By wallythefly
October 18th 2008 @ 1:55am
Loading ...Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates..
---------------
Ideas for kickstarting international league
With the World Cup coming up, and the understandable talk about its legitimacy, I’ve put together a few ideas for some representative tournaments or games that can be played after the NRL and Super League seasons.
The first proposal is for a World Club Championship.
No, not the one-off trial match that’s played in England every year, but instead, to make the finals race more exciting, why not have the top teams that make the top four or five of the NRL and the Super League play off in a World Cup-style tournament.
The second idea is for a three match series between the best players in the NRL up against the best of the Super League.
This wouldn’t be a hypothetical Australia versus England, but rather the NRL All Stars would involve Australians and well as the Kiwis and any other nationality that was good enough to make the side.
Likewise, the same would apply to the Super League side.
Next, there could be a World Origin.
Australia is so dominant in rugby league that I think it justifies splitting us up.
Instead, have five teams made up of NSW, QLD, New Zealand, Great Britain, and Emerging Nations (which is a euphemism for ‘rest of the world’).
This would be a much more even competition than the Tests and would certainly have a huge amount of interest in Australia - more so than the Internationals.
The Tri-Nations?
Of course, Australians will want to represent their country, so the Tri-Nations would remain.
At around the same time, I’d propose having another tournament between all other league nations, a ‘minnows’ World Cup for want of a better word featuring PNG, France, Tonga, and maybe even a Maori and Aboriginal side.
If rugby league still feels it needs a World Cup, then go for it. Maybe there should also be a play-off for the bowl and plate like there is in Rugby 7s, and give the smaller nations another shot at some silverware.
So a five year representative cycle would be
Year one: World Club Championship
Year two: NRL All Stars v Super League All Stars
Year three: World Origin; New South Wales, Queensland, NZ, Great Britain and Emerging Nations
Year four: Tri-Nations; Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia (and all other teams in another tournament)
Year five: World Cup
What do other Roar readers think?
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...
(24)
Loading ...
NUFCMVFC said | October 18th 2008 @ 8:14am | Report comment
I’d have to say these are some pretty good ideas in context of Rugby League actually
sheek said | October 18th 2008 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
One mistake I think people make, is to assume any sport requires an international profile, in order to thrive. Sometimes, such an ambition is simply counterproductive.
The AFL have demonstrated conclusively that you don’t need an international profile to corner the market. Doing well in your ‘target’, in this case, domestic market, is what counts. Ditto American Football.
On the other hand, ARU CEO John O’Neill has tied the success of his code to the ongoing success of the Wallabies. Which is fine while the national team keeps winning. Players & fans to the game have steadily declined since the highwater mark of 2001-02, as the Wallabies struggle for consistent success.
Rugby league should stop pretending to be something it isn’t. It has a very strong support base in within the Australian NRL & English superleague. This is its strength. Stop pretending the game is bigger on the international stage. It isn’t. Furthermore, it’s embarassing trying to pretend otherwise.
When the rugby league world cup first began back in 1954, there were only 4 countries - Great Britain, Australia, France & New Zealand. Such was the even spread of talent back then, you only needed the 4 countries anyway. Indeed, so strong were the other 3 countries that Australia, despite possessing legendary players like Clive Churchill & Ken Kearney, sometimes finished 4th out of 4 teams!
The Rugby World Cup comprises 20 teams, but for all the bluster of the IRB that the game is expanding, only 4 countries have won the cup, while only 5 are likely to win at any time. This is unlikely to change in the next 20 years. Those 5 countries are Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, England & France.
So rugby league should concentrate on its strengths - NRL domestic comp, superleague domestic comp, state-of-origin, ashes series, trans-Tasman tests. Peel the world cup back to 4-5 countries if necessary - Great Britain, Australia, France, new Zealand, & maybe PNG.
The AFL have demonstrated in Australia, & the NFL in the USA, that you don’t need an international profile, if you get your domestic profile right.
sheek said | October 18th 2008 @ 7:43pm | Report comment
Wallythefly,
While your suggestion of an orgin concept involving NSW, Queensland, NZ, GB & emerging nations is well intentioned, it’s a humiliating blow to the internationsal status of these other countries.
This goes even further. In the past we’ve had a Lebanon & Italian team made up entirely of Australian premier league & park players. Then there’s the concept of splitting national teams in two - NSW & Queensland; Kangaroos & Aborigines; Kiwis & Maoris.
