World War, Auckland became a rugby league stronghold and the game was gaining strength in other parts of NZ. But during the War rugby union was made a compulsory sport for the armed services. Enthusiasm for rugby league was thwarted, although the game remained popular in Auckland.
In Auckland only, the ‘Australian dispensation,’ no kicking out from inside the 22, was played to provide a more entertaining brand of rugby.
After the War a ‘pardon’ was granted to league players and former union players who had turned (’converted’ in the league vernacular) to league to allow them to come across to rugby. But after this pardon, any rugby player who converted to league was ostracised by the NZRU.
Two great All Blacks, Bert Cooke and Goerge Nepia, rugby’s first global superstar, did convert. Nepia was allowed back into the rugby community during the Second World War. Several potential league stars, including Bob Scott, were allowed to play rugby also during this period, too.
But aside from Auckland, the home town of Scott and Cooke, rugby league never gained much of a foothold on the other main cities, especially the capital, Wellington. The code hardly penetrated into the country areas when NZ, up to the 1950s, was essentially a country of small, rural towns with one biggish city Auckland.
It was probably the death of an intense and efficient Wellington entrepreneur, Albert Henry Baskerville (or Baskiville) that was one of the decisive incidents in the growth (or lack of growth) of rugby league in NZ. Baskerville worked in the Wellington Post Office.
A colleague, ‘Old Harry’, fell to the floor in a coughing seizure. A newspaper he was reading also dropped to the floor. Baskerville caught sight of an article that related that 40,000 people had paid more than 1,000 pounds to see a game of Northern Union (rugby league) at Bradford. Baskerville immediately began recruiting players for a privately financed overseas tour.
The sports ethic of amateurism that dominated the culture of sportsmen in England at the time did not apply in New Zealand and Australia. Here professional contests in all sorts of sports, from rowing, boxing, walking and cycling was an acceptable practice.
The 1905 All Blacks had just returned from a triumphant tour of the UK where they played in front of 50,000 spectators at White City against England. Many of these players realised their financial value on the rugby field. Baskerville had no problem recruiting them for a professional league team (nicknamed ‘The All Golds’); organising some matches in Australia; recruiting Dally Messenger to join the side; and completing a tour of the UK and Australia in 1908 that was more successful for the northern league clubs and the Australian league entrepreneurs than it was for the tourists.
But then tragedy struck.
Baskerville, aged only 25, contracted pneumonia and died in Brisbane on the Australian leg of the epic tour. Ironically, the first rugby league match played in New Zealand was a benefit match for his mother which was played at Athletic Park (the then home of Wellington rugby) on 13 June 1908 in front of 10,000 spectators.
Sean Fagan, in his online history of Australian rugby league, notes that NZ and Australia were regular opponents between 1908 and 1911. But from 1911 to 1948 NZ was denied test matches in Australia (a bit like the test cricket experience between the two countries).
The Kangaroos, for their part, made only three ’sporadic’ visits to NZ during this period, unlike the many visits between NZ and Australia of the Wallabies and the All Blacks.
Most New Zealanders, especially those who lived outside of the rugby league regions, had little knowledge or understanding of the rugby league game. My experience is typical. My convent primary school had about 50 pupils from the primers to standard six. Yet we fielded a rugby team, often playing 12 or 13 players. At my secondary school, St Patrick’s College Silverstream, a school rather like Joeys with its 3Rs - religion, reading and rugby - every boy had to play rugby.
The only exposure I had to rugby league was through my primary school rugby coach, an elegant fullback called Joe Phillips who was a star for the Wellington provincial rugby union side. Good though Phillips was, he could not displace the great Bob Scott from the All Blacks or, when Scott retired, the fine running fullback from Auckland, Jack Kelly.
Phillips accepted a contract to play rugby league for Bradford Northern. Before he went by boat to the UK he practised his punting with us on the top field with a rugby league ball that was more pointy and slimmer than the rugby union ball.
The first rugby league match I ever saw was Wellington against a touring British side played at the cricket and soccer venue of the Basin Reserve. England were far too good for the locals.
I admired the brilliant play of a five-eighths, a red haired player called Williams who carved up the Wellington defenders using the double-round tactic to great effect.
I went back as a lay teacher to my old school. I was given a C side to coach. Among the boys was a chunky lad who the priests coaching the A and B sides had overlooked.
‘What’s you name, boy? And what’s your position?’
‘Joe Karam, Sir,’ he replied, ‘and I’m a five-eighth.’ His uncle Bernie Karam was a sound fullback for the Wellington provincial side. ‘All Karams play fullback,’ I rather pompously told young Joe.
A few years later he was, while still a teenager, the All Blacks fullback. And several years later he was the first of his generation of New Zealand players to convert to rugby union.
Joe Karam was later followed by his good friend Matthew Ridge. Then John Kirwan, an iconic winger with a league pedigree in his family converted. John Gallagher and Mark Ellis (who scored six tries in a RWC match against Japan) also went across to league.
The advent of professional rugby stopped the flow to league and former leaguies like Tana Umaga found fame and fortune as rugby union players.
So we have a crucial difference between the rugby league community of players in Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, there is a critical mass of players in the heavily populated areas. Rugby league tends to get the pick of these players, especially in the western suburbs and throughout Queensland.
The opposite situation applies in New Zealand. So when the Kiwis play the Kangaroos its a contest between second best and the best.
Between 1948 and 1951 the Kiwis won all the test series they played in.
In 1952 they were beaten by the Kangaroos 13 - 25 at the SCG in front of a crowd of 60,331 spectators. The defeats have tended to get larger and the crowds smaller. A typical result was the first test in 1978 at the SCG won by the Kangaroos 24 - 2 in front of only 16,577 spectators.
It’s fair to say that when the Kiwis play the Kangaroos, they find the burden of history almost as hard to defeat as the Australian side itself.
Complete our reader survey
Help shape the future of The Roar by completing our quick survey.
** Going to watch the Centenary Test at the SCG this Friday night? Why not have a beer at the Olympic Hotel opposite Aussie Stadium before and after the game? **
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(43)
sledgeross said | May 6th 2008 @ 8:38am | Report comment
Fantastic article Spiro, as per usual. The genesis of the game is often forgotten, especially in NZ, which has produced so many fine players. I was the opposite I suppose, which illustrates your point somewhat. I went to a Catholic high school in Sydneys south west that was very much a league school (surprising, I know!). The blokes who couldnt make the COmmonwealth Bank Cup team ended up having a run playing Rugby, though we always got flogged due to our lack of technique.
The coal analogy is especially pertinent, especially when you see the quality of players the Hunter and Illawarra regions have produced. I also was lucky enough to live in Yorkshire a few years ago, where rugby league is still dominant. But you can travel and hour south of Sheffield and noone will know anything about the game.
Great work.
sheek said | May 6th 2008 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Good stuff, Spiro! I would be surprised if Sean Fagan found much to disagree with here!!! Mind you, I enjoy reading both of you.
What fascinates me, & I would be interested in your thoughts, is that I’ve never read a satisfactory account of why rugby league has struggled to break out of enclaves - north of England, eastern Australia, south of France, central north New Zealand - despite being around for over 100 years.
It’s said that rugby league is the working man’s game, yet the working classes exist all over England & the rest of Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand & elsewhere. Yet the game struggles to break out of its bunkers, so to speak.
To say rugby league is trite is a stupid response. RL can be a great game to watch at times (SOO for example) just as surely as RU can be a boring game to watch a lot of the time. I’m like a junkie who keeps hoping for my next high in RU, except that it doesn’t come along as regularly as I would like!
Sledgeross mentions the connection between RL & catholicism, yet here’s another poser, & especially the Marist Brothers & Christian Brothers who encouraged their schools to turn over to RL. Yet powerful RU catholic schools like St.Josephs & Waverley College (Sydney), St. Edmunds (Canberra), St.Patricks (Goulburn - now defunct) & Nudgee College & Ashgrove College (Brisbane) remained true to RU, & did not convert to RL.
My alma mater - Waverley College - flirted with RL in the 1920s & 30s before returning to RU. I haven’t read or know anyone who can tell me the history. I know the school played RL, but why did they return to RU? Joining the C.A.S. in the late 30s/early 40s might have been one answer.
One suggestion is that Aub Hennessy, the man who brought the tradition of the running game to South Sydney (& also Waverley), coached the Waverley 1sts for many years, & believed they could learn rugby fundamentals better playing union than league (that is, passing, tackling, positioning, etc). That’s a twist on accepted modern wisdom!
The connection with RL can be found in the Waverley 1st XV’s royal blue jumper, which has two gold Vs down the front & back. This is a very RL style icon.
The mention of critical mass is pertinent. In Australia, RL generally gets first pick of the best rugby talent, & in NZ the reverse applies, with RU generally getting the first pick of best rugby talent. In fact, in NZ, all other sorts suffer because of the pull of the All Blacks.
I do think Spiro, that the day of reckoning for the rugby codes is coming. Rationalisation will see RU overwhelm RL’s resources worldwide. Globally, it won’t be such a problem, but in Australia, it will be a massive wrench. And no, this is not RL bashing. This is an honest assessment.
So in 2020, in Australia, we might eventually get our RU national domestic comp. Most of the teams will have names like Broncos, Cowboys, Storm, Sea Eagles, Roosters & Rabbitohs, with the odd Brumbies, Force, etc, thrown in.
RayCee said | May 6th 2008 @ 10:29am | Report comment
Critical points in RL history for the Southern Hemisphere: 1) Henry Baskerville organising the 1907 tour. 2) The Syndey RU clubs switching en masse to RL in 1908. 3) Henry Baskerville’s untimely death hurt NZ RL’s potential growth in NZ. 4) RL’s being a working class game and working class people have little influence in this world. Many ex RU people end up with influential jobs and they have used that to stymie RL everwhere. In NSW/Qld, Auckland and some North English towns, RL had established too much popularity among the common people and so only flourished in those places. Virtually everwhere else, it was killed off if it tried to succeed. 5) Never establishing a powerful international body to give inpetus to the spreading of the game. Look what FIFA, ICC, IRB, IOC etc have done. Everthing revolves around professional clubs and the two countries that they reside. Self interest has ruled and the game hasn’t spread far.
I feel that there is a mood to give international RL more emphasis. I don’t see RU overwhelming RL anytime soon. In fact. if RL actually gets it’s act together and tries to push the game to new countries, I would say watch out RU. Let’s face it, RL has the more more exciting product. It will appeal more to the uninitiated than RU ever will. The big question is does RL has the will to expand, or will the status quo prevail of just looking after Australia/UK?
Spiro Zavos said | May 6th 2008 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Sheek, a problem with trying to answer some of the questions you raise is that the answers are often put into the category of ‘league-bashing.’ My attittude to the historical issues raised by the development of the rugby and football codes was shaped by the wise teaching of my history professor Freddie Woods, at Victoria University of Wellington. Professor Woods father was also a distinguished historian, holding the position as the Challis Professor of History at Sydney Univeristy. Anyway, Freddie Woods always taught us that history was a continuing discussion and debate. That the interpretation of the past could and should change depending on what is happening at the time of thinking about the past. Interpretation is a moveable feast: facts, though, are sacred.
So here goes on why RL has not broken out of the parochial mode. I put it down to the success of the Yorkshire-Lancashire Northern League following the break-away from the London-based rugby union code. The mining villages in the north of England, a bit like the mining villages in Wales (that remained with rugby union) were intense, parochial communities where generations lived out their lives without moving away very far, even for holidays.
So, in my opinion, a culture identifying the north of England as rugby league country, and the rest of England and the UK as not rugby league country, was created. Read the novel This Sporting Life by David Storey, the best sports novel ever in my opinion, and you will see how the northern way of life and rugby league became a sort of perfect fit for each other. The club championships and tournaments, all played between local teams, also built up a tradition and passion with a special north of England flavour and fervour, that helped to root the rugby league game deeply in the consciousness and geography of the north of England.
In Australia the rugby league game was very much rooted in an intense Sydney club competition. There were tours from England and NZ sides but these were not overly frequent. The game was focussed on a club competition that expanded in teams as Sydney expanded. In Queensland the same sort of pattern evolved.
The rugby union culture, on the other hand, was far more global and less parochial. Dr Arnold used to insist on going to Europe as soon as term finished at Rugby School. The rugby culture was very much influenced by his notions of ‘muscular Christianity’ that the boys were encouraged to take to the outer world wherever they travelled. The rugby game was amateur and in the UK did not have competitions until the last 50 years or so. So clubs organised fixture lists that took them to places they wanted to go to. Also there were famous tours like the Barbarians Easter tour, that still flourishes. Other similar ad hoc clubs made tours to exotic places like South America and so on. The rugby players weren’t tied to their local regions by a permanent annual local tournaments, as the rugby league teams and players were.
I would make the point that this the way I see the historical evolution of the two codes. There is no judgment of better or worse in this. But it always strikes me when I read back in the old newspapers files about sport before say in the 1900s how willing the rugby teams were to go on tours. NZ club sides, like the famous club side Ponsonby made tours to Australia. NSW made a famous tour of NZ in 1882, and many since, of course. Has a NSW rugby league representative side ever toured NZ? The famous Maori school Te Aute made a tour of NSW in 1904 getting huge media coverage and, after defeating Joeys by playing a flowing, skilful and expansive game, helped to create - and this my opinion - the quick, clever Joeys game that is so distinctive and so successful.
I’d be happy to read other comments on the validity or otherwise of my views on this intriquing question.
Redb said | May 6th 2008 @ 11:20am | Report comment
Sheek,
I’m interested to know why you think RL will be a victim of RU’s much stronger international position. As it stands RL in Aust does not rely on an international competition for its survival like the AFL. I can see the potential for RL in NZ or Nth England to die off (perhaps), but I seriously doubt union’s dominance in those weaker RL countries would see RL implode in OZ.
What mechanism would exist in world sport for this to occur, at what World body level for example?
I see RL staying the dominant code in OZ over RU. World alignment or not, RL’s strength and weakness it is strong eastern State position in OZ. Union is comparitively weaker in Australia and is under threat in the medium to long term due to RL’s dominance.
My suspicion is that Australia by 2020 will still have 2 strong domestic winter competitions: AFL & NRL. One summer/aumtumn comp at reasonable strength in the A League and a still marginal comp in S14 but with RU supported by strong international programs. RU needs RL to weaken in Australia for it to compete and for the code to thrive in Australia again. Tthus I’m wondering if your comments are more wishful thinking. I say this as a much bigger fan of union than league, albeit less informed as a primary AFL fan.
cheers
Redb
sledgeross said | May 6th 2008 @ 11:22am | Report comment
I think the social ethos of the societies RL is popular in has alot to do with it too. Aussies and Kiwis and are proud to be unique, something which has been forged as a result of our isolation. Both countries like the underdog, which is why the “battlers” liked League (why not get paid for playing). Both are fiercely independent when it comes to sports. Likewise, the Tykes of Yorkshire (and the other Red Rose county who shall not be named!) are of similar disposition. Fierce, parochial and wary of outsiders until they prove themselves.
Crosscoder said | May 6th 2008 @ 11:49am | Report comment
Good article by the way Spiro.
Responding to Sheek the long held blinkered view that rugby league is finding it difficult to break out of its current strongholds ,is hit on the head with the growth of the game ;booming in London(not too many mines) ,the Midlands and the South,Wales in particular(ok the coal analogy could be thrown in ),Scotland and Ireland, and the regrowth of the game in France(thanks to Les Catalans in the ESL.I don’t want to bring up the French sporting history up again ,suffice to say : shamateurism in the FRU and Vichy/ru destruction of rl in the war years,stymied rugby league’s growth in France added to bad mgt. well into the 20th century.
Rugby league is played in the vast majority of tertiary institutions in the UK(Cambridge and Oxford uni involved in an annual event),which is becoming extremely popular,further eroding the “working class” basis.I am sure the owners or part owners of the Broncos,Warriors,Manly and the ESL clubs and including the Welsh rl team the Celtic Crusaders,hardly popped up from the coal mines.The ESL is expanding to another 2 at least teams for 2009,with a Welsh and another French side(Toulouse with private backing) in the running.
Ignore if you wish the fact rugby league is enjoying growing popularity in the Pacific Islands,and simply assume that because rugby union has the cash it will engulf rugby league.If a Super league war couldn’t do it ,rugby union which is struggling for popularity in Australia (S14) and crowds and TV ratings for S14 are on the slide in Nz,suggest there is a long way to go.Not that the NRL can brag of crowds of late.
Anycase as one brought up on Assoc. school rugby union and losing frequently to Waverly LOL (and enjoy the All Blacks at work and play),it is presumptious of anyone to suggest rugby league supporters will switch to a merged code.Rugby union has a dream run with one only rugby code permitted in the GPS and Associated schools.Should that be further watered down with soccer,AFL or horror of horrors rugby league,the base would be further eroded.
Money of course talks,however if anyone bothers to check where a great deal of money is sourced ,it’s from pay TV both here and the UK.Rugby league is the main driver of subs in Oz,and its ratings in the ESL have consistently beaten the club rugby union competition.Gillette a major intnl brand is financially backing the growth of rugby league from juniors to seniors throughout the UK.
The $45m the ARU had in its kitty after the 2003WC,now down to less than half,did not bring rugby league supporters en masse to that code(despite watching the event).If anything it emboldened the AFL and rugby league to push ahead with junior development and expansion.The number of juniors playing rugby league in West Australia now is greater than at the time of the Western Reds.A 33% increase this year alone with no current NRL side.
You see it is more than just cash,it is passionate volunteers,it is the dreadful word ,product,it is exposure via TV,getting the game into schools.With the demise of the coal mining industry to a degree,due to economics and or global warming,junior rl numbers are on the upswing also in NZ.Don’t know what that means,maybe they like what they see on Sky.
Should France finally get its act together(and it is stirring with some decent players on the horizon) on the rl intnl scene,throw in a competitive England and NZ ,the chances of a merged code ,would have to be thrown back to the next ice age.If there is to be any rationalisation due to economics in rugby league,it IMO be a reduction in the number of teams in Sydney, by expansion to Perth and teams at Gosford/Brisbane or even Wellington(which a Belgian billionaire wanted to back).
There will be those who want a merged code,rest assured there are many on both sides of the rugby equation who don’t.
Merging will disenfranchise many,I could not bring myself to see a hybrid game,having played both codes.
Crosscoder said | May 6th 2008 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
RedB
Quite the contrary ,rugby league in the north of England has less chance of dying off than rl has in Sydney and Brisbane.It is firmly entrenched,the crowds at places such as Leeds and Hull St Helens are not only growing substantially but are the most passionate football supporters I have seen.I attended a Challenge Cup final involving Widnes and Wigan many years ago at Wembley with over 80,000 in attendance,so I have experienced the passion and knowledge of the game.They would not contemplate a merger with ru.
As I stated to sheek,if a 2003WC of ru and a Super league war couldn’t kill off rugby league (thus reducing it to a lesser code),then the assumption that throwing a lot of cash around will do it, is dreamland.Ask John O’Neill(ARU) and the resilience of rugby league,when you think its down it pops back up again.His words not mine.
i did not fully understand the passion of rugby league people to their clubs(despite crowds at times leaving a bit to be desired),until I became a fan of rugby league(thank you St George),after a decade playing and watching rugby union.
sheek said | May 6th 2008 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Redb,
And I’ll include crosscoder here,
I was thinking along the lines of a media corporation like Newscorp (Fox - Rupert Murdoch), which injects enormous amounts of funds into both rugby union & rugby league, in both the northern hemisphere & southern hemisphere.
Now if they decided that they had reached a point whereby it was no longer profitable to them to support two rugby codes, & one must whither on the vine, & they decided to inject all their funds into rugby union, this would have a catastrophic effect on rugby league. Ditto if they went the other way.
I should point out that back in 1995-96, Newscorp were not at all frightened to sign the death warrant of rugby union, & take over its assets, especially players, when they set out to kick-start superleague.
Somehow, rugby union survived, renouncing amateurism helped, & being the opportunistic business corporation it was, Newscorp, on realising it couldn’t kill off RU, decided to split it finances between the two codes.
Of course, in the scenario of the previous post I painted, RL might not be killed off either. I’m not saying it will happen, but could happen. And I’m not death-riding RL, but I see a lot of sports today under the pump, & the ability of corporations to sponsor, so it seems to me, we’re heading into an era of pontentially brutal rationalisation. And how that will pan out eventually remains conjecture.
Also crosscoder, I’m not talking about a hybrid game. Like you, I think a hybrid game will satisfy nobody. I’m talking about what is known in business circles as a “hostile takeover”, where one sport takes over another sports resources, identity, everything.
sheek said | May 6th 2008 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Spiro,
Thanks for that. I’m going to look up the David Storey book.
Redb said | May 6th 2008 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Sheek,
Thanks for that.
I wonder if News Corp decided to pick a winner whether this would simply give an opposition media organisation the opportuntity to come in and sweep up the other code. Does News Ltd/Fox risk losing out by declaring a winner in one market over another. Wouldn’t be the first time Execs paid attention to one market, made some assumptions and opened the door for their competitor in a market they did not understand.
Like you said it is open to conjecture.
cheers
Redb
JohnB said | May 6th 2008 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
I always understood that rugby union closing down in Australia during WW1 was a significant contributor to the growth in popularity of RL (creating a point of difference from NZ and Sth Africa, and also the UK). When it comes to why the Northern Leagues and not Wales, I also understood that this was at least because the WRU (unlike the RU in England) was more prepared to overlook under the table payments/benefits since it was not trying to keep the game as a middle class preserve. In the absence of financial advantages to a mass switch by working class players and spectators (meaning that any entrepreneur wanting to bankroll a switch would have had to spend a lot more, in a pretty impoverished area, to get the switch off the ground), it didn’t happen.
To the present day - the concept of a hybrid game is a tricky one. There is already a lot of common ground and it seems to me the games have got more similar in the past few years. Trouble is, you’re now getting to the point where the remaining differences are pretty fundamental - they boil down to the fact that in one game the restarts are contested, in the other they’re not. That is a black and white situation that doesn’t permit compromise. If a hybrid game opts for (say) no lineouts but retaining rucks and mauls, that is vastly closer to union than league. On the other hand, anything that dispenses with rucks and mauls (regardless of any other changes made) is essentially league. So what hybrid do you come up with that isn’t a takeover by one code of the other? Consequently, there will either be 2 continuing games, or something that is substantially one of the existing games will continue. You won’t get some new creation (and therefore it’s hard to see you getting an amicable combination).
Towser said | May 6th 2008 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
Spiro
Coming from Sheffield thus Yorkshire the following of RL explains a lot about the parochialism of not only the small mining towns but parochialism in older countries in general. As this parochialism produced seperate dialects & accents so it produced sports such as Rugby League. The game as you say suits the type of mining communities that exist in Yorkshire & to a lesser degree Lancashire(small towns but not necessarily mining towns). Once these people migrated from the villages to large growing industrial towns their rural nature changed to one where a different type of industrial human evolved. Thus in Sheffield Rugby League was non existent when I was growing up in the sporting culture of the city football being the chosen sport. Why you may ask when the same people up the road playing RL were the same people who had migrated to Sheffield because of the growing steel industry. My own belief is that industrial cities particularly of the time they were developing ,bred a particular toughness born of the industrial conditions that prevailed of which low wages & slum conditions were paramount. The kid looked up to the most was the scrapper in the school yard who grew up to be the hard man street fighter at the back of any one of Sheffields 900 pubs. Therefore toughness in sport was not a requisite it was there in the living & working conditions and recreational activities. So footballers at professional level were admired for their sublime ball skills not their toughness on the field even though many were tough from tough backgrounds(For Sheffield read Liverpool Newcastle etc). This strikes me as the opposite of the way RL is regarded by its followers. Funnily enough if you played football in the local works leagues the lack of ball skills meant that the type of game played in Sheffield was robust & physical & bad injuries often occurred.
So going back to your topic Spiro its my belief that RL can only be transferred to other similar areas as that of the small towns in the North of England,which concurs with your article. Thus if a country is competing against another country in RL only a certain percentage of that country will ever be participating and if that certain percentage is stronger now(Australia) than the percentage in another country(NZ) it will always be stronger. Because RL requires certain conditions unlike football to grow and the time of those conditions has now passed.
Redb said | May 6th 2008 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
Twoser,
Certainly dyed in the wool folk from that territory. I remember going to the RL test between Aust and GB Lions in 1992 at Princes park in melb. Came back to a hotel in they city and had a beer with these blokes, all saved for a year and took their only holidays to tour with the Lions to Australia. they won that night and geez they did they sing about it.
Next morning it was onto the bus and off to the next destination. From memory there was about 7,000 that made the trip. Their whole lives devoted to following RL.
Redb
Towser said | May 6th 2008 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
Redb
Every year when I was a lad the Rugby league Challenge cup final preceeded on a Saturday afternoon(or followed memory fading) the FA cup final by a week. We watched every year and I remember thinking at the time as there were no RL supporters in Sheffield how does the much smaller Yorkshire & Lancashire towns get 100,000 people at the final.
The answer came later after I migrated and was chatting to one of the same dyed in the wool GBRL fans. He told me that the crowd was essentially a broad based RL crowd. In other words RL fans from RL towns outside the 2 involved in the final attended the match thus the 100,000 crowd. This struck me as very different from English football crowds where you wouldnt get anybody except fans from the 2 home cities in the final attending. So the inference is that for showpiece matches they were supporting the sport rather than the club. The opposite to club football in England and in contrast to weekly Rugby League matches where local club support would be paramount.
Matt said | May 6th 2008 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
I was of the strong opinion that I’d never see a drastic takeover of one Rugby code from the other in my lifetime, which is hopefully a while considering I’m 23.
But a recent article I came across the other day really made me wonder.
It was written Martin Sadler, the Editor of League Express, from the perspective of the NH RL supporter. It is also something close to my heart as I see my beloved All Blacks stars migrating to the north in ever increasing numbers.
The article surrounds the increasing wealth of NH RU and the emergence of cashed up clubs in the Guiness Premiership.
Here are some of the numbers:
In 2007/2007, the 12 Guinness Premiership clubs had a combined income of £85 million.
In 2006/2007 the 12 ESL clubs had an estimated combined income of £45 million.
So the RU sides are now earning nearly double the money, regardless of the TV viewership numbers or attendances.
The big point however is that in 2001/2002 the sme figure for the GP clubs was £55 million. So, over the past 4 years, these clubs have been growing at nearly 12%pa. This is nearly 10% more than the ESL clubs.
What Sadler says is that, although these trends could change over time, RU and RL are essentially targeting similar players for their pro teams and competitions. If RU continues to grow like it is (and the recent TV deals and big name signings suggest it’s likely) then RL in Europe will seriously struggle to hold on to the best players, just as the SH rugby unions are now figuring out.
But with the SH unions looking to introduce new pro rugby team into foreign markets (such as Japan, the USA and Argentina) it appears that they still have some options to try and slow the drain.
However, will introducing more English teams (and sides into small areas such as Bridgend in Wales, home of the failed Celtic Warriors) into the ESL only put more strain on the player markets which are regulated by salary caps?
If the NH RU clubs continue to grow at 12% financially and in viewership what options does NH RL have long term.
http://www.totalrl.com/sl/index.php?feat_id=219
JimC said | May 6th 2008 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
Yep - RL Challenge Cup Final is considered a day out - attracts a broad cross section of people - not just regular RL fans. Mind you, the NRL GF is little different. Where does the 83000 come from when they can only sell 15000-25000 for a Kiwis vs Kangaroos test in Sydney, which, to me, is by the far the more attractive fixture.
On ‘This Sporting Life’ - check out the movie featuring Richard Harris. Brilliant drama and some great rugby footage from Wakefield Trinity, RL’s glamour team of the 1960’s.
sheek said | May 6th 2008 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
Another thing that prompted my previous posts, was an article during the week suggesting the NZ Sports Council, or whatever they’re called, could withdraw their $250, 000 annual grant to the NZRL, because of their high debt/low income ratio.
I can’t recall if the money amount is NZ$ or AU$, nevertheless, it’s a worrying trend for RL. Even the Anzac test is struggling to win fans, with pre-booked tickets as low as 6,000 in the 40,000 plus SCG. All sorts of spin have been put out why the match is not attracting fans, but Sydney is supposed to be the spiritual home of RL in Australia.
Whatever the pronblems of RU, especially in Australia, it would appear that RL has a few more problems to contend with, not only worldwide, but in the strong hold of Australia.
Spiro Zavos said | May 6th 2008 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
My concern in my piece and my comment was not to turn this thread into a RL v RU argument. What I was trying to explain was why NZ which has produced the consistently best rugby union national team in the history of the game, with generally fewer than 100,000 players does not have the same success with its rugby league side. My conclusion essentially is that the best potential rugby-type players, with some exceptions, tend to play rugby in NZ, rather than league.
And the thought comes to me as I write this that rugby league in NZ has never been able to set up a club competition in any of the cities, even Auckland, that really commits supporters to passionately following that team. In fact, this is what rugby, for whatever reasons, has been able to do in NZ.
One further thought. I’m wondering what the influence of Wayne Bennett will have on the Kiwis. With all due respect to Jack Gibson, the next RL Coach of the Century-type award will go to Bennett. The SMH reported that Bennett told the Kiwi players the story of Albert Baskiville, an inspirational tale (somewhat like the story of George ‘The Gipper’ Gipp at Notre Dame) that the players knew nothing about.
It’s true, too, that RL has been very poorly administered in NZ, unlike NZ (except for more modern times). The officials have tended towards dicatorial behaviour and power plays which has led the NZRL into some horrible decision-making. A good decision, though, was to bring in Wayne Bennett, especially as the coach of the Kangaroos, Ricky Stuart, was not complimentary of Bennett’s stint as Kangaroo coach.
Shame!
Mart said | May 6th 2008 @ 5:31pm | Report comment
Spiro - absolutely fantastic article, have you thought of doing this for a career ? (!!). Finally, now I get it about RL ! As an ex Pom and now Aussie I will watch any RU but almost no RL apart from (1) State of Origin here or (2) any north England (esp Challenge cup) derby, I think because of their brilliant passion / sporting theatre / player and crowd commitment. Interesting point about passion in your post just above this one - Ias an RU bigot don’t bash league for the same reason I detest supporters of “big” clubs (say Man Utd or Collingwood) dumping on supporters of “small” clubs because they are, well, smaller (less supporters / money / stars etc). The point is a player / supporter / official of a “small” country / non league side is just as passionate / committed / fanatic about their team (probably more so) as those of the “big” clubs surely ? Each to his own, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I now understand why I (as someone who isn’t rusted onto RL) get excited by the passion of Origin and North England games. Ta mate ! BTW, your comment on Roy & HG - one of the best pieces of sports journalism I have ever had the pleasure to read was circa Olympics 2000 when Roy Slaven wrote about Marjorie “Lithgow Flash” Jackson (he grew up in the same area so was very well qualified) and put her amazing achievements in the context of the support of her local community. It’s easy to lose sight of the impact of community in these days of huge sponsorship / TV money etc but this read was a real eye opener about days of old and how much community support mattered back then. I only have it as a photocopy otherwise I’d post it here, wish I could get electronic copy for the Roar to enjoy.
chas said | May 6th 2008 @ 5:50pm | Report comment
Spiro:
The main reason for RU’s ascendancy in NZ is the role of the schools. RL has (and still is ) been persecuted by almost every secondary school in the country. Aided by poor administration RL has never been able to gain any foothold at all. I attended a private school and can still recall the embarrassment that was handed out to any boy who had expressed a RL thought. This happens today. If RL had an opportunity to express itself in schools we might be writing history in a different manner. In recent times RL has better TV audiences than RU in NZ.
I know of one example from a neighbouring, exclusive, private school rugby team which was touring in Australia. This tour coincided with a RL grand final. Some of the touring party attended and were blown away by the standard of play. When news of this reached their coach he threatened those boys with failure in any exam they were involved with.
Some years ago a young friend of mine told me that he would never pass his final school exam unless he gave up his RL interest.
I consider yopur article to be an accurate assessment of what happened in earlier days but a lot has happened in other arenas that you do not address. Best wishes.Chas.
sheek said | May 6th 2008 @ 7:22pm | Report comment
Spiro,
Everyone has actually been quite convivial compared to previous blogs. Actually, there are some good posts here.
westy said | May 7th 2008 @ 12:30am | Report comment
Spiro …….enjoyed reading article and posts. I think rugby in New Zealand was a little more inclusive than in Australia. This is often a sensitive point for Australian rugby( and I do not talk about the time of the 1908 split ). Post war migration was better reflected in the more inclusive League. There were never to many Greek /Aboriginal captains of the Wallabies although both codes had Lebanese leaders . The elitist and socially skewed and biased culture of Australian rugby in the 1920’s…. 1950’s , defensive in nature ,did damage to the scope and spread and reaction to the code in Australia. I remember my father taking me to play rugby in the early 1960’s and my neighbour in genuine disbelief “those bastards do’t like people like us. ” This may have said more about him although he genuinely believed it. . Although I was taken back when the district rugby club asked What school I went to?This ambivalent attitude did not exist as much in New Zealand . Rugby simply never enjoyed cross class support in Australia.Despite apologists to the contrary Australian Rugby contributed to this perception/reality. Australian rugby to its credit has at the professional level has definitely moved away from this perception /reality. In state high schools in NSW in 1950’s 60’s discriminated against rugby league playing the 1st 15 game. at school zone competitions. It was the Catholic schools in 50’s/60’s/ 70’s that played school rugby league eg.MCC;MCS. I remember attending one of these schools in 1960’s defiantly nationalistic, Australian flag flying but you would never ever Hear God save the Queen. Rugby was identified rightly or wrongly as not Australian in many working class areas.Joeys was never representative of Catholic schools.The problem for Australian rugby was that on weekends state school students mostly wanted to represent their local communities or clubs or interest groups and only league really provided that opportunity on a comprehensive basis.It is interesting to note with the Catholic push into middle class many more Catholic schools now play much more rugby.Rugby. The powerhouse of League is now State schools in working class areas.
sheek said | May 7th 2008 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Westy,
This site is unfortunately disappearing down the chain, & soon we’ll all move on, but some good points raised.
In the immediate both postwar years (1920s & 1940-50s) rugby union was held together after WW1 by the Sydney private schools/clubs & after WW2 by same, plus Brisbane private schools/clubs.
In the 1930s, after Queensland rejoined the fray, & in the aftermath of the depression, RU opened to a broader spectrum of the community, only to close again after WW2.
It wasn’t until the 1970s, & the arrival of the Ella brothers, minorities in both race & background, that many of the elitist bastions of RU were broken down on a regular basis.
Looking at the 1966-67 Wallaby touring side as one example, & without knowing the occupation of every player, nevertheless, the overwhelming majority were either University graduates or students, professionals such as doctors & lawyers & businessmen, teachers & farmers.
Barely a council worker, clerk, postie, electrician, plumber, whatever among them. this is not to criticsize Australian rugby per se, but lend support to your argument that Australian rugby was never as inclusive of its soceity for long periods, as was the case in NZ.
A lot of this DOES go back to 1907-08. Faced with the prospect of professional RL, the then powerbrokers of RU decided to stand side by side more steadfastly with amateurism. Of course, the powerbrokers of Australian rugby back then were also the elite of Sydney society.
Many years ago, in an email to Peter Fitzsimons, suggesting Sydney University’s place was not in a district premier rugby comp, I suggested the good folk of Sydney University, who also held many of the critical positions in early Australian rugby history, had been more interested in preserving amateurism than preserving rugby union.
I believe I nearly caused Fitzy apoplexy, but I also believe history supports me. How rugby union lost its pre-eminence in the 1900s, is nothing short of scandalous IMHO.
W Warambeal said | May 7th 2008 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
Back to the coal mines. It is my theory that England RL & Wales RU became weaker when the coal mines closed down a decade or so ago. Both seemed to go into decline (competitively) at this time.
What chance did public servants, law clerks or other pencil pushers have against men who had spent eight hours or more a day working in the mines. Wally Lewis in one of his biographies (he had three) said when he Captained coached Wakefield Trinity in 1980s that he wondered why so many of his players were tired when they came to training. The reason was he later found out was because they had spent the day working in the mines.
Spiro - of the subject but here is an extract from tody’s australian about Brad Thorn’s playing weight:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23656592-5013406,00.html
“It has been one of the factors for me playing some of my best football,” Thorn said in Christchurch yesterday.
“Last time I was in rugby, I was 117kg to 118kg. When I went back to rugby league each year I slimmed down. I got down to 111kg, which is really lean for me.
“I’ve come back around 114kg. That’s not as lean as when I was in league, but it’s not as heavy as I was in rugby.
“I thought perhaps I should get bigger. When we played the trials I realised how much faster the game was and I didn’t need much convincing at all.”
Thorn must hold the record for the number of times a player has switched codes.
Born in New Zealand, he moved to Brisbane with his family when he was nine years old and represented Queensland and Australia in rugby league.
You might have to re-think your aerobic fitness/ weight contention about the two rugby codes.
Crosscoder said | May 7th 2008 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Sheek
Whilst i understand where you are coming from,let me suggest a complete takeover by one code(using a business analogy),would have less chance of success than a merger.Why? That thing called intangibles; fan power,the tribalism and passion of fans, should rugby league be the code you suggest as being the one taken over.
As we know 80,000 (est) people took to the streets when 1 team (South Sydney)disappeared to the nether regions,what reaction to a complete code(which is growing in areas outside the heartlands).Rest assured I have never attended a protest rally in my life,but would drive to Townsville and back to attend one, should a takeover of a sport be contemplated.Super League was bad enough, it divided people who followed the code.They though fewer in number ,still attended two separate rl competitions.To assume rugby league fans would then follow rugby union,with a hostile takeover is folly.
You mentioned finances for the NZRL by the Sports council is correct,however the point is could be withdrawn_not withdrawn at present.The incompetence of NZRL officialdom in the past is almost legendary.
The number of tickets for the Centenary Test were low at the beginning of this week,but have increased somewhat.Who knows what the final figure will be.A sponsored rugby league test,on live prime time FTA TV still has a lot going for it.
That the NRL is on FTA Friday prime time(ratings lower than expected ) and Sundays ,and when Pay Tv ratings for rugby league continue to be among the top 10,and an under 20 rugby league competiton can compete and in some cases beat S14 pay Tv ratings,think any talk of takeovers won’t happen now or in the future.
II see rugby league becoming more and more under the influence of private ownership in Australia and NZ,a result of poker machine taxes and more business acumen needed in running clubs.The more rugby league grows and improves its grassroots/support/financial/expansion base,and most importantly improves thegame as a spectacle,two codes of rugby will be played into the next century.
Interesting times ahead,indeed.
As a former Sydney Moning Herald journalist by the name of Mascord noted(orwords to that effect),when the Super League war was in full swing, the other codes were given plenty of sunshine,unfortunately they didn’t make enough hay.
sheek said | May 7th 2008 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
Crosscoder,
Point taken. Superleague was an example of a corporate organisation attempting to impose its will on the sporting landscape, & it largely failed.
Nevertheless, the sporting landscape is changing rapidly, & I for one openly acknowledge I’m not sure where things are heading.
Moreover, if rugby union is heading down the same path as football of being overwhelmingly run by big business, then I’m not sure I want to be part of that.
Sometimes I feel like a punch drunk boxer when I contemplate how much rugby union has changed since 1996. The 20th century sometimes seems to be a hundred years away, not 9 (1999)!
Blind Freddy said | May 7th 2008 @ 4:58pm | Report comment
Spiro. According to Sean Fagan’s website NSW rugby league teams toured NZ in 1911, 1912, 1913 and 1923. In 1925 Qld toured NZ as well. I couldn’t be bothered to count all the years mentioned, but it looks like NZ made quite a few tours of Australia before WW2 as well. http://www.rl1908.com/articles/New-Zealand-Rugby-League.htm
Jerry said | May 7th 2008 @ 7:57pm | Report comment
Chas - Schools in NZ don’t play league cause it’s not popular, rather than the other way round as you assert. Other than in Sth Auckland, parts of Wgtn, Chch and the West Coast, it’s not on the radar participation wise. Even if a school formed a team there’d be no team for them to play or a competition to play in.
I went to school in Wgtn and a few guys wanted to play league (they also played rugby for the school). There wasn’t enough interest in forming an official school team and the subject was never raised, but they ended up playing in an under 19 comp team for a local club. There were no repurcussions or even a hint of any ill will from the school.
The main reason for the ascendency of rugby in NZ is that the AB’s have formed a significant and treasured part of the history of this country in a way that league simply hasn’t.
Spiro Zavos said | May 7th 2008 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
Blind Freddy, I was quoting Sean Fagan on visits to and from NZ and Australia by the Kiwis and the Kangaroos. I must say that while I lived in NZ up to 1978 I can never recall a NSW RL visiting. The point is that the All Blacks and the Wallabies played each other regularly from 1903 in Australia and NZ, and the Kangaroos and the Kiwis played tests up to the 1950s on what Sean Fagan calls a ’sporadic’ basis.
Blind Freddy said | May 8th 2008 @ 8:13am | Report comment
Spiro - you seem to have overlooked what you asked in your own post. “Has a NSW rugby league representative side ever toured NZ?” The answer is yes.
Blind Freddy said | May 8th 2008 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Spiro. You choose to ignore that in the 1920s Aust & NZ did not play RU tests, and that only the NSW Waratahs toured NZ. How is this different to league sending NSW teams to NZ instead of the Kangaroos?
Your comment that the All Blacks and Wallabies played each other regularly from 1903 in Australia and NZ is a bit of distortion of the facts. According to this there were no tests after WW1 until 1928. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_national_rugby_union_team#Early_20th_century
sheek said | May 8th 2008 @ 3:45pm | Report comment
Blind Freddy,
I think we’re getting caught up in semantics here. It’s true the NSW v NZ RU matches of the 1920s weren’t recognised as tests by the ARU until 1986. Today, those NSW teams are regarded as Australian teams, since they were the best available players. Unfortunately, the NZRU still don’t recognise these matches as tests, which is picky on their part.
Internationally, the Kangaroos played the Kiwis in 1908, 09, 19, 35 & 37 prior to WW2. A bit sporadic, as you can see. However, no problem re NSWRL touring NZ in the years you mention.
Blind Freddy, I read back over Spiro’s original post, & this is what he said:
“The Kangaroos, for their part, made only three ’sporadic’ visits to NZ during this period [1911-48]. Unlike the many visits between NZ & Australia of the Wallabies & the All Blacks.”
So Spiro is specifially talking about internationals, either between the Kangaroos & Kiwis, or Wallabies & All Blacks. On the other hand, you’re going on about NSW touring NZ, which is not what Spiro initially mentioned.
Say you’re sorry……….
Blind Freddy said | May 8th 2008 @ 7:52pm | Report comment
I ain’t gonna say sorry. Spiro asked the question re NSW league teams in his post, not the main article. Go read it again.
Spiro’s article & post infer that league and the poor standard of the Kiwis is the result of the Australian team’s failure to regularly exchange tours. He points to the Wallabies and All Blacks has having a continuity of exchanging tours since 1903.
Spiro chooses to not tell us that this 1903 to today continuity is based solely upon the ARU recognising the 1920s NSW Waratahs teams as Australian teams.
If you put the NSW league team’s tours to NZ along with the NZ team’s visits here alongside the Kangaroos “sporadic” tours, I don’t see much difference between what both codes did.
That the ARU granted test and Australia status to a glorified Drummoyne RFC team http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_national_rugby_union_team#Early_20th_century has given Spiro a means to present a continuity in Aust v NZ matches that plainly is fictional. The two countries didn’t meet and the NZRU is right to not treat them as tests.
The logic that the ARU has used to call a NSW team ‘Australia’ is just ridiculous and simply done to create a false impression. One that Spiro has fallen for.
All I’m saying is that whatever you call the NSW and Australian league and union teams of the pre WW2 decades, for the purposes of demonstrating a continuity of exchanges of tours between Aust and NZ in both codes, there is bugger all difference.
sheek said | May 8th 2008 @ 8:54pm | Report comment
Blind Freddy,
Where are you going with this?
A test team is a country’s best available players. From 1920-28, the only available players from which to pick a national rugby team, came from NSW. Whether the game was played in one, 2, 3, 10 or 50 states is whatever is available.
It just so happens that between 1920-28 the game of rugby union was played in only one state. The players chosen were the best available, & are entitled to test status.
I’m aware of 3 Queenslanders who moved to Sydney in the 1920s to play at the highest level - the brilliant flyhalf Tom Lawton snr, outstanding fullback Otto Nothling & hooker Duncan Fowles.
Nothling’s other claim to fame is that his only test cricket appearance was as Bradman’s replacement for the 2nd test in 1928, after Bradman was dropped for one test following his debut.
Look at it another way. there were plenty of times after Qld began playing rugby again, when no Queenslander was deemed good enough to make a Wallaby team.
So whether you picked Australia’s best rugby team in the 1920s, when the game wasn’t played in Qld, or picked a team from the 1910s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s & 1970s when a Queenslander wasn’t good enough to make the starting XV, what’s the difference?
Those selected were deemed the best available, even if the whole lot of them came from Sydney.
Give the grinder a rest.
Blind Freddy said | May 9th 2008 @ 9:35am | Report comment
sheek,
deary, deary, me - here we go again. Let’s assess the merits of RU players as greats of the game based upon their deeds anywhere but on a football field. Blah, balh, blah. So Otto Nothling deserves to be recognised as a Wallaby because he replaced Don Bradman in a cricket test?
If your logic was so sound re the 1920s Waratahs team don’t you think the NZRU would recognise the games as tests too?
No doubt you’ll bag the NZRU for not coming to the party on this matter, and will continue to overlook that it is ridiculous to give a team from Drummoyne recognition as Australia simply because RU was dead elsewhere in the country.
Blind Freddy said | May 9th 2008 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Well I’ve googled your brilliant flyhalf Tom Lawton and found that he didn’t come to Sydney to play rugby, but to go to university. Also seems he was found out to have been a rugby league player! Oh my, my! But, they let him off because, well what could the dear old chap do, what with rugby dead in Qld at the time.
http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A100022b.htm
And Otto Nothling. Another who was attending university in Sydney. Are you suggesting that amateur sportsmen moved cities to continue their football careers? http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A150580b.htm
Did the NSWRU call the NSW team ‘Australia’ at the time? Gee, I wonder why not? Perhaps because everyone would have said it was ridiculous to do so.
Blind Freddy said | May 9th 2008 @ 10:17am | Report comment
I did some googling and found that your Qldrs didn’t come to Sydney to advance their rugby careers at all, but to go to university. Which means that they were nothing more than NSW residents when selected for NSW.
Seems your brilliant flyhalf was a leauge player in Qld, but got exposed and ratted out! And then the rugby union quietly put it all aside.
http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A100022b.htm and http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A150580b.htm
sheek said | May 9th 2008 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Sorry Blind Freddy,
You are the guru of the universe. I forgot to realise this was the case. And I should be more specific, blah, blah, blah…..
El Capitan said | May 9th 2008 @ 11:58am | Report comment
Blind Freddy, you say that people like Spiro and Sheek bash RL, but have a look at yourself. No one really gives a sh*t if players went to NSW to study and then eventually play football. The original point from Spiro is why the Kiwis rarely beat the Kangaroos.
If you like to bagg other football codes, why not start your own topic.
Jerry said | May 9th 2008 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
“If your logic was so sound re the 1920s Waratahs team don’t you think the NZRU would recognise the games as tests too?”
The NZRU are far more stringent than many other nations when it comes to awarding matches test status. for instance, in the 1980’s they toured Japan and played two matches against the national side but these were not given test status - at the time Australia were awarding test caps for matches against Japan. Matches against Argentina in the 70’s and 80’s were played by a “New Zealand XV” rather than the All Blacks as the NZRU did not feel Argentina were up to test status (despite one such match ending in a draw!).
Blind Freddy said | May 9th 2008 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
El Capitan,
Great stuff. spiro and sheek can add posts after an article, portraying whatever tale they want, and then no one is allowed to offer an alternative view as it is not related to the original article?
Good luck to you all then, I won’t be coming back.
Treizistes said | May 10th 2008 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
sheek
I don’t know why you think St Pats in Goulburn only played Union, they played both as I grew up there and was always playing against them in Rugby League, they had a proud history in RL and many players went on to bigger and better things.
Their colours were black and red hoops for both codes, a bit like the old North Sydney bears colours.
St Josephs also played Rugby League in Goulburn having the colours of Red and light blue.
The only Catholic school who didn’t play RL in Goulburn was Marian Collage because it was a girls only school.