It’s time for the mid-season Test match to go
Columnist By Luke Doherty, 9 May 2011 Luke Doherty is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Anzac Test, New Zealand Rugby League, NRL, Rugby League
Kangaroos player Johnathan Thurston in action during the Anzac Test match between Australia and New Zealand at Skilled Park on the Gold Coast, Friday, May 6, 2011. (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
Too much thought went in to solving questions without perfect answers this weekend. Did the NRL need to take a break while Australia and New Zealand played on the Gold Coast?
Should there be a four week window where the test match is followed by three State of Origin games?
And should the Double Down be a permanent fixture on KFC’s menu?
The answers seem simple to me, but i’m not in charge of the welfare of the game or the diet of millions of Australians.
It’s not time for a stand alone representative weekend.
State of Origin is fine where it is, and the double down is an intriguing bit of chicken, but should be classed as “sometimes” food.
Is there really a problem with dumping the Trans-Tasman test from the mid-season fixture list completely? The New Zealanders wouldn’t mind, they haven’t won since 1998.
The idea of selecting a national side to play them before the State of Origin series is ridiculous and should’ve been stopped a long time ago.
State of Origin and the entire NRL season needs to be used as criteria for Kangaroos coach Tim Sheens. How do you seriously pick an Australian side on eight rounds of evidence? It has largely overshadowed round nine of the NRL and that shouldn’t be the case.
Does it even count as a round when only eight teams play?
It’s Monday morning and I don’t feel the same buzz as I normally do after a weekend of footy.
It was half-hearted and incomplete. I didn’t have to check the progress of my fantasy league team every two-minutes. Even they had the sense to schedule a bye weekend while another chapter was written in a long running trans-tasman rivalry.
So where does that leave City/Country? Unfortunately it should also be done away with. Queensland doesn’t need a pre-origin trial match, so why should the Blues?
If anything, it has worked against New South Wales this year. I’m pretty sure Mal Meninga and his Maroons support staff would’ve been watching the much talked about indentical sets of playbooks with interest.
State of Origin should be the first representatives fixtures of the season. It would leave some teams without their best players for three rounds of the year with most able to back-up after a Wednesday night fixture.
The competition lost a bit of steam this weekend. Would you rather have seen your team in action or a Trans-Tasman test?
For me, club trumps country every time.
Recommend this story.
You can follow Luke Doherty on Twitter @Luke_Doherty and on Sky News Australia.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Anzac Test, New Zealand Rugby League, NRL, Rugby League
May 9th 2011 @ 7:13am
Whites said | May 9th 2011 @ 7:13am | Report comment
Agree 100%. All international rugby league should be in October but I also think State Of Origin should be on stand-alone weekends. No other sport disrupts it’s competition the way rugby league does. All fit players should be available for their club every game. Every weekend shoul be a full round. It works in football. All league football comes to a stop on international dates.
There should be Origin 1 then 2 full rounds before origin 2 and the another 2 rounds before origin 3. Simple. Now tv will whinge about not enough product on origin weekend. Then give them more product.
Under20′s Origin: NSW vs QLD on Friday night.
Under20′s Pacific Origin: NZ vs Pacific IslandsVIII.
I heard this on the radio yesterday-players not involved in any games should do an outreach trip to a regional area to spread the game.
May 9th 2011 @ 7:25am
Whites said | May 9th 2011 @ 7:25am | Report comment
Sorry. Saturday should also have full Pacific Origin: NZ vs Pacific Island VIII.
May 9th 2011 @ 8:04am
The Bush said | May 9th 2011 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Or City (Auckland) v Country (rest of NZ) to give them some sort of “Rep” football before the international season.
Tonga, Samoa, Fiji and PNG could also play against each other on these weekends (when Origin is on).
May 9th 2011 @ 8:15am
oikee said | May 9th 2011 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Origin is played during the week, Tonga Samoa PNG and Fiji should be played same week-end as the test matches.
They need to keep getting exposure. It helps them internationally to keep growing.
The Tonga Samoa match was one of the best games last year at Parramatta.
May 9th 2011 @ 1:31pm
Willy said | May 9th 2011 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
You could send around a couple of Under 8s sides and it would still be one of the best games at Parramatta.
May 9th 2011 @ 7:33am
oikee said | May 9th 2011 @ 7:33am | Report comment
Its a funny code rugby league. All topsy turvey. All over the place like a mad butchers wedding. I think origin could be moved to Monday nites, this will give players time to back up for the week-end games with a 3 week break in between each origin .
So nothing wrong with the origin set-up.
As for city country, keep it, but have it stand alone on the Anzac weekend, if you add the test match to this week-end, it gives both states good representation. Dont forget that their was 13 queenslanders in the test match. ?
We need to make the Anzac weekend a bye weekend, find another few games for this week-end, i was thinking Tonga Samoa clash at Suncorp would be a good game. PNG verse Fiji could be another game you could play in maybe Rocky or Townsville.
Their must be other games we can show on a free weekend, this is all it comes down to, having enough games to sell the week-end. Universities clash maybe, Navy Army game, there must be other games made available,.
nsw cup verses qld cup origin. Plus you have the under 20′s, maybe a kiwi aussie young guns game, this would be good also.
So long as you can sell a NRL free weekend it would work. You just can not have a 2 game weekend, what am i going to watch all weekend. Lawn bowls.
May 9th 2011 @ 8:08am
The Bush said | May 9th 2011 @ 8:08am | Report comment
oikee,
If you move Origin to Monday Night, are the players backing up from the previous weekend, or are they being rested the weekend before?
Why not just have Origin on Sunday, and have three (3) bye weekends for the NRL at that time, and then as you say fill it up with other rep footy. Any of the following would make good watching:
Tonga v Samoa*
Fiji v PNG*
U20 Origin
U20 Aus v NZ
New Zealand City v Country (Auckland v the Rest)
Queensland Cup Rep v NSW Rep
*These four Island nations could actually play each other once over the three weekends, making a mini Four Nations tournament each year. The winner could then earn the right to either enter the “big” Four Nations at the end of the year, or at least get a Test against Australia.
May 9th 2011 @ 8:25am
oikee said | May 9th 2011 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Because the NRL season has to keep running, i would be happy to have the Anzac day week-end as a bye week-end, but only one week-end. Momentom for the NRL has to keep going, if you take away your main prioduct your left with not much at all.
I know we all want to see more games from the island teams, but they have to plan this themselves for this weekend. You cant baby sit them , the NRL is the main product.
Like i said, i pay to watch the game, take it away from me and i will just throw the tv out the window, why pay if they are not showing me the product. I would be happy to watch one weekend full of test matches and other games, but only one weekend during the season. That is the problem with stand alone weekends.
Yes with origin the players have the weekend off before the Monday nite, but next weekend they would be better prepared to back up for their clubs. This was brought up by a ex NRL coach. A good idea.
You only need to have 1 weekend NRL free, to help player wellfair, apart from that all players involved in Origin have time off, which is ok by me. It gives teams a chance to blood some juniors, which is also good.
May 9th 2011 @ 11:27pm
lopati said | May 9th 2011 @ 11:27pm | Report comment
ANZAC test must be moved to ANZAC day with no other games on that day. Alternating Aus/NZ.
Other rep games on the nearest weekend to ANZAC day, (already plenty of suggestions for that) and a bye for all NRL teams.
Playing a local derby on ANZAC day is almost criminal.
May 9th 2011 @ 9:36am
peeeko said | May 9th 2011 @ 9:36am | Report comment
most of these games hold little public interest
May 9th 2011 @ 5:34pm
hutch said | May 9th 2011 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
Not in the actual countries themselves which is a lot more important when looking at the bigger picture!
May 9th 2011 @ 7:59am
Brother fesol said | May 9th 2011 @ 7:59am | Report comment
To be honest I think people are tired of the same old Anzac test and city country. It’s time to expand the idea of rep footy and make it showcase the international game. Make origin the show piece while making a pacific cup and nz v eng tests to support it otherwise save all rep footy for the end of year and make a shorter nrl season.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
May 9th 2011 @ 9:12am
PaddyBoy said | May 9th 2011 @ 9:12am | Report comment
England are playing the Exiles this time of year now (Aus and NZ players playing in the Super League vs England). I doubt they’d want to travel cross the globe for a one of against NZ.
May 9th 2011 @ 9:20am
Whites said | May 9th 2011 @ 9:20am | Report comment
I agree. There shouldn’t be any northern/southern hemisphere games mid-season.
May 9th 2011 @ 8:14am
Hanzo said | May 9th 2011 @ 8:14am | Report comment
Actually NZRL needs this annual fixture, it’s major money spinner for them at this time of year. NZRL CEO Jim Doyle is quoted as saying this test match helps pay for the NZ U18 and U20 programs, crucial to keeping NZ a competitive test side.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
May 9th 2011 @ 8:31am
oikee said | May 9th 2011 @ 8:31am | Report comment
See you bring up a good point Hanzo, we need test matches for international growth. Thje four nations money goes into international growth. The only money NZ make is really the Aussie test matches, and we only play 1 a year, so the second match this year is a welcomed addition. It is also played at a good time, after the season proper and a warm up for the 4 nations.
The Tonga Samoa clash needs to be a yearly contest, i really enjoy this game, play it at Suncorp, i would attend this game.
Yes i know they play the pacific cup, but this could be a good Australian addition.
To answer your question Luke, sory mate, no way, where is the international money for growth going to come from if we get rid of test matches. We need more, not less.
May 10th 2011 @ 10:31am
kovana said | May 10th 2011 @ 10:31am | Report comment
“The Tonga-Samoa clash needs to be a yearly contest, i really enjoy this game, play it at Suncorp, i would attend this game.”
Why play at Suncorp? How about playing in the ISLANDS?
Jeez.. How you gonna get support for the national team if they keep playing OVERSEAS?
Just look at the passion from the crowd when Samoa vs Fiji/Tonga play rugby against each other when they actually play at home?
I dont understand why Toa Samoa has to play Tonga or Fiji in OZ. Bring the game to the islands. Easy.
May 9th 2011 @ 8:44am
The Cattery said | May 9th 2011 @ 8:44am | Report comment
The problem is that people put too much stock in representative football as being somehow meaningful.
It’s not the least bit meaningful. It’s a distraction from the main game – and the main game is the league and clubs.
The NRL will have a future witih teams in Canberra, Melbourne and Perth, and if they are providing players to these rep games to the detriment of the clubs’ performance in the League – why would you be motivated to be a member of those clubs?
This whole rep football concept is an archaic notion – it’s place was 100 years ago – it doesn’t belong anymore.
Both Rugby and cricket are slowly starting to understand it – clubs are the name of the game. AFL could have an interstate carnival of 8 states and territories (and has done so in the past) – but why bother? At the end of the day it’s meaningless – it’s winning the premiership that matters. The AFL put rep games on the backburner two decades ago, and has never looked back.
May 9th 2011 @ 9:07am
Whites said | May 9th 2011 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Cricket is mostly based around national teams. It’s only the recent growth in the IPL that has seen any form of club competition. We are still yet to see how the new semi-club Big Bash will go in Australia.
The biggest Football event is the world cup involving national teams. The second biggest events are the confederation championships involving national teams.
The biggest event in Rugby Union is the World involving national teams. The second biggest are the Tri-nations and the Six Nations both involving national teams.
AFL is like the NFL in that the paramount form of the game is the club league competition. In some ways this is a good thing but you do miss out on the international competition which is still clearly very popular in other sporting codes.
May 9th 2011 @ 10:42am
Redb said | May 9th 2011 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Agree with Whites.
The issue is not so much that rep football of any of code does not have a place its more the impact it has on taking the best players out of picture for a period of time.
RL would give itself one less scheduling headache if it removed the Int tests from the NRL season and played them in Oct/Nov.
Then it can deal just with the Origin situation.
May 9th 2011 @ 11:02am
Sean Fagan said | May 9th 2011 @ 11:02am | Report comment
You ignore or don’t appreciate that in-season rep football is a part of RL culture, and has always been that way since 1908. Players missing or backing up due to rep footy is part of RL. Some in RL might whinge but don’t mistake that for the view of the entire RL community. There is much more to be gained by having Origin and Test series than not having any at all.
Sure from an AFL upbringing the interjection of rep football during a season makes little sense, but just because it is right for AFL community to put club ahead of all else, doesn’t mean it should be applied to another sport & its culture, nor is it automatic that it will succeed.
RL doesn’t need to destroy one of the advantages in the market it has over AFL. RL can have its cake and eat it too.
May 9th 2011 @ 11:18am
Redb said | May 9th 2011 @ 11:18am | Report comment
I was arguing for rep football not against it.
“RL doesn’t need to destroy one of the advantages in the market it has over AFL”
I dont think it matters to the AFL especially in its own season what the NRL/ARL does, Oct/Nov is more of an advantage. But anyways.
May 9th 2011 @ 10:46pm
bilbo said | May 9th 2011 @ 10:46pm | Report comment
It doesnt need to matter to the AFL, but it doesnt really need to matter to the AFL.
The comment was regarding the advantage the NRL has in regards to Rep Football.
The ANZAC test, while televised only in the states with NRL teams (i.e. not Tasmania, SA and WA), drew over a million viewers in the five city standings – that doesnt count regionals, which are league strongholds, and would significantly increase the number. This includes 86K in Melbourne, and 520K in Sydney.
The AFL’s biggest day of the year – ANZAC – drew 800k viewers (84k Sydney). That will be their highest ratings until the finals – RL has three SOO matches to come, all of which will be above 2million viewers, potentially over 3million.
The AFL in Melbourne has not received ratings of above 500k for one match yet – whereas the ANZAC test in Sydney received 520k.
This is because there is no unifying matches that everyone watches, besides the finals – Bulldogs fans wont watch Dragons matches, and Magpies fans wont necessarily be keen on Bombers matches – whereas all RL fans will be interested in SOO or Test matches, regardless of which club they support.
May 9th 2011 @ 10:57pm
The Cattery said | May 9th 2011 @ 10:57pm | Report comment
bilbo
you have an unfortunate habit that whenever a game is simulcast on Ten and One, you only quote the Ten figures – I’ve noticed you do it a couple of times before.
For the record, the ANZAC game you are referring to drew a national audience of 1,054,000, including a Sydney audience of 102,000 and 579,000 in Melbourne.
It’s not overly important to the subject at hand, but you can at least quote the correct figures if you are going to make a point.
May 10th 2011 @ 8:57am
Redb said | May 10th 2011 @ 8:57am | Report comment
bilbo,
I was stating there is a place of rep football.
May 9th 2011 @ 9:51am
BigAl said | May 9th 2011 @ 9:51am | Report comment
I would agree with this Cat, however it has to be admitted that SOO in Rugby League holds a special place – almost to the detriment of NRL club comp., which along with players and coaches advising thay are changing clubs mid-season etc. , forces the NRL comp. to look a bit like the seconds.
May 9th 2011 @ 10:07am
punter said | May 9th 2011 @ 10:07am | Report comment
It’s the ‘novelty’ events like the SOO, Rugby WCs, Football numerous cup competitions at both national or club level that captures the imagination of non fans, captures the imagination on a young kid following another sport.
I personally don’t find find AFL or basketball as my cup of tea but I will watch with passion Australia performing at Olympics or World championship, I don’t think I have ever watched a AFL GF (novelty event for me) with any real passion. All sports have their GF’s as ‘novelty; events that captures the imagination of the non or casual fan, in sports with int’l or even interstate flavour, this this an added bonus & can bring out the greatest passion amongst the fans, both ardent or casual.
May 9th 2011 @ 10:16am
JVGO said | May 9th 2011 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Honestly Cattery, such a stupid comment deserves its own thread so that the soccer and RU tragics can tear it to shreds.
May 9th 2011 @ 11:17am
The Bush said | May 9th 2011 @ 11:17am | Report comment
“The AFL put rep games on the backburner two decades ago, and has never looked back.”
I’d put meaningless matches on the backburner too.
Just because Rep Footy doesn’t work for Aussie Rules, doesn’t mean that it is the basis by which all other sports should function.
Rep footy is a huge part of Rugby Union, and that will never change. Club structures are growing and changing across the globe, but the International Rugby Board (“IRB”) is charged with ensuring that the international game is protected, and enhanced. It is the entire point of the sport. Windows for player release, and maximum numbe of games are all designed to ensure that International Rugby is the pinnicle.
Cricket also functions almost entirely on the basis of nations playing each other. I have very little interest in seeing Queensland perform, and I have no interest in watching Brisbane Heat play. But I have a HUGE interest in watching the Australian Cricket Team play.
State of Origin is the be all and end all of Rugby League in many ways. To remove it in some half-baked attempt to strengthen the club game, would be a huge mistake. Unlike the Southern States, Queensland and New South Wales have significnt country populations who aren’t, and never will be, represented by a club. State of Origin has huge meaning to these fans…
May 9th 2011 @ 1:35pm
The Cattery said | May 9th 2011 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
The Bush (and others) – do you realise that in many respects your post reinforces what I am saying.
A crowd hasn’t turned up to watch Sheffield Shield Cricket for 70 years. This is precisely why CA is creating a national club based comp.
Don’t look now but the significant Rugby state rep teams have morphed into clubs before your very eyes (and are reaping the benefits).
Let’s not even talk about the various Olympic sports – all publicly funded. Why? Outside of the once every 2 or 4 year events – there is zero interest – I mean absolutely zero interest.
There will come a time when the NRL will want to be a true national comp, and it follows, to be a success, club versus club will have to be more important than anything else, because anyone outside of NSW/Qld will not give a damn about state vs state, and they most definitely will care less for City vs country.
It has become an anachronism. It is a distraction from the real thing.
May 9th 2011 @ 2:21pm
The Bush said | May 9th 2011 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
“A crowd hasn’t turned up to watch Sheffield Shield Cricket for 70 years. This is precisely why CA is creating a national club based comp.
Cricket Australia is doing this to raise revenue and cash with the new hot thing, not because the current “rep” setup (The Australian Team) has failed. So be it, power to them.
But that doesn’t mean that it is for the betterment of the game. If you ask me it will ruin the game that I love and probably cause me to stop supporting the Australian Cricket Team also (the “rep” team in this argument). So in that respect this new move will cost them at least one fan.
“Don’t look now but the significant Rugby state rep teams have morphed into clubs before your very eyes (and are reaping the benefits).”
And many would argue in New Zealand and South Africa that it is to the detriment of their sports. They seek to return to the more traditional representative sides.
Finally, whilst it is true that the State Teams are no longer “rep” teams, that is because now the Wallabies are the “rep” team for the sake of the argument. The current structure of SupeRugby is entirely setup for the benefit of the All Blacks, Springboks and above all the Wallabies. There would be no SupeRugby witout the Wallabies and internationals.
“Let’s not even talk about the various Olympic sports – all publicly funded. Why? Outside of the once every 2 or 4 year events – there is zero interest – I mean absolutely zero interest.”
How is this relevant to the argument? These sports are all publicly funded, and have zero interest for people outside the Olympics because they are not popular sports. They don’t have current club structures, and their “rep” structures aren’t popular either. They simply aren’t popular sports, this wouldn’t be rectified by abandoning state rep sides and starting a national club championship.
“There will come a time when the NRL will want to be a true national comp, and it follows, to be a success, club versus club will have to be more important than anything else, because anyone outside of NSW/Qld will not give a damn about state vs state, and they most definitely will care less for City vs country.”
This might happen, maybe. But so what, the Australian team will still be a “rep” side and will still be the pinnicle of the sport. Possibly by then State of Origin will be less popular, but I doubt it.
May 9th 2011 @ 2:27pm
punter said | May 9th 2011 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
Truly spoken like someone who has very little idea of what global sport is all about. To represent one’s country is truly one of the honours in any sport, rated as high as winning the national competition. So those sports that do have a int’l flavour & are able to both feel the greatness of a winning premiership or championship & representing your country has the distant advantage.
Winning a Rugby or Football world cup would be the ulitmate in those chosen sports.
May 9th 2011 @ 2:30pm
PaddyBoy said | May 9th 2011 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
So much so that Cruyff isn’t in the running for best player ever because he only made the final of a World Cup, despite winning all of the top club honours.
May 9th 2011 @ 4:27pm
The Bush said | May 9th 2011 @ 4:27pm | Report comment
punter,
Are you sure that winning a “flag” isn’t more important?
May 9th 2011 @ 7:24pm
The Cattery said | May 9th 2011 @ 7:24pm | Report comment
Yes, it is a distant advantage, so distant, it’s imperceptible.
The examples are countless, and one need look no further than the major American sporting comps (in the biggest and wealthiest sports market in the world), and right here in Australia. Indeed, in international sports like baseball and basketball, the US doesn’t even bother competing on the world stage.
As I keep saying: it’s a distraction from the real thing.
Of the 210 nations on Earth, the vast bulk of all domestic comps aren’t worth a cracker – and most of those dabble in “global” sports.
The argument becomes self-serving, as it was when the AOC responded to the Crawford report: international competition is important because, well, it just is – so don’t you dare cut off the hundreds of millions of dollars in public funding.
May 9th 2011 @ 9:30pm
punter said | May 9th 2011 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
The Americans spend millions on their government sports funding to achieve in the Olympics, why because their major sports have little int’l flavour.
May 9th 2011 @ 10:06pm
JVGO said | May 9th 2011 @ 10:06pm | Report comment
Cattery the most watched hockey game for thirty years was the olympic USA Canada final. Basketball and Baseball are international games with huge numbers of international players in the US leagues. Baseball has had a preseason international challenge tournament. All these sports participate in the Olympics no matter how tedious you may think it is for them. They also have All Star games which are in effect representative fixtures where one conference or league play the other. The outcome of the baseball AS game decides home advantage for the world series. International events like the Olympic Hockey and basketball finals against the Russians are regularly touted on ESPN as among the greatest US sporting moments of all time. The one American sport that is not international has spent a ton of money on trying to increase its spread. Quite apart from that it is ridiculous to compare a sport where the number one event is a clash between two suburban teams on Anzac Day with well… any other sport really. The fact is that the NY Yankees on their own are probably bigger than the whole AFL.
May 9th 2011 @ 10:21pm
The Cattery said | May 9th 2011 @ 10:21pm | Report comment
Punter/JVGO
your running my arguments on my behalf!
Yes, Government spends millions to achieve something once every four years – that’s kind of the point.
Yes – basketball and baseball are international sports – but the US does not participate in them beyond their own borders – that’s exactly the point!
May 9th 2011 @ 10:27pm
JVGO said | May 9th 2011 @ 10:27pm | Report comment
Cattery the greatest basketball team of all time was the Barcelona Olympics dream team. You may have heard of them. I’m pretty sure Barcelