By Spiro Zavos
November 23rd 2008 @ 5:24am
World Champion Kiwis beat Kangaroos with momentum
At half-time in the thrilling Rugby League World Cup final, Australia had established a 18 -16 lead over New Zealand and it looked to me as though they would run away with the match in the second half. So I turned on the video and went for our usual night-time walk with my wife.
We got back forty minutes later to see scenes of Kiwi players leaping ecstatically around, high-fiving, jumping into each other’s arms, hugging coach Stephen Kearney and Wayne Bennett, with the old stone-face cracking up with smiles.
It was clear from all of this that the Kiwis had won.
So I ran the tape back to see how the miracle had happened. And it was obvious watching the video that the Kiwis had harnessed the most powerful driver in big time - momentum - or the Big M, as US sports commentators like John Madden like to call it.
The momentum came right after half-time when the Kiwis decided to throw everything they had into the first fifteen minutes of the second half to see if, perhaps, possibly, hopefully, the Kangaroos might get rattled and give away points that would seal their fate.
On the first Kangaroo play, the ball was coughed up. Then after the relentless pressure of hard-shouldered running, tackling and field position, the Kangaroos did crack.
Billy Slater arrogantly threw the ball in-field near his try line, as if his side were 30 points in front. Minutes later the Kangaroos conceded a penalty try.
With thirteen minutes of play left, the Kiwis were 14 points in front.
They had the advantage of a big lead, which got bigger as time ran out. The Kangaroos tried to force plays, and played inpatiently, which in turn lead to mistakes and increased the pressure to force plays.
Listening to the Channel 9 television commentary, knowing the result, was a fascinating exercise.
Phil Gould particularly and even Peter Sterling had not really understood how the colour of the game had changed from green to black.
Here are snippets from the comments in the second half as the game, in reality, but not in the minds of the commentators, plunged away (rather than slipped away) from the Kangaroos:
Gould: “New Zealand has hit the wall mentally, they’re struggling at the moment …”
Gould: “Australia can sense the New Zealand run is coming to an end. New Zealand are out on their feet.”
Sterling: ‘The New Zealand body language is negative. They’re very vulnerable at the moment.”
It was clear that both commentators had missed the Kiwis Big M. Even with less than ten minutes to play, Gould was suggesting the Kangaroos could pull off a victory.
There were, to my mind, a number of similarities with the stunning upset victory by the Kiwis and South Africa’s victory in the 2007 Rugby World Cup.
These sort of tournaments do not actually reveal who is the best team in world rugby league or world rugby. They do tell us, however, who is the best team in the tournament.
Like the Springboks in 2007, the Kiwis found that the six weeks or so together for their World Cup created the chemistry to bond the players into that special entity: a team whose entity vastly outrates its individual parts.
As one of the oldest mantras in sports suggests that a champion team will always defeat a team of champions.
The Kangaroos, too, suffered the same sort of difficulties that the All Blacks faced in their 2007 RWC campaign: too many easy victories in matches that were not life and death encounters.
The Kiwis, like the Springboks in the 2007 RWC, had several must-win matches in the World Cup tournament, including the semi-final against England (while the Kangaroos were playing Fiji). These must-win matches gave the Kiwis (and Springboks) the experience of being tested and coming through the test, rather like the way steel is tempered by putting it through the blazing fire.
The other similarity was that the coach of the Springboks, Jake White, appointed Eddie Jones, a former coach of the Wallabies, to give him and his players insights into the culture of another successful Test side.
This role for the Kiwis was played by the greatest rugby league coach in the last twenty years, Wayne Bennett.
Bennett had a point to prove at the international level.
He was dropped from the Kangaroo job after losing a Tri-Nations tournament to New Zealand. Ricky Stuart was appointed to succeed him. Stuart proceeded to insist that Bennett had done a poor job with the Kangaroos.
This Kiwi victory over a Kangaroos side that had been proclaimed by the commentators, even during the final, as one of the greatest Australia has ever put on the field, was a sweet vindication for Bennett.
If the current Kiwis and Kangaroos played a sequence of ten matches, my guess is that the Kangaroos would win all ten of them.
But when the World Cup is on the line in just one match?
Anything can happen if the underdog gets the Big M working for it, which is what happened at Lang Park on Saturday night.
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...
(121)
cosmos forever said | November 23rd 2008 @ 7:53am | Report comment
As usual agree with all of your comments Spiro. With about 15 to go, my thoughts were “Kangaroos are doing a Melbourne here”. And so it proved. Your highlighting of Slater’s arrogance in throwing the ball up was emblematic I think of a team that expected victory (and his gesturing for a penalty when he was softly grappled late in the game perhaps the most ironic moment of the Centenary season!).
Standard practice is for NZ to hit the Kangaroos and trouble them for no more than about 50 minutes. When the 50 minutes was up and NZ were still there plugging away it was the Green and Gold who looked like they had no idea what to do next.
Nathan Cayless proved his class in his speech - following a ridiculous decision to award Lockyer man of the match and then Lockyers begrudging speeches.
Aside from that - a very exciting game.
Last point, and I know you’ll defend good old Gus - but his commentary on the telly is becoming more like WWE every week. Ridiculous pandering to an audience that expects him to “go at it” with Rabbits, tell the ref to “let ‘em play” and only focus on the home or favoured team is a script that any bad channel 9 producer could (and does) write for him at the drop of a hat.
I really hope for the sake of the coverage he gives it away and concentrates on his much more thoughtful writing for the papers. Sterling, Johns and Daily - please lead the ship now.
Text of the night from a mate “R. Stuart = Gil the salesman from the Simpsons” !
CronullaKiwi said | November 23rd 2008 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Just like to congratulate our boys on a miracle win we will never forget…I still cant believe we are the world champions. I prefer my rugby by a long shot but that was an Incredible game of league.
One gripe however, I was disgusted with the crowd leaving in the 75th minute. It said a lot about OZ sportsmanship unfortunately. To have a world cup trophy presented in an empty stadium was a disgrace and massively disrespectful to the competion - as most of us know, the so-called Australian sporting attitude only applies when you are winning.
CronullaKiwi said | November 23rd 2008 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Just like to congratulate our boys on a miracle win we will never forget…I still cant believe we are the world champions. I prefer my rugby by a long shot but that was an Incredible game of league.
One gripe however, I was disgusted with the crowd leaving in the 75th minute. It said a lot about OZ sportsmanship unfortunately. To have a world cup trophy presented in an empty stadium was a disgrace and massively disrespectful to the competition- as most of us know, the so-called Australian sporting attitude only applies when you are winning.
cosmos forever said | November 23rd 2008 @ 9:30am | Report comment
As highlighted by Cayless thanking the poms for sticking around - that was priceless!
mick said | November 23rd 2008 @ 9:45am | Report comment
well done kiwis. truely deserved win. when will the rugby league media in this country pull there heads in and report about what is actully being carried out on the field. For the last 4 weeks all I kept reading was how they should just hand the cup to Australia. Wankers!
I knew this would happen and I am actually quite happy for the defeat. They deserve to have there noses rubbed in it.
Just a note, may I defend the aussie sporting attitude a little and comment on the Aussies losing the 2005 Ashes and the 2003 Rugby World Cup. Very few left these stadiums after thrilling losses and stuck around to congratulate the victors and concede that the better side won. As what happend last night.
mick said | November 23rd 2008 @ 9:47am | Report comment
“As what happened last night” The better side won owas what I meant of course
sheek said | November 23rd 2008 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Just goes to show the only certainties in life are death, taxes & night follows day. You can’t account for the human mind, it’s positives & negatives. The Roos fell into the same mind-trap as the ABs last year - overconfidence begetting complacency begetting carelessness.
Watching the replay on Fox & already knowing the result, I was amused (when not annoyed) by the channel 9 commentary. I got the impression that Gould & Warren, & Sterling to a lesser extent, were trying to anticipate the final result, talking the Kiwis down, & the Roos up.
They sure ended up with egg on their collective faces, although their egos would deny they ever got anything wrong with their commentary. If I ever have to listen to the banality from Gould & Warren again, it will be too soon.
I’m also non-plussed by the media reporting today. Both morning papers described the match as controversial, referring to the penalty try. However, if 99.99% of people are in agreement the penalty try was justified, how is this controversial???
Dramatic yes. Controversial, no. Well done, Kiwis. Thoroughly deserved.
oikee said | November 23rd 2008 @ 10:13am | Report comment
I think the only people who were over confident were the wankers who come onto this site calling this a non-event. I always defend the international game and never once conceded the aussies were over the line, yes they are a good team, Unbeatable,? never. As for the penalty try, if you follow league at all you would remember the Dale Shearer penalty try. Now that was a joke and given that it was a try, this one last night was a centainty. Kiwis 1st world cup win, you dont get much bigger than this, now its up to the All-blacks to repeat the performance, not that i am putting any pressure on them , hey.
Cheers.
bozo said | November 23rd 2008 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Perhaps the Kangaroos thought they were as smart as the Channel 9 commentators did in the way they confronted the Haka. A big mistake and showing a fair amount of ignorance.