This is what I mean by embarassing, although well intentioned. Further, it’s demeaning for the sport. Accept your weaknesses, work on your strengths.
Ian Noble said | October 18th 2008 @ 8:13pm | Report comment
Sheek
You are absolutely right about an interrnational profile. If you take the England football and rugby teams internationally they have been been pretty poor in the last few years yet both football and rugby at grassroots level have thrived. I saw a stat last week that there are 42,000 registered football clubs in England ranging from the local pub side to professional clubs with 1.5M registered players. In rugby according to an IRB stat there are 400,000 pre teen boys and girls registered to play rugby with various clubs.
You only need a very small proportion of these players to come through and play at international level. The problem is identifing out of all these players who are good enough, an awful lot will slip through the net. It is only in the last three years that the RFU have established an elite player structure under the direction of Rob Andrew. Yet the girls and boys who have played the sport at grassroots are the future supporters, the merchandise buyers and the TV viewers of the future. You ignore it at your peril.
It is obviously a longer game plan to nuture grassroots, but concentrating primarily on the international profile to the detriment of the grassroots will be counter productive in the long run.
On the RWC, don’t forget Argentina came close to making the final of RWC2007. I am not saying that the traditional order will change over night but as players from the second/third tiers play more in the European leagues and Cup competitions they will be more of a force. The performances of Fiji, Portugal, Japan, Samoa, Tonga and USA in the pools made people realise what progress these countries had made. They all might have lost some heavily, but there were patches were they played absolutely brilliantly. If only they could do it for 80 mins.
Steffy said | October 19th 2008 @ 12:34am | Report comment
Nation v Nation, that’s all that is required although I would like to see more international club games - the world club challenge is always one of the highlights of the rugby year for me and it would be good to extend it to feature more clubs but with the club rugby season already rather too long I can’t see it happening.
mtngry said | October 19th 2008 @ 8:24pm | Report comment
the biggest problem with league internationally is that it is club driven, unless you can get the clubs to agree to it, nothing will happen.
Tim said | October 20th 2008 @ 11:55am | Report comment
The ‘World Cup Challenge’ is a joke because it is scheduled at such a time when both teams no longer retain the rosters that made them champions, and in such a manner that the Australian team is critically short of match fitness and practice. The game is billed as a ‘best of the best’ fixture, yet pits two teams who no longer have the players and combinations that made them the best of their region against one another at a time when one of them hasn’t played a serious game in months.
Look at the ‘06 WCC. St Helens’ victory over the Broncos was effectively an empty victory because results during the ensuing NRL season demonstrated that the Broncos were a shadow of their ‘06 Premiership side. St Helens hadn’t beaten the best the NRL had to offer - it’d beaten an outfit that barely managed a top 8 finish and were bounced in the first week of the finals in humiliating fashion. If the Broncos had won, a similar argument could be made about St Helens, which was also missing crucial players from the triumph the year before and was not, in any way, shape, or form, the same side that had won the competition. What’s the point of a ‘beat of the best’ game when neither team is ‘the best’ any longer?
Expanding the concept to become a full blown tournament would not fix the matter; the concept is laughable because the Rugby League calender leaves no room for it to take place under favourable conditions.
brad said | October 20th 2008 @ 8:31pm | Report comment
mate rugby league has problems… the players have gone soft, prices are to high for everything and fans are dying off. good ideas you have but doubt they will have any affect. the smaller nations definately need more experience and players should play for the country they were born in not pick and choose. its annoying to see players switching countries every time this comp comes up. basically RUGBY LEAGUE AT THE MOMENT IS A JOKE. we need to concentrate on making it a joy to watch again. although the games have been close and the skill is rising the game was formed around people putting their bodies on the line for the game they love, we still do that out in the bush but on tv its just 34 big fit men acting like kids whingeing about everything they can.its ridiculous
Tim said | October 21st 2008 @ 2:17am | Report comment
‘players should play for the country they were born in not pick and choose.’
The eligibility laws reflect the reality that loyalty and patriotic feelings do not necessarily, or even logically, align with a place of birth. Is a player whose parents immigrate to Australia when he is one year old any less of an Australian than the player who is born there? How about the player born in Australia, who moves to the U.K when he is one - is he more Australian than he is British?
How about the hypothetical gifted player, born in a country that does not play League, who spends his whole career in Australia? Should he be barred from playing international games at all?
No code on earth strictly enforces a place of birth clause because it’s restrictive and inherently prejudicial.
Steffy said | October 21st 2008 @ 3:37am | Report comment
“The ‘World Cup Challenge’ is a joke because it is scheduled at such a time when both teams no longer retain the rosters that made them champions”
So in that respect it’s like all club competitions which clubs qualify for - the Champions League, The Heineken Cup etc.
Ian Noble said | October 21st 2008 @ 4:20am | Report comment
Steffy
‘ere we go again, I think what Tim meant was that the World Cup Challenge, again cobbled together by Murdoch for “UK comsumption” comes at the end of the NRL season. It is not surprising NRL clubs tend to send over a developmental squad resting some of their senior stars.
Good bragging rights for St Helens et al but as a World Club Challenge, it is a little misleading.
Steffy said | October 21st 2008 @ 4:51am | Report comment
The World Club Challenge comes at the start of the NRL and SL seasons, not at the end.
Which senior stars have been rested?
There’s nothing misleading in calling it the world club challenge.
Ian Noble said | October 21st 2008 @ 6:59am | Report comment
Steffy
Does it ever take place in OZ? I was under the impression that not enough revenue would be generated.
Also if I recall wasn’t there an outcry that Melbourne Storm who took part in the last WCC didn’t want to take part. They sent over a developmental squad and were not at full strength and the excuse given was that they wanted some of their key players to get full rest during the close season. Checked with my brother who lives in Huddersfield and is a keen RL fan.
Steffy said | October 21st 2008 @ 7:09am | Report comment
The Melbourne Storm squad was a very good squad - the aussies always moan about the World Club Challenge - moaning is what aussies do best.
Here’s the 17 for the game:
Melbourne Storm: Slater; Turner, Chambers, Folau, Quinn; Geyer, Cronk; Lima, J Smith, White, Kaufusi, Hoffman, Johnson. Substitutes: Aitken, Blair, Manu, Tagataese.
Leeds were just better on the day, it was an excellent game of rugby with some superb defence by Leeds
oikee said | October 21st 2008 @ 11:08am | Report comment
I have to agree with you steffy, i watched both games (broncos and storm) and have to admit that both teams went there to win, yes they might have been a little underdone but they went to win, not lose, and the games were very good, high quality, but having said this steffy, please next time we play the game dont pray to the heavens for shocking wheather, that storm game was a ripper but the conditions were bloody arwful.
Keep up the good work in england, i am enjoying the games more and more on fox sports.
Hers a idea for international games;;
2009;- 5 nation pacific ( tonga samoa cook islands fiji png jamaca?) maybe 6) Aus and N.Z maybe papua tour england
plus a europe 5-6 nation (scotland ireland wales russia serbia lebanon.)
2010;- 4 nations (aus eng, france, N.Z) euro 5 nations ( russia serbia wales ireland scotland.labanon) +pacific comp.
2011;- 4 nations plus winner pacific comp Mini comp:- america russia serbia lebanon jamacia cook islands.
2012;- eoro comp:- wales scotland ireland russia lebanon serbia 5 nations eng aus N.Z papua plus winner of pacific
2013 :- world cup.
The main point being is we have to keep having international league played, just like other sports . What i have written is basically what is being run by the RLIF over the next 5 years. Not exactly right but i like this model as it keeps all nations involved, as more teams come through then you can enter them somewhere with-in one of these groups. Also gives nations more oppotunity to grow the game. Hopefully they have enough funds to kick it off and make a profit.
Tim said | October 23rd 2008 @ 5:22am | Report comment
“The World Club Challenge comes at the start of the NRL and SL seasons, not at the end.”
Which is precisely the point. It’s a nothing game that pits former champions, which often only bear a passing resemblance to their line up when they won their respective competitions, against each other, at a time where they are critically short of match practice. Combinations haven’t had time to gel, and core players often have not had the time to become accustomed to one anothers’ games.
“There’s nothing misleading in calling it the world club challenge.”
Sure there is - the term implies a a definitive best of the best scenario, which the WCC is not and never will be. If it were a best of the best contest, it would pit the winner of the SL and the winner of the NRL against one another at such a time when both were still fresh from their Grand Final triumphs, and were working with the same squads rather than line ups for the subsequent year. Certain absences due to injuries would, naturally, be inevitable, but we would not have a ridiculous situation like what we saw earlier this year, where the Storm played with four Australian reps out.
Would they have beaten Manly in the Grand Final without Cameron Smith, Greg Inglis, Michael Crocker, and Matt King? I seriously doubt it. Would they have beaten Manly without those four players, without having played a serious game of league for several months? No chance in hell.
Australians have little interest in the WCC because it stands for nothing. It wouldn’t make a difference if it was consistently held in Australia at a time favourable to Australian teams - it’d still be a game devoid of any real meaning.
Incidentally, before you break out with the whinging Australians cliche, I’m from Canada. I follow both the ESL and the NRL, and generally lean towards the SL due to the better timing of the games (for me) and the less wrestle-orientated nature of the play. All the same, I have little interest in the WCC. The players have never played with the same emotion with which they contest Grand Finals or representative matches, and I cannot recall a game since the inception of the NRL that’s featured play of any kind of quality.
Tim said | October 23rd 2008 @ 5:27am | Report comment
On the 2007 and 2008 WCCs - yes, the games were exciting. None of the teams, however, played anywhere near to their potential. They were noticeably off, and the only thing which kept the games entertaining were the close scorelines.
It was a similar situation with the Brisbane-Storm quarter final in the NRL this year. The game was basically an endless repetition of dummy half running for five tackles followed by a bomb, and as such, could not be said to be a quality game, but it was exciting nonetheless because it was close and featured a good finish.
Steffy said | October 23rd 2008 @ 5:37am | Report comment
Tim, squads change in the off season - it happens in most sports - do you think the Champions League in soccer is a farce because the squads which qualified for it are not the squads which take part in it?
Jerry said | October 23rd 2008 @ 6:44am | Report comment
The Champions League isn’t a farce cause teams and fans actually take it seriously, unlike the World Club Challenge which is an afterthought.
Tim said | October 23rd 2008 @ 8:55am | Report comment
Steffy: Several substantive differences between the Champions League and the WCC.
1. It’s a tournament. This is pertinent because teams have time to build form and get used to the standard of play before the finals.
2. It does not take place after a several month long, competition-less lull in the calender. This is pertinent because players are not short on match fitness and have had time to build combinations and an on-field understanding.
3. There is no salary cap in the various football leagues. The salary cap in the NRL ensures that the character and composition of any given team alters drastically on a year-by-year basis, such that a premier one year can come close to winning the wooden spoon the next (West Tigers in ‘05 and ‘06, for example). There is a much greater difference in overall team ability effected by year-to-year player swapping in the WCC than in the Champions League.
The Champions League is not a joke because it’s a high quality competition between teams high on skill, practice, and hunger. The WCC is a joke because it’s a medium quality exhibition match between teams of varying levels of skill, and low on hunger and practice.
Tim said | October 23rd 2008 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Also, I cannot think of another sport off-hand that schedules a final of any description IN its off-season, like the WCC.
Ian Noble said | October 24th 2008 @ 3:02am | Report comment
Tim
The Champions League is probably the leading world wide football club competition. It has enormous significance for English clubs not just as money spinner but prestige. There is no comparison with the WCC, which is a one off game between clubs who probably have moe important things to think about.
Steffy
As to squads , if you look at the squads of Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool there is vey little difference between their top team at the end of the season and the commencement of the Champions League. Man U may have added Berbatov, Liverpool Robbie Kean, Chelsea Deco and Arsenal nobody.
Steffy said | October 24th 2008 @ 4:30am | Report comment
Ok, so in effect the rugby world club challenge is a joke because there is a break after the season ends and before the WCC is held and the squads are entirely different whereas the Champions League kicks off as soon as the Premier League etc. finish and the squads are exactly the same.
Hmmm, that doesn’t sound right but then facts are usually at a premium when people are criticising rugby
Fender said | October 28th 2008 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
Pacific Nations … it’s a must.
The West Indies were full of talented players, but as individual countries they were simply not up to making an impact on world Cricket. But where would cricket be today without the great Windies sides of yesteryear?
The Pacific Islands should be permitted to band together in the same way. They would collectively get stronger, and they’d be a legitimate alternative to playing for NZ or Australia if they played enough tests to get a financial benefit as well.
If the World Cup could be contested by Great Britain (forget this Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales rubbish), Pacific Islands, New Zealand, Australia, France, Papua New Guinea, Lebanon, United States (yes, I know, they have work to do) and a few other minor nations to round it out to 12, it would be a step forward.