LL said | November 23rd 2008 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Lockyer may be one of the game’s greats as a player, but he’s a sulking immature mess when things don’t go his way. Who cares how many Aussies stuck around to put up with such an ungracious display from the “man of the match”?
Just as the RWC ABs (pick whichever tournament you like) or the SB42 New England Patriots found out, on a blue sky day every dog can have it’s fat lady singing …
and it’s that drama, that unpredictability of sport that makes us love it and loath it so much….
Westy said | November 23rd 2008 @ 11:32am | Report comment
It is fitting that the photograph accompanying Spiro’s article shows Jeremy Smith and Blair. They were outstanding……..Blair plays front row but watch his feet…outstanding….and they both have real pace…. and their defence especially in the last 10 minutes brutal……league or union it would have instilled some fear. I also note that Blair and Smith have played 34 and 32 NRL games / tests this year…….They certainly give value for the dollar.
Spiro just the opposite reaction to you…..at half time 16 to 12 I knew if the Kiwi’s could score first this game was on………I have read Bennett’s books……….his central and overwhwlming tenet is you must play for the whole 80 minutes…….all .he told the Kiwis in their post match talk after their previous 30 to 6 loss to the Kangaroos that they will never beat the kangaroos if they only play for 60. That was all. No rant no rave apart from talking individually to Marshall and Fien. Told them they had the squad….but “you NZERS seem to only play 60….play 80 and you will rattle their cage.
Brisbane battered and bruised turned up and the reality is the RLWC was a ratings winner. That is all a sponsor wants………..Jetstar , VB and Bundy ……….were very happy ……….ARL got a cash reserve of 5 million………it now depends whether they use the money to develop the game……5 million is not the 100 million of AFL or 40 million of our ARU…
but remember the ARU has blown 30 without much to show whereas the AFL will end up with 2 new teams.
There are those in the ARL who are now pushing for a bi annual six nations tounament …split into 2…Kiwis in one and Kangaroos in the other.
zedfest said | November 23rd 2008 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
zzzzzzz. *snort* wha, huh, The kiwi’s won?? great…wake me when the AB’s are on..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Koala Bear said | November 23rd 2008 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
Oikee wrote: “I always defend the international game and never once conceded the aussies were over the line, yes they are a good team, Unbeatable,? never. ”
Oikee,
Not that I would put shite on our lads, the Kangaroos .. But however, maybe it’s time that the baton should be handed over from the Football Kanga-Roos to the Rugby League Kangaroos; so we may now read the new narrative as being the ARL Kanga-Roos and the FFA Kangaroos; now that seems more appropriate after this past week of events… 
I love an underdog… Nothing wrong with that… hey Oikee… ? 
Pardon me what did you say …???? Hmmm I seem to remember something totally different…
~~~~~~~~
KB
sunshinecoaster said | November 23rd 2008 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
Just goes to prove that if New Zealand get regular games together they can turn it on,the cocky attitude from Australian league including its commentators and journos has be brought about by talking themselves up after beating the Kiwis in one off test matches,
the Kiwis always have to throw a side together within days and then have to play a team with origin combination’s,there set up to fail
Its hard to understand why people dont see that,maybe they dont want to because even in recent years the Kiwis have almost won the tri nations after playing a few games consistently together
If they dont at least bring in a tri nations every year and just keep origin as the so called pinnacle then its a kick in the guts for the Kiwis and league in general
its time to expand rugby league internationally,even if it does mean you might not always be the best Australia,we owe it to the game
The Link said | November 23rd 2008 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
good article Spiro, well done to the Kiwis, now I know something of what its like to be an All Blacks fan.
2nd half was the difference, the Aussies panicked with the oncoming Kiwi wave
Bad bad article said | November 23rd 2008 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
Poor article Spiro.
Firstly, the score was 16-12 at halftiime (not 18-16 as you said) and even if the score was as you stated, why would you assume it was a given with only a 2 point lead - are you not a sports fan.
Quote “With thirteen minutes of play left, the Kiwis were 14 points in front” - WHAT
Again, small error but a big one - it was 22-20 to the Kiwi’s with nine minutes still to play. Where do you get your facts from. The final try was not scored until the 76th minutes???????????
What game were you watching.
And you make constant reference to “the big M’ quoting a american coach for goodness sake.
It wasn’t the BIG M, it was self belief.
I don’t recall the commentators saying anything like you said about the kiwi’s in the dying minutes - what game were you watching.
Saying the kiwi’s were out on their feet, finished mentally, etc.
Again, what game were you watching. As a senior journalist you should be ashamed of this article.
You also make a comparison between the kiwi’s and the Springboks at last years Rugby union World Cup. A poor comparison. South Africa played Fiji and Argentina in their quarter and semi finals - not England like you said - and in theory had a very soft build up to the final - not like the kiwi’s in the league whom had to play the third ranked nation England twice in two weeks.
oikee said | November 23rd 2008 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
Nothing wrong with that K.B, will be cheering on the Soccer kangaroos now that this mess has happened, notice Ricky Stuart was not that suprised. I always remember him having some real hard battles with the poms, lost some games and knows there is no such thing as a sure thing. Anyhow its football time now, i am totally leagued out.
K.B the suncorp crowd was good, i was on the back row at the very top and it was full to the brim, and the crowd was right into the match. Seemed to be alot of Kiwi support, at least they were happy at the end, i watched them lift the trophy then took off, i had me kanga Jersey on so did not want to become Kiwi bait on the way back to the station. Good night, was buzzing.
Ian Noble said | November 23rd 2008 @ 7:42pm | Report comment
Spiro
The best result for RLWC2008, perhaps the Kangeroos were undercooked not having played a tuogh game throughout the tournament.
It appears all the English supporters were cheering on the Kiwis as the obvious underdogs. Hopefully the RLWC will reconsider the pool structure for the next tournament.
bozo said | November 23rd 2008 @ 8:18pm | Report comment
Bad bad article- Havent bothered to watch the replay to check the detail of much of your note but i dont know what you were watching (or not) when South Africa only just avoided being beaten by Fiji in the Rugby World Cup. It was the game of the quarter finals
Ian Jessup said | November 23rd 2008 @ 8:21pm | Report comment
Several key points not mentioned so far:
* If Lockyer scores instead of dropping the ball (why did he not draw it into his bosom after grabbing the grubber? Careless) it’s 16-0 and Australia go onto win by 40.
But, just like the 1999 NRL GF when Mundine dropped the ball over the line, the opposition got a sniff.
* NZ’s second try was a joke decision by the video ref - the ball was not deliberately knocked out by the Aussie tackler. It was a clear dropped ball and hence knock on - and would be called so 100% of the time in the NRL - that was what got NZ really thinking for the first time they could shake the Aussies. And it rattled the Kangaroos.
* Australia were rusty, having faced only PNG and Fiji in the preceding 20 days
* Stuart is not a clever coach - and at times appears too ready to be spiteful - where were Tupou and Fitzgibbon in the second half when the Aussies were making mistakes and the forwards were not doing the hard yards? On the sidelines. Why? Australia used only 8/12 possible interchanges despite clearly struggling to gain momentum in the second half.
* Did anyone spot Greg Inglis on the field at any stage before he scored that late try? Why was he hiding? Not even a hit-up. Choked just like in this year’s GF. He is a superstar but not yet an alltime great.
And Ch 9’s commentary makes me want to vomit, very one-sided and barely any real hard analysis. The past players are too frightened to make the tough calls.
* Lockyer should have given his MOM award to Jeremy Smith.
cosmos forever said | November 23rd 2008 @ 8:29pm | Report comment
Ian - 5.a - Inglis is not a superstar (yet). He is an extremely talented individual who has had a remarkable breakthrough season in terms of the highlight reel. As you hint - he has failed remarkably to impact consecutive big games.
mtngry said | November 23rd 2008 @ 8:30pm | Report comment
I convinced a couple of My Kiwi mates and A few of My Japan Rugby League Mates to come with me.
1) I have never been to Suncorp before, Great Stadium
2)My kiwi mates appreciated the Australian reaction to the Haka, they loved it saying it was how you should treat it.
3) I agree with Spiro here,
I would then go on to say this is great for the tournament and RL.
A lot of people in a lot of forums were saying the RLWC was pointless because of miss matches and the
certainty of A kangaroos win, I think the whole tournament and Especially last night shows how wrong that was.
I think I and all the players are really looking forward to next years 4 nations, (especially with the KIWIs getting to call themselves the world Champions for the next 4 years regardless).
International RL has finally been reborn.
James Mortimer said | November 23rd 2008 @ 11:10pm | Report comment
Average article.
Quite a few points wrong - notwithstanding the half time score (it was 16-12, not 18-16) and at which point the kiwi’s held their match winning lead (with 4 minutes left to play, not 13 minutes).
But completely at utterly disagree with the comparisons with the kiwi’s and the Springboks. This infuriates me because I believe it was unfair the Boks won a such a tournament without having to face up to any six nations opponent bar England and neither of their Tri Nations opponents.
The Springboks had softest run of any team of any world cup. England, and then games against Samoa, Tonga, USA - following Fiji and Argentina in the semi finals.
And, despite what you said, due to the soft run, were then almost beaten by an insipid England because they had not faced any real danger teams in the championship.
And the point comparing Eddie Jones appointment to Wayne Bennetts isn’t very accurate.
Bennett was appointed coach with no skeletons in his closet and the record of the finest league coach on the planet - who might have had a point to prove after being dumped by Australia as coach in 2005. It wasn’t Bennett being unpatriotic, it was a great man having a vision of taking another nation to a level as high as Australia’s.
Remember, Bennett unlike many others had always had a vision for strong rugby league internationally.
Eddie Jones had just taken Queensland to their worst ever season and was “rightfully” condemned with his mercanery approach to rugby - he was hardly the reason for the Boks win.
Melvin said | November 24th 2008 @ 6:08am | Report comment
Well done to the Kiwis it has to grudgingly be said. But putting it crudely they had more quality prime beef (pork I dare suggest), not only up front, but throughout the team, and when such mass is wound up and propelled in a forward direction at an impressive rate of knots, it does indeed take some stopping. Our guys [the Green & Gold machine] were clearly shown up in defence as they struggled to contain the rampaging Kiwis, (similar in a sense as Spiro points out to how France took care of the All Blacks in the ‘07 RWC quarter final), and interestingly in reverse our forwards for the most part failed to really make an imprint on the Kiwi defence which begs the question how did Ricky and his assistants get the prerequisites for a final so damned wrong? Beef is essential, particularly up front, for such encounters.
In hindsight there was a hint of things to come from the Kiwi national squad towards the end of the NRL season when the NZ Warriors from memory upset the Storm and the principal factor there was indeed the rampaging strength of their beefy players because in that game Slater and other Melbourne Storm identities were brushed aside seemingly at will. But I will add [sour grapes] that in the first crucial 20 minutes of the 2nd half on Saturday night there were literally half a dozen instances when the Roos were on the attack and Kiwi defenders would lay all over the tackled player for nothing short of an eternity, and yet the ref refused to blow a penalty… somewhat strange.
cosmos forever said | November 24th 2008 @ 6:22am | Report comment
I think that is a pretty fair assessment Melvin, all I’d say is the warriors win over melbourne was probably more an indicator of what to expect from Australia than the Kiwis! For example, not knowing what to do when every refereeing decision suddenly doesn’t go your way. Storm’s run started looking shaky when either other teams took it to them or the ref did. Australia looked very similar!
chris said | November 24th 2008 @ 7:57am | Report comment
Lets forget about international Rugby League now till 5 years time when the RLWC is held in New Zealand but now weedy Gallop will have to have another NRL team playing out of Wellington and i can only see the islanders in the game grow and if the NRL/ARL or whatever the shits want to call themselves the game could grow big style in Tonga/Fiji and Western Samoa.
sledgeross said | November 24th 2008 @ 8:09am | Report comment
I dont know why people are making such a big fuss. Probably once out of every 8 matches the Kiwis will be able to beat us. The Kanga’s were due for a bad match. Its not that the Kiwis played any better than the Kangaroos, its just teh Aussies came up with two errors that were punished (Monaghans impeding when Slater had the ball well and truly covered, and Slators try assist for Benji). Everytime the Roos got the ball into teh Kiwis 20, they asked plenty of questions, while the Kiwis didnt look that threatening for most of the game. The alarm bells shouldnt be ringing yet.
What the Kiwis did show was that with a simple game plan, sometimes the opposition will gift you a win. The Kangaroos lost the game rather than the Kiwis winning it. Hopefully the New Zealanders can build on their success (lets not forget they had a pretty good tournament, beating the Poms twice including a brilliant come from behind win in teh group stages) and keep asking questions of the Kangaroos.
Millster said | November 24th 2008 @ 9:26am | Report comment
I watched the second half from a conference in Bowral which included a number of American dignitaries who had never seen the game.
My comment is simply that it was a good, exciting match, and right open till near the end.
More broadly this could be the best thing to happen to League in many years, notwithstanding my usual sadness at any Aussie loss (except to France
). The Kiwi win has at the same time bumped up the credibility of the international dimension of the game, and surely given the code a lot more profile across the Tasman.
So for those reasons I think this is a historic moment for the code. I agree with Chris that if the NRL was switched on they would want to fast-track a Wellington or South Island entrant to the comp quick smart.
hayden said | November 24th 2008 @ 10:26am | Report comment
Ricky Stuart is proving him self to be world champion tosser once again - tossing his toys out of the cot because he didn’t get his way . Conspiracy theories, stitch ups, etc. Even some of the players are buying in to it. Makes me savour the Kiwi’s victory even more.
El Capitan said | November 24th 2008 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Got to agree with you hayden.
Sticky has really dropped the ball, and acted like a spoilt brat. Even the team walking out not giving interviews was a disgrace. You can lift your head up high, if you loose and still have your respect. As soon as you act this “conspiracy” stuff, people loose respect in you and see you as a poor looser.
IMO I was shocked by the “brain-explosion” of Slater and Monaghan. People were calling for no PT, but seriously he took a player out in an illegal manner. If it was a bump, it would not have cause such a stir. You can’t blame the loss on that ref decision, the kangas lost it before that, and should have come back strong, but cracked under pressure
oikee said | November 24th 2008 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
Good to see you Millster, i remember saying on a post that the final is never a easy game to win. I also remember ranting on about how hard the games have been over the years to win these types of games, remember i said even with the mighty Mal Meninga they would struggle to beat the poms at times. Hopefully you have now taken this on board. It would be a mammoth task for the aussies to win the next world cup in England. Anyhow, i am all leagued out so now time to sit back and enjoy some footy games. Cheers.
P.S i also think i made a promise never to knock football again if the aussies won the league world cup? See how much confidence i have in the knowleadge of the game. Always bet on black.
Spiro Zavos said | November 24th 2008 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
Bad bad article, Just for the record if you read what I wrote you’d see that I spelt out that the Kiwis played England in the semi-final, not that the Springboks played England in the RWC semi-final. Also the quotes from Phil Gould and Peter Sterling were actual quotes, whether you heard them or not is immaterial.
I think the comparison with Eddie Jones and Wayne Bennett has some legs in it in that both coaches had a point to prove to their critics and officials who had forced them to retire from their national coaching positions. Eddie Jones was most unhappy with the ARU, for instance, and Wayne Bennett would hardly have relished Ricky Stuart dumping on him when he took over as the Kangaroos coach.
I see the hand of Bennett very much in the Kiwis upset victory. They showed the sort of resilience that the Brisbane Broncos had during Bennett’s reign as coach. They played relatively simple RL with interesting little variations, again in the Broncos mould. They were at their most intense inside the 20m, on attack and defence.
And most importantly they had a belief that they could win, another Broncos trademark.
Teams like the Kiwis are often beaten in their minds before they play the Kangaroos. From here it is easy to be defeated on the field. Even when things were running against them and they were supposed to be out on their feet, according to the Channel 9 gurus, they were able to come back, put pressure on the Kangaroos and then hold them out quite comfortably in the end when time was running out for the favourites.
Coaches, or assistant coaches, don’t actually win matches. The players do that. But they can be the difference between winning and losing, and Bennett, in my opinion, was an important part of the winning outcome.
One other thought: what would have happened if Bennett had been coaching the Kangaroos?
oikee said | November 24th 2008 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Well put Spiro, Bennett does not need any pladits thow, nobody douts his ability to make things happen. I am still mourning his loss to Brisbane but understand his motives to move on, just happy we had him at the broncs. I think now the dragons would be loving this, and also i see Jermey Smith is going there next year. Half his work is already done. Cheers.
sledgeross said | November 24th 2008 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
El Capitan, the rules of the game state a penalty try can only be awarded when, in the opinion of the referee, a try would have been scored but for unfair play by the defending team (Section 6, Law 3(d)). In this case, the video referee had access to different angles which show that the balance of probability that Slater would have got their first. Yes, there was an illegal play, but, in accordance to the international laws, I can see why people struggle to see why a penalty try was awarded. It should have been a penalty, with Monaghan sin binned for ten minutes, but shouldnt have been a penalty try.
Again, it throws our video refs into question. How could an experienced referee reach such an opinion?
Having said that, I reckon it was Slaters try assist that cost the Kangaroos the game, not the PL.
cosmos forever said | November 24th 2008 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
It throws the video refs into question - in your opinion Seldgey. In m opinion it was obvious the ball would fall into Kiwi hands and Slater only looked like getting there because of the speed he continued through at.
sledgeross said | November 24th 2008 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
So Cosmos, you are sure he would have scored? Cmon mate, its not about my opinion, its about the law of the game. Look at Lockyer and Benjis disallowed tries in the first half. You would have thought that in the position they were both in, they would have scored, but they fumbled the ball an inch above the ingoal. Yes, Hohaia was denied the chance to score a try, but I doubt you could say with certainty he would score.
To use a football analogy, its outside the box and a striker is one on one with the keeper, and the keeper brings the attacking player down. Will the referee award a goal, or issue a red card?
This isnt like the 99 GF, where Craig Smith actually had the ball over the line (and had control of it) when Ainscough hit him around the head. What Im saying is that in this case, is that the referee overstepped his mandate, and his opinion was wrong. Again, thats my opinion according to my experience with the rules of the game. But its a Pandoras box when there is a loophole that is ambiguous as “opinion”.
El Capitan said | November 24th 2008 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
sledgeross,
I agree that the try did not cause the final result, but no one could be sure that Slater would have gathered the ball if the player was not held back. The pressure applied to Slater may have made him cough up the ball, but we will never know.
Anyway the game is over and the Kangas need to be gracious in defeat. The article in the Australian sums up the negative way the aussies were after the match. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24695087-5012431,00.html
sledgeross said | November 24th 2008 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Exactly Capitan, just like noone could be sure Hohaia could have scored the try. The ref should have stuck with what he did know, that a player was illegally impeded, which should have resulted in a penalty AND a sin binning.
Agree re your link though mate. Aussie sporting teams dont seem to be doing themselves too many favours in recent years!
sunshinecoaster said | November 24th 2008 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
It was more clear cut than this decision awarded earlier in the season which ironically Hohia was on the other side of,theres no doubt it was a penalty try in the final,how anybody could debate it is beyond me
ROOSTERS V WARRIORS
The penalty try could easily have turned the contest, and probably should have. It came after 31 minutes. Sia Soliola had kicked through, and the ball took a bounce as wicked as the decision, evading Warriors fullback Lance Hohaia. Anthony Minichiello kicked again and then Hohaia jostled with him, appearing to link arms before the ball evaded both of them.
It was a brave decision, given that in recent times, officials have given little leeway for penalty tries; they have craved 100 per cent certainty that a try would have scored without the interference. In this case, Minichiello was far from a guaranteed scorer and the interference was questionable. And it was vigorously questioned by the Warriors.
“Can you honestly say he would have scored?” the Warriors’ stand-in skipper Micheal Luck asked referee Tony Archer.
“He’s going in to attempt to play the ball, your player grabbed him and took away his opportunity to score,” Archer replied.
sledgeross said | November 24th 2008 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
Then Tony Archer was wrong Sunny Coaster. Its not about denying the opportunity to score, its preventing a legitimate try through foul play. Both these examples prove otherwise, due to it being based on opinion.
sunshinecoaster said | November 24th 2008 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
Every ruling is based on opinion,the opinion of the video ref was that Hohaia would have got there ahead of Slater,he was right
Ian Jessup said | November 24th 2008 @ 6:37pm | Report comment
Guys, stop arguing about the penalty try.
I have no problem with the decision - it should set a precedent and stop other players cheating so blatantly.
And Monaghan should have been binned or even sent off entirely for it.
The crucial decision was NZ’s second try.
That’s what really shook Australia and kept NZ going.
It was the sort of amateurish crap refereeing you see in rugby union.
sunshinecoaster said | November 24th 2008 @ 6:51pm | Report comment
Why not debate Australias last try then? the Roos got a penalty for a guy dropping the ball but because a hand was close to the ball it was called a strip,then they scored in the corner
people are just looking for excuses now,what a shame for the game of Rugby League
oikee said | November 24th 2008 @ 7:39pm | Report comment
Its all in the history books now Sunshinecoaster, talk about the upset of the century. I have always said league has a brilliant history, this one adds to the jounal. Cheers.
paul said | November 24th 2008 @ 8:13pm | Report comment
The game was absolutely absorbing, packed with action and drama. That Aussie try that went through 8 sets of hands was brilliant, ankle tap on Thurston saved a certain try. WHAT A GAME!! It is a brilliant result for international footy and finally footy can take its rightful place in the NZ pecking order. How could the All blacks not want to play this game? It was a cracker.
Danny said | November 24th 2008 @ 9:36pm | Report comment
Sledge suck on the big ones mate that penalty try was fair and just and you’re just have to get over it.
Wouldn’t have changed the result anyway cos the Roos had no chance with 12 men defending down there. They were gone and they behaved like a bunch of stuck up pretty boys both during and after the game.
Never in my life have I heard such an ungracious speech from the losing captain, he was a loser alright.
Midfielder said | November 24th 2008 @ 9:39pm | Report comment
Few have realised what this game has done for RL to date on this site only Westy mentioned it.
RL can / should if they have any brains run a Oceania style competition a six nations tournament and have a Oceania team. So what I hear some say well its 12 million people with PNG the Island and Fiji having about 7.5 million people and NZ the balance.
Moving on the …. 7.5 million will rate very highly on their TV stations ……… someone will want to advertise in these matches … NZ already has a reasonably healthy audience so therefore the NRL can almost double its TV footprint to hard core Rugby followers and in many cases hard core RL viewers. Meaning what RL loose to AFL in NSW & QLD will be more than made up for with this expansion. Plus this will assist RL in picking up players.
If I was a RL person today I would be jumping for joy ……. I have just found a huge market on my door step hardly any competition and quite cheap to enter …truly a “Sun shine lolly pops and sugar coated candy drops everybody’s happy … when we find such a big huge market with low entry costs” …. wait SPC the South Pacific Cup what a way to end the season
sledgeross said | November 25th 2008 @ 7:26am | Report comment
Children, please read what I have written. I never said the Kangaroos were robbed, or that decision cost Australia the game. They choked enough in the 2nd half to ensure that NZ didnt need any contentious calls to win the game. I was arguing about the application of the law. In an earlier post I said how it should have been a penalty and Monghan sin-binned. Im not whinging about Australia losing, because they didnt do enough when it counted, merely an ambiguous law.
oikee said | November 25th 2008 @ 10:26am | Report comment
I have no troubles with League rules, they all know them and the Kiwis have been getting better every year, self belief was missing, they now have this in Bundles. As for westy i always read his posts, they are very sincere and he has genuine concern for Union in this country, but i think its a little over the top. Union survives quiet nicely with its international flavour.
Midfeilder, good points but we are already seeing the fruits of leagues hard work over the years. The pacific teams to me are very good, and will continue to improve. The NRL comp has done wonders for the Pacific islands,. They have more and more coming into the NRL year by year, having looked at the Toyota cup is good measure of there future success. Also Fox sports has just signed to include this comp in there next 4 year agreement, not bad for a 1st year comp.
I will keep saying this, league does not need to grow to big, its great the way it is, we just need to keep helping out these islanders and now Papuans like we are doing, gives them more chance to earn a quid. Not to mention the skills on show.
oikee said | November 25th 2008 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Also what i forgot to mention, Aussie rules should not be our concern, we have wasted so much time trying to fight off this code, why, people enjoy the game so why worry about it, let them enjoy what they like, there is room for all codes, the more we have the better for our youth in this country, not many countries have the opportunity to have what this country offers in sport. Cheers. Embrace the codes, our future kids depend on all codes being successful.
CronullaKiwi said | November 25th 2008 @ 10:40am | Report comment
Sledgerross you are a massive sore loser at least show some dignity unlike your petulant coach and players who are digging themselves into a massive hole. The Kiwis are desreved world champions and you have to accept that
sledgeross said | November 25th 2008 @ 10:57am | Report comment
CronullaKiwi. I know you are basking in the glory of winning, but where have I said anything that makes me a sore loser? I have never said the Kiwis didnt earn their victory (and even praised their victories against the Poms in the earlier stages). I have said the Aussies choked. I have also said that Australian sporting teams are not doing themselves any favours by their attitude.
I understand it is an emotive issue, but I also understand that posting on a forum means exposure to people of limited intellect. I realise now I should have posted an item on this particular law (penalty try) separately and a few weeks into the future to avoid the emotive rubbish that goes on.
Oikee, I dont know that the Kiwis are any better now than what they have been in the past. They have always had talent (and can lift in big games against Oz, as shown by some of their Trinations victories). What this will do though is make them realise they ARE capable of beating Oz, and not just every 8 games (which is what I think you are saying).
hayden said | November 25th 2008 @ 11:13am | Report comment
sledgeross - the point is that the Kangaroos put themselves in a position where they were at the mercy of the ref. Any time a player gets taken out in a situation like that, the offending team takes a risk. Sometimes it comes down to a toss of the coin decision, and this time around, the Kangaroos lost. Move on. Thanks Dad.
sledgeross said | November 25th 2008 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Hayden, thanks for clearing it all up. If you were not here to state the obvious, Im sure this discussion would have degenerated into folly???
oikee said | November 25th 2008 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Yes sleadge, thats exactly what i was saying, if you looked back just a few months with Sonny bill leaving and the trouble with Frankie Phrichard, also the loss of Asotasi , you would be concerned as many Kiwis were, but what they have done is shown everyone that they now know they are a team, its all about being a team and playing with who “or what cards are dealt” to you, that really matters, not names or one person. Bennett has taken this out of their minds and given them a belief in themselves as a group. You will, or we will have the oppotunity to read his next book hopefully, it will all become plain to us and he has along with Kearney pushed through a barrier that was always there for the Kiwis. Bennett is a believer, and he will go into the record books as possibly the greatest coach of all time. He is now. Kearney wont be far behind him, he is one cool costumer.
sledgeross said | November 25th 2008 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Yeah mate, I mean you look at the recycled Nathan Fien at half back (who did a good job). Compare that to who they had a few seasons ago in Stacey Jones, and it beggars belief (though I belive Fien did play Origin as a halfback). As always though, its the forwards who dictate how they go, and Jeremy Smith and Adam Blair were immense in this tournament. I think the stigma of being Unions little brother has somehow affected the why the Kiwis percieved themselves, and now they are champions, maybe the people of NZ will believe in them a little more.
good points about SBW and Frank P. I wonder if they would have had the same success had these two been playing.
oikee said | November 25th 2008 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Makes you wonder , good point and i thought about those 2 had they played. What i did not mention was maybe Kearneys book would be a better read, ( i am sure he will have one written one day) There was a scene the other night when Blair scored the last try. They showed you Bennett and Kearney sitting there waiting for the result, look dont get me wrong i am a true bennett believer, took me years but i eventually got there, anyhiow Gus and Rabbits warren were stting there saying Kearney cant look and the old coach is very relaxed. That was there thoughts, to me it was Kearney was thinking its hard to beleive we won this Cup and thanking God and benny for his help, and Bennett when he pumped his fists was thinking i have done my Job for international league. Kearney was shell-shocked, Bennett was thanking the league gods for helping him with his cause.
Now the guy i really feel sorry for is Matthew Ridge, he will be new zealands most hated, sonny bill is now off the hook. If only he had waited for the final game, then again how was he to know, he had lost faith also. Cheers.
sledgeross said | November 25th 2008 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
Yeah, it was bizarre for Ridge to speak out when he did, but Im sure there were some of his quotes taken out of context. Seems like Sticky is up the creek as well for confronting Klein the next day over his refereeing.
I want to see Bennett coaching the Kumuhls next. PNG has great potential, giving the Poms a big scare in the first pool game.
Tigerface said | November 25th 2008 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
Forget the result, it was the aftermath that had me seething.
Australia’s sportsmanship was appalling.
But we have been here before. Remember John Howard’s petulant attitude when handing the William Ellis to Martin Johnson in 2003?
The supposedly gracious hosts….Aussies RL fans decide to run home in tears. It’s just embarrassing. We can’t have this happen again.
This RLWC has been a fantastic showcase of everything the real fan hates about Australian sport. The media driven cockiness, the calling of Australian victories before they happen, the dismissing of opponents, commentary that refuses to give the opposition credit, players believing there own hype, anger and lack of grace in defeat and excuses galore that refuse to credit worthy winners.
Australia didn’t lose the RLWC they were beaten fair and square, reading the papers you would think there has been some conspiracy…oh, Ricky even verbalised that one. It’s beyond hilarious.
As for Channel 9….word’s fail me.
The Rugby world laughs it self silly and again we look like spoilt children.
“We haven’t won, WAAAAAAAA” pathetic. We need to grow up.
sledgeross said | November 25th 2008 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
I hardly think the Rugby world is laughing itself silly, because league is beneath their interest. All rugby has for the RLWC is scorn and derision!
oikee said | November 25th 2008 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Tigerface, i will tell you a true story and it might change your mind about the league crowd. Brisbane supporters are not sore losers, we just let the kiwis have there moment in the spotlight. There was masses at the game , i was there.
Heres a true story, i sat at the very top of the stand, Blair had just scored the last try, so i nipped down to have a quick pee, when i got back my wife was sitting on her own , our 2 friends were gone so i asked what happened to them, she told me her friend(girl) had rushed out in tears along with her husband trying to console her. Look they are younger than what my wife and myself are and are not used to seeing the kangaroos beat. I forgive her for this and later caught up with them and had to explain that a defeat builds charector. It was the Kiwis moment and they had it all to themselves. I would never expect any other teams fans to hang around after a loss. Theres always next time for them to hang around.
We did move down to the lower stand and watched Nathan raise the cup, the kiwis did not know or care who was around, they were having to much fun. Cheers.
cosmos forever said | November 25th 2008 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
BTW - Blair’s one handed pick up should have finalised his man of the match…
But that’s another story
Michael C said | November 25th 2008 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
Oikee -
Also what i forgot to mention, Aussie rules should not be our concern, we have wasted so much time trying to fight off this code, why, people enjoy the game so why worry about it, let them enjoy what they like, there is room for all codes, the more we have the better for our youth in this country, not many countries have the opportunity to have what this country offers in sport. Cheers. Embrace the codes, our future kids depend on all codes being successful.
the big factor of multiple footy codes is that a code can’t (or shouldn’t) rest on it’s laurels, that they can’t assume support and players for granted. In Australia, the benefit is obvious of this - - which is probably one of the primary reasons that Blacktown city council is so behind the AFL ‘moving in’, not to displace Rugby, but to compliment it and to also put their little patch of dirt on the ARL’s radar.
The point of it all - - it’s not about getting a bigger piece of the pie.
It’s about making the pie bigger.
Millster said | November 25th 2008 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
Or is that “make the pie higher” (an early G.W. Bush-ism) ?
My only comment overall is that in relation to most other nations Australians already consume (live and via TV) an enormous amount of sporting product. Is there room for further growth?
oikee said | November 25th 2008 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
Good point M.C….. really there is plenty of room for growth for any code. Hard to beat the spectical of aussie rules, i gave up trying to beat them.
Hopefully and i think league has given up too, just accept that we are a small but healthy comp, that should be there plan. Soccer will overtake us one day, i say just wave hello on their way through.
Millster said | November 25th 2008 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
Actually Oikee I hope that football, League and maybe even Union can learn to co-exist and cooperate on facilities and other things. Just as cricket and AFL have for grounds in the past. This is possible due to football being played in summer down under. I know some aspects of this are hard to figure out in detail but if we get this right it will mean appropriate facilities and potentially shared costs for all 3 of the ‘rectandular’ codes. If I was FFA I’d have a working group with the NRL and S14 on this already.
oikee said | November 25th 2008 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
Another good point Millster, now you know i always rave on about football(soccer) being 24/7 on tele. But we have our summer and winter sports which i think are now evenly balanced. Mind you i think there is going to be a problem with too much league next year. Toyota cup super league and NRL, it was hard to fit it all in this year, my wife will divoice me next year.
Some times i wish league was not this good for me, so i could just return to the queensland cup comp.
So on top of this in winter i watch me brisbane bears games and Union internationals. At the end of season, and also watch the soccerdoos when they play, the aussie rules internationals and Millster had me watching the Aderlaide united ACL games.
Hold on , just checking to make sure i am still married.
Michael C said | November 25th 2008 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
Millster -
each has different aspects of growth requirements that for the short-medium term can be facilitated.
Soccer - for example - is needing to focus on growing it’s own engagement with it’s own participants (likewise basketball, netball etc) - - for attendance and viewing. These MAY have a bit to do with other codes - - (if people aren’t 100% exclusive), but, also other ENTERTAINMENT options.
Soccer has to seek to ‘grow’ the internal qualitative measures relating to technical skills/coaching etc - - that’s got NOTHING to do with anyone else.
Aust Footy is seeking to grow in NSW and QLd where there is a definite available niche (at very least in relation to participation) for kids in between soccer and rugby and a vacuum for an ‘attacking’ code of football.
Rugby needs to expand into the AFL states - - at very least providing talent pathway options for those interested or more suited to the Rugby codes. Whether expansion of competitions is on the cards? Whether the 2 rugby codes could co-exist in a market like Melb, or Perth ……but……….there’s plenty of scope for growth by working a bit smarter, if both Rugby codes suddenly found that they had 10-20 kids running around who have come from SA, WA and Vic…………gee………..suddenly state of origin will require an ‘Allies’ style team!! (no……….I’m NOT serious about the name!).
It’s the old thing, you can spend your life swimming against the tide, or, you can every now and then, work with the tide, and pick your strategic moments to try something a bit more ’spectacular’.
btw - channel 10 seems to think that sports is going to be a major vehicle for them going forward via digital multi-channels.
The question though is, that the top end (existing FTA staples) products will retain huge value - - but, the mid/lower range sports products, such as the netball, basketball, perhaps the HAL (not to confuse with ACL and Socceroos) might be in a tighter market or might depending upon spare cash managed to increase in value - as fta digital channels fight for the sports ‘content’ with pay TV. Or, will we just pay as we go on super fast broadband?
oikee said | November 25th 2008 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
Millster, i am a champion for the 3 codes to use the same facilities, they do this in Brisbane now and the only downside at the moment is getting bigger crowds to Union and Soccer, give them time and it will improve. You need 25 thousand at sunny corp for a good healthy crowd, dont forget it took league years to acheive this, the other codes just need to start winning, remember i told you Brisbane loves winners, so it will come.
oikee said | November 25th 2008 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
I looked on the Union site, they are not happy with the coverage of 10, league hates 9 soccer hates all of them for not showing any games , and we all dislike aussie rules for getting all the benifits 7 . Just had a quick look and there seems to be some wingers about 7 coverage for aussie rules, anyhow what they do in england is pay for t/v all the time. So maybe this is where we are headed. ?
Millster said | November 25th 2008 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
MC - with the ’swimming with the tide’ thing, that is why I think it is a no-brainer for AFL to go GC17 and Tassie18 rather than West Sydney. Much as I’d like to claim Tassie as a football territory by getting a team in there first, I think it is a lovely juicy sitting duck for the AFL and I don’t know why they dont get out their .22, shoot the bastard, and enjoy it with some orange (or perhaps Tasmanian apple) sauce on the side for years to come.
Millster said | November 25th 2008 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
10 can learn. At least it has showed a willingness to try with both football and union. 7 is all AFL and at least with football, there is a historical reason (THE memo) why there is hatred. 9 is fast going insolvent and I think RL needs to get the hell outta there ASAP. Digital multichannelling and cheaper (esp. pay-per-view rather than subscription basis) pay TV is in my view the future - with both of these converging with broadband internet sometime in the next 10-15 years.
oikee said | November 25th 2008 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
Yeah its funny, they know they own tassie so dont need to go there, its a bit like league on the central coast, but soccer has now thrown out the challenge for them to act, its turned things on its head, notice that Millster. The only saving grace for either code is the fact that soccer is summer, different story if soccer went to winter. Whats the issue like for soccer being a summer game millster. ?
oikee said | November 25th 2008 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
Now i know why 9 does not respond to comments made to them about shite coverage.
Michael C said | November 25th 2008 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
Millster -
the AFL had to re-invent a little on the run. They envisaged a North Melb going to Gold Coast. Personally - I’m happy that’s NOT happening. I’m sick of the notion of (to me, an arrogant) belief that you could just relocate a 130-140 year old ‘club’ in a US style ‘franchise’ relocation manner.
I do reckon though there might be a carrot to ‘merge’ an existing club into WS 18 pretty soon after it’s had say 5 years to get roughly established in it’s own right with a major NSW contingent initially - as per the GC17 model. The value long term of perhaps a very public influx of 20+ NSW kids into a start up NSW team - - the AFL sees that as something to aim for. Given the ground work having been done with auskick, junior clubs, over all participation and Blacktown council as well as a couple of indigenous academies out at Blacktown and Campbelltown - - the AFL has done a lot and don’t want to walk away from it.
For soccer to go to Tassie - - it’d only be an ‘ego’ thing to point at dots on a map - - in all other respects, the greater need is a 2nd Sydney team (above and beyond a 2nd Melb team). If the FFA opted for a Tassie side ahead of a 2nd Syd team - - then they’d be really missing the mark.
For Tassie into AFL…..the big question is, how many teams do they want? What if a 3rd WA team based around Mandurah came in, plus Tassie, so TA19 & MH20. 6 teams in Tas,SA & WA, 4 in NSW and QLD, 10 in Vic. Can a 20 team perhaps 2 ‘conference’ league work? Or, would we assume at least 2 Vic teams would be ‘farmed’ out to merge into perhaps Tassie and West Syd?
The AFL have clearly put on the back burner trying ‘directly’ (via big carrots) to ‘assist’ Vic clubs to merge/relocate. And, perhaps, if they can force Etihad stadium to provide a better deal for the 3 clubs most being screwed over - - then, a big funding black hole gets closed. Does the AFL want a 16, 18, 20 team comp……. what is their strategic design? What size no longer generates crowds, and viewer interest? Would a 2 conference comp provide greater regular viewer interest?
By the time the stadium (Etihad) reverts to AFL ownership the question then is what position the AFL hopes to be in?? Because, as long as the stadium is still functioning correctly, then, the AFL will be ‘in the money’ so to speak (on that front, anyway).
Millster said | November 25th 2008 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
I think its quite sensible for football to be a summer game here for 2 reasons:
First, it avoids competition (for fans, TV times, grounds, etc) to a large extent with AFL and RL, plus it gives people who prefer those codes over cricket to do something over summer. A good example is someone like Pip who, down in Melbourne, can see AFL in winter and has HAL as a second sport for the summer. Even me who likes football first and then the other ‘footy’ codes second (I hate cricket) can watch football in summer and then get a dose of AFL and League for the months the HAL isn’t on.
Second, and very important, it aligns our year with the European / Northern hemisphere year. It lets us try and get in line for things like transfer windows, FIFA-sanctioned dates when leagues have to stop for international, scheduling for continental and global tournaments, and all sorts of other things. We still have a way to go to get perfect alignment since we have a small league of 8 clubs currently, but in the longer term if we get there it makes a lot of sense. That said, we’d be playing 9 months of the year - from September to May - if we had a down under equivalent of the full footballing calendar.
oikee said | November 25th 2008 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
Yes, lucky devils. Something league has never enjoyed
Money.
Millster said | November 25th 2008 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
MC - very interesting analysis and yes I agree these are the question for the AFL. In general terms I would have thought that moving to a position where at most 50% of clubs were Vic was preferable. To me that says axing one, perhaps two (and yes I agree a merger is a soft axe and maybe preferred).
I don’t quite understand the ‘greater need’ for Western Sydney over Tassie though. Tassie is screaming for a team whereas Sydney is ambivalent and a far bigger risk. AFL in Tassie to me is like a free kick from the top of the goal square dead in front with no-one on the mark (the kind Peter Sumich would still have missed
)
Out of interest would you prefer a merged or relocated North Melbourne Kangaroos, or none at all but to know they had valiantly and independently fought to their death? Its a difficult question I know…
oikee said | November 25th 2008 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
Well you know my stance on long seasons, i am stuffed with all the league this year, mind you the cup was on, but i think the season needs to be shortened and allow some internationals to take place. I am buggered. 9 months of football would just do my head in. I think if league and aussie rules went to a 2 team affair like M.C has pointed out would be better. Get it over quicker and forget the profits.
The internationals can be the profit spinner like Union and soccer have. Anyhow, being on the wrong side of 40, the younger kids would love more, the more the merrier.
Michael C said | November 25th 2008 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
Millster -
re North Melb, especially whilst they were trying their ‘Kangaroos’ branding exercise, and playing games in Canberra, Sydney and Gold Coast - - well, for me then, I didn’t really care where they trained - - and if they only played 8 ‘home away from home’ away games in Melbourne - that I could attend as a Melb based member, then, that’d be fine too.
But - NOrth Melbourne the suburb was always a grimy little place that didn’t hold much allure to someone coming from green and lush East Gippsland (except in 1983, not so green then).
West Sydney Roos could work.
West Sydney - - what’s the allure? Well, the AFL have shown via South Africa that they can work well with poverty stricken communities……
………..certainly the ‘branding’ or a 2nd Sydney team needs to be done carefully. And, perhaps they need to give the present generation of auskickers a 10 year buffer, so that a WS team wouldn’t be envisaged before say, 2017 to enter the TAC cup like GS 17 and, then 2019 into the main AFL. (that’d give the NSW scholarship system a few more years of establishing NSW talent on lists - - and perhaps have a couple of ‘big names’ potentially positioned to ‘return home’ to captain the new side).
The reality is that the fact that NSW offers 33% of Australian population,
and, that for kids not entirely suited to either of the Rugby codes - - and in Union, there’s only so many positions for a ‘full back’ (that’s why they invented Rugby 7s ain’t it??) - - there really is a footballing vacuum for kids who can run and kick and use their hands………..the AFL already has about three full HAL club lists worth of senior listed players from NSW and QLD - - but, no doubt, there’d be a driving desire to have at least 50 decent to quality NSW kids to choose from to allow a NSW vs Vic State of Origin battle - - - and AFL could provide that far quicker than the NRL could………………..and how cool would that be?
and for tv/marketing ‘footprint’, to have 1 game a week over 22 wks in the largest state/city isn’t an overly ridiculous goal. It’s hardly as if the AFL are hoping to take over Sydney………..you don’t do that with 2 teams. But, for the AFL, they get an appropriate national footprint with a minimum 1 game a week in each of 5 states…………no hope of that in Tassie, but, the longer that Tassie doesn’t have a team of it’s own……………..the longer the broader Tassie interest is still captured by the AFL in general - - - rather than just the ‘home’ team.
Redb said | November 25th 2008 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
Tassie is too fractured for its support amongst a range of Vic AFL teams. the support would be half hearted at best.
reckon North should merge with Melb or Bullies. I’ll give myself an uppercut for suggesting it, but better than relocation methinks. Relocated clubs take a long time to live down their roots in their ne home, how good is GC17 shaping up for the locals knowing its chock full of Queenslanders on and off the field.
Redb
oikee said | November 25th 2008 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
Yes its easy to see what 2 teams in these states will do for the T/V rights. Good move and i do support this move.
Just getting back to the league cup because we are on a league site, now i know you 2 guys had many doughts about this tournament, hope you did not suffer too much, but overall the games and the structure of the comp, and yes the final result shut most people up, but the structure, you think league got it right and the lesser teams all had a good dig. I know its not huge but its a good little concept, ? Gives other countries something to look forward to no?
Michael C said | November 25th 2008 @ 4:49pm | Report comment
oikee -
after I saw that the Grid Iron world cup of 1999 and 2003 were devoid of the USA, and that the USA bothered turning up and winning in 2007………….well……….heck, we may as well call the AFL IC a World Cup with or without Australia.
So, on that basis, the Rugby League World (as big or small as that world may be) can do whatever the heck they want.
In the past, my main point was to illustrate that some of the ‘affiliate nations’ that we on the verge of or even in the ‘top 10′ weren’t that far removed from some of the ‘AFL IC’ affiliate nations - - we just lack the ‘top tier’ of nations.
FOr the RLWC, there were walk overs, and there were some evenly matched contests, and there was an upset in the final that has ‘vindicated’ the whole show…….(it does [vindicate it], doesn’t it?).
The main thing though, there still is only lukewarm interest from the NRL ‘family’ in ‘Internationals’. The crowds are always very much down compared to SoO. It’s interesting, that the people vote with their feet and SoO is still the most highly rated ‘contest’ available.
But, as a ‘development’ tournament, the RLWC has probably served a purpose. (hopefully not too much at the expense of the embryonic AFL in certain Pacific Islands).
Millster said | November 25th 2008 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
Oikee - no. The good result was only the very last game. The others, right up to the semi, were mostly very uneven. And also by putting them in the A pool with Aust, NZ and England, the PNG team was totally sacrificed despite them being an exciting prospect - imagine how they might have done in pools B or C… Not saying it shouldn’t happen in some form but this one was completely wrong for the game. Sounds harsh but I think you know from our previous discussions that I’m not bagging out international rugby league, just the lack of creativity shown in its having a world cup concept. One good game with an upset result doesn’t take away the stupidity of the overall tournament.
Westy said | November 25th 2008 @ 5:26pm | Report comment
You and I are in agreement on this Michael….many on this site missed the point of both AFL International Cup and the RLWC. They were very much community events aimed at development. For league it was part of their celebrations. I felt a little sorry for them and defended them somewhat. They were celebrating their game and there has never been anything wrong with that….excluding the 50500 at the final they got 243000 odd at theirWC games at an average of 14300….not great but relative to any sport in Australia apart from the AFL not to bad, again excluding the Final they got over 8 million viewers across Australia on free to air , over 2 million on pay in NZ, 1 million on pay in Australia, 0.5 million on Fiji pay and god only knows how many in Papua: sold over 37000 Kangaroos jersies and netted the ARL ( not the NRL) 5 million for pure development. As a result the ARL has been able to announce an annual South Pacific Cup and then NH tour every two years and SH 4 nations tournament every alternate 2 years. Note the winner of the South Pacific Cup will play NZ/Aust/England in the 4 nations SH . The result was as genuine as Ireland’s result against Australia and the question need not have been put. You can tell.
Alongside this slightly manufactured WC there were five others the RL Defence Forces WC/ RL Police WC/ RL Universities WC/ RL Woman’s WC and the RL Wheelchair WC…..the French Wheelchair team is to play the NRL premiers Manly this week……..this was really their first proper dig and anyone who tries to connect with theirs and other communities is all right by me and not deserving of some of the petulent criticism they faced. Who in their right mind would compare it to the FIFA or RU WC ….but I saw genuine pleasure and pride by the indigenous team when did their war cry in response to the Maori’s haka in the opening game…that was good enough for me to change my mind. They celebrated their game without NRL and their News LTd partner..all power to them………
Sol said | November 25th 2008 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
Rugby league’s advantage, or rather opportunity, is that it has 3 levels. It makes sense that the crowds/interest should escalate as you go up the scale from club to state to Australia, but it doesn’t mean the international level is a waste of effort if it fails to outdraw Origin and the NRL grand final.
All those number Westy quoted should be seen as extras or a bonus. If the international games pays it way then why shouldn’t it be played if it can add to the rugby league coffers and good will.
Treizistes said | November 25th 2008 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
No wonder I stopped coming here, for gods sake you guys talk some crap.
Only the final had an upset, what frigging tournament were you watching?
France came 9th, that’s an upset, Fiji beating France, upset.
Ireland making the play off, that’s an upset.
Fiji getting to play Australia for a spot in the final, that’s an upset.
Scotland winning a game, that’s an upset.
England only beating PNG, that’s an upset.
Samoa getting done, that’s an upset.
Blah blah blah.
Then i come back here for a quick look and it’s the same know alls spouting the same garbage.
Can I get an answer, WTF has AFL, Union and Soccer got to do with NZ winning the RLWC, wake the ef up for gods sake.
Oh that’s right, if you are a soccer, union or AFL know all here, you get looked after, if you like League, you get treated like you have the plague.
Well done to NZ and Rugby League, you showed the dickheads at the roar, the Terrorgraph, SMH and all the forums up, again, well done, oh and spiro, that’s some funny garbage you wrote, no wonder you talk union all the time, maybe you should stick to it, at least no one will know when you completely stuff it up.
Michael C said | November 25th 2008 @ 6:13pm | Report comment
Ah Treizistes,
and how you’ve been missed,…..
…..actually, if you want to contribute - - perfect - - but, be careful how ‘antagonistic’ you are. You’ve once again fired all your torpedoes at first sign of the enemy.
Don’t be surprised that they fire back.
btw - - you’re obviously correct in your points regarding the upsets etc.
and personally I’m very ‘over’ the soccer and union folk who try to suggest that no-one else has a ‘valid’ World Cup. If a sport wants to do and can do it, then - it’s all about that sport and it’s ‘world’ - - really. We all know the historic context of Lebanon going back to a previous RLWC - - but, people can get too hung up on that.
So - - contribute and educate and try to not get sucked in too much by those nasty Union types……
oikee said | November 25th 2008 @ 6:38pm | Report comment
Yes the next one will really tell league if its a success or not, you see one thing which is a problem, where do you hold the next one. They are not possitive that England should hold the game over there yet. I agree, would hate to see the game go backwards because people dont get out to lesser nations. Thats the worry. Anyhow’s, thats 5 years off, so for now, adios amigos., Cheers.
Redb said | November 25th 2008 @ 6:42pm | Report comment
Oikee,
Maybe Australia should continue to host the RLWC as the strongest nation and in the best position to develop the Pacific nations?
Redb
Treizistes said | November 25th 2008 @ 6:57pm | Report comment
Europe is where the development needs to go.
More money and millions of people with RL played at different levels throughout.
Midfielder said | November 25th 2008 @ 7:26pm | Report comment
Millster
In reply to an earlier comment you made …. but sorry folks not on the RLWC ….. but you said regarding the AFL in WS…”I don’t quite understand the ‘greater need’ for Western Sydney over Tassie though”
I think you have missed the point the AFL are not after a WS team they are after a second Sydney team…. and need a tag to hang the second Sydney team on … this WS team if they get say 7, 000 from WS it’s OK because by playing at Homebush they can get another 13, 000 from other parts of Sydney.
Look it’s very clever by saying WS team you direct your competition in the wrong direction and by the time they have worked out it was a second Sydney team it’s to late …….. but in the mean time you can claim what a success I am 20, 000 in your heartland when its from all over Sydney the crowd is drawn from ……. hats off to them it’s clever it’s smart and it will work.
onside said | November 25th 2008 @ 9:41pm | Report comment
You would struggle to find a worse display of poor sportsmanship than shown by most Australian supporters
at Suncorp Stadium on Saturday night who left before the presentation of the rugby league world cup.
These people demand the RLWC be taken seriously,and given due respect, but could not bring themselves to
respect New Zealand, the overseas visitors, or the code they represent .They have no sense of occassion.
In what other World Cup of any code do supporters leave before the winners have been presented with the
trophy and completed a lap of honour.
The English supporters did not leave ,nor visitors from other nations ,but when the TV cameras panned the stands
shortly after the final whistle,they were almost deserted. The Aussies had done a runner.
A picture tells a 1000 words , so how must this have looked to overseas viewers,let alone the visitors at the game.
Ricky Stuart is being brought to book for conduct unbecoming, regarding a match referee and a RLWC official.
But Stuarts behavior pales into insignificance compared with the contemptous attitude of Australian supporters.
New Zealand won the RLWC ,and those that left early neither had the common decency to honour the winners,
nor respect people that travelled half way round the globe to be part of this event.
What a discrace.
Westy said | November 25th 2008 @ 10:35pm | Report comment
Look I agree with you Onside but Celtic did a pretty good job…do not bite back they are my team…over and out have agood night.
oikee said | November 26th 2008 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Well i dissagree with you Onside, i was a aussie who stayed around for the cup to be lifted, and the kiwis were all there for there 1st victory, i think the crowd just let them enjoy it all for themselves, they were having there moment in the sun after 50 years, why would you want aussies there to spoil it. We gave them space. If it was the England team that won i still would have stayed but most aussies would still allow them enjoy it, they had the fans there to make it a occasion. Cheers.
Now if it was say fiji that won, then the crowd would have helped out. I dont think its a issue in oz.
onside said | November 26th 2008 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Oikee
I was not there, so your opinion carries more weight. The television showed stands that were almost empty as
the Kiwis received the trophy. When the cameras panned to the other side of the stadium the stands were full.
oikee said | November 26th 2008 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Yes we went down the stairs and into the memebers area at the front, like most kiwis who were at the top stands. Look to be honest , i dont think anyone was really interested in who was there, no one noticed me having my aussie jersey on, they were to busy being over joyed at the moment in time. It was absolutely choas as there was Kiwis in shock dissbelief and truely humbled by what they had witnessed. I was at the top of the stairs and nobody looked back at me, they all were waiting for the boys to come over to share the cup. It was a moment in time i was not going to miss. 50 years is a long time.
CronullaKiwi said | November 26th 2008 @ 9:04am | Report comment
Oikee, Crowd just wanted to let them enjoy it? - please. It was disguting sportsmanship of the highest order and unfortunately will be remember by everyone around the world who watched it. Under-arm anyone?
Sol said | November 26th 2008 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Gabba cricket crowd apparently worse treatment for Black Caps.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10545157 [ Complaints by New Zealand players that they were taunted as "faggots" during the first cricket test at the Gabba has stirred the debate over ugly behaviour by Australian sports spectators. ]
Millster said | November 26th 2008 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Sol - yes but we’ve long known that aussie cricket fans were racist ugly low-lives and that the country’s gene pool would be better off without them. I just cna’t believe some of the shit I’ve seen and heard at cricket games, live and televised, over the years.
What makes me sad is the suggestion that this behaviour is creeping into supporters of the 4 ‘footy’ codes, where I think there is a fair bit more respect for a good quality, hard contest from most fans.
sledgeross said | November 26th 2008 @ 10:21am | Report comment
CronullaKiwi, if you only have negative things to say about Australia, why are you here mate? Surely we aint all that bad.
And to be fair to the inbred Queenslanders, the Kiwis did capitulate rather, um, effeminately
Kinda like the Aussie league team!
oikee said | November 26th 2008 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Well thats your opinion Cronulla Kiwi, but at least i stayed. It was a wonderful game and i thouroughly enjoyed it, but i was not crowd counting like some do. What i did notice was the cup itself, what a beauty she really is, they made that sucker when the game had a bit more money i think. Very nice and very enchanting , i see that its going over to Kiwi land now, next time i am over there i intend to pay her a visit. Cheers.
CronullaKiwi said | November 26th 2008 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Sledger, I have a one of your birds mate….so no your not all that bad
oikee said | November 26th 2008 @ 10:31am | Report comment
The Cup, i call it She because its such a beauty. Unlike Bill, the Union cup, and why or who called it Bill, sounds like something you have to pay off, they should have called it Bruce.
Yes everyone wants to touch or feel her, this lovely cup. Better stop talking about her, you guys will think i am obsessed.
Isn’t she a beauty.
Millster said | November 26th 2008 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Mrs Oikee is getting jealous….
oikee said | November 26th 2008 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Michael C said | November 26th 2008 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Midfielder -
(back tracking to another back tracking comment)
the West Sydney Razorbacks failure as the Sydney spirit should be a lesson to all - - to be very careful about attempting to be all things to all people. Thus, the AFL via WS18 need to be careful to not dilute it too much. However, again, if they can ‘build’ it from scratch similar to the GC17 with majority local kids………..then……….there’s something special there.
Actually, NRL should try that in Victoria, have a crack at building a Toyota Cup squad as ‘Victorian’ as possible for the Storm.
Sol said | November 26th 2008 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Michael C. From memory I think the Storm Toyota Cup team in 2008 had 8 or so players who came through the Victorian NRL junior clubs. Sure, many are sons of migrant Islanders, but they are no less Victorians.
oikee said | November 26th 2008 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
Yes i think thats true Sol, i know they have juniors coming through. Those Basketball guys cant take a trick in this country hey M.C ,,, hope they never try to get Gridiron started in this country.
Michael C said | November 26th 2008 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
Sol -
yeah, now, I wonder if Victorians will disclaim those kids as not being ‘true’ victorians, in the way some NSW RL advocates like to disclaim any AFL recruit from Broken Hill, Albury, Wagga, Finley, Hay, Deniliquin, Turvey Park, The Rock, Barooga, Moama, Wentworth etc etc as not really being NSW and any kids from Sydney must be sons of ex-pats.
skull said | November 26th 2008 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Which NSW RL Folk are you talking about Michael. What are their names, where do they live?
By the way there is a bloke on another thread who reckons that Rugby has the biggest TV contract in Aus sport. Is this true?
Lanky said | November 26th 2008 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
No mate, I said the SANZAR contract is bigger than any TV rights contract for any Australian sport. Dont misquote me.
Sol said | November 26th 2008 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
The total of the SANZAR contract may be more but you have to only look at the ARU’s cut if fair comparison is to be made with the AFL and NRL.
Shouldn’t the SANZAR contract money be divided by a third? Or is the money divided up by the number of Super 14 franschises. Given Aust has 4 of the 16 then do they get 25%?
Either way rugby union doesn’t have the biggest TV contract within Australia.
Lanky said | November 26th 2008 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
Sol, again I certainly never said “rugby union doesn’t have the biggest TV contract within Australia”. I said the SANZAR contract was bigger than any contract of any Australian Sport.
The SANZAR contract is worth US$350m = A$540m. And it is for 5 years - 103 matches per year. Compare that to AFL and NRL and let me know what you find. You can divide by 3 roughly for the Aus value. Its about 1m per match average.
Pippinu said | November 26th 2008 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
The AFL contract is worth $780 mill for 5 years.
Pippinu said | November 26th 2008 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
That’s for 187 matches, including finals, and probably includes the Brownlow medal and draft.
Michael C said | November 26th 2008 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
skull -
well off. Even if you regard the entire SANZAR package - - the AFL is all over it. (~$780m over 5 years, across FTA, Pay etc)
However, the thing when comparing AFL vs NRL that many forget to check out is the per minute dollar value, i.e. an AFL game runs for 80 mins plus time on, which makes it more like 120 mins - - when live, spread over 2.5 to 3 hours of telecast. A Rugby game is over and done with sooner, the telecast is shorter. Many NRL folk who believe their game short changed - irrespective of national ‘footprint’ etc, forget that simple little equation. What they might find is that the NRL is potentially over valued. But, for Rugby itself - - well, the Aust value proposition is ordinary compared to Sth Af and NZ were Rugby is much, much more prominant. Heck, even the wallabies struggle to make it to air in Melb pre midnight.
It would be interesting to work the ARU cut of the SANZAR rights, relative to the Aust clubs, there ‘air time’ on pay tv plus the internationals. Reality probably is (well, my guess is) that you pay more annually than the rights deserve in Australia so as to ensure you get best access to securing the RUWC rights???
Lanky said | November 26th 2008 @ 10:48pm | Report comment
Michael C - based on the per match amount then obviously RU is getting the best deal, nevermind per minute, in which it is even further ahead. Of course the gross amount for rugby doesnt stack up because there is not enough product. And of course the ARU still earns revenue from the non SANZAR TV rights for the pre Tri Nations window and the European spring tour plus extra Bledisloe and Mandela Cup games. Not too bad for the poor cousin that is rugby.
Westy said | November 26th 2008 @ 11:19pm | Report comment
Lanky I agree professional rugby has never been a poor cousin. My only comment however is that the exodus to league began at least 30 years before the advent of the pokies of the late 50’s and 60’s. By the late 1940’s 2/3 of amateur union players had shifted to amateur league in the city and bush across QLD and NSW. Remember this was not at the professional end……..From .Asquith to Mosman and Manly to Parramatta to Zetland across Sydney and it was worse in the bush Cessnock… Forbes ….Goulburn…Illawarra . Lithgow..Maitland …Newcastle Tumut Wagga Wagga .amateur players shifted….we in rugby are not good at explaining why concentrating on the pokie revenue of the 60’s onwards.
From about 1920 to say 1950 rugby lost the battle of the amateurs. No rugby history I have read addresses this issue and NSWRU records are silent……….it holds the key……..these areas were previously rugby strongholds…when the leaguies got the revenue streams from the pokies in the 60’s they went after our best players with renewed vigour…but be under no illusion…we lost much well before and we are not good at explaining why ?
Lanky said | November 26th 2008 @ 11:23pm | Report comment
Why? Because the 2 games were the same so that was not an issue and the best players had gone to RL so it looked more appealing, but surely the biggest issue was the one of “fairness” wrt broken time payments???
Westy said | November 26th 2008 @ 11:37pm | Report comment
Lanky Probably …although the contested play the ball and two less players probably made league a little more fluid …yet you are right there was still much more of a genuine battle for possession and scrummaging in old unlimited tackle league….I know it is with hindsight but i cannot but think a little more courage from NSWRU…….alas….I note the NZers whilst not being professional had a much more generous approach whether officia lor unofficial to medical expenses and “injury compensation”….they seemed to just ignore some RFU edicts …to their eternal credit.We followed all hook line and sinker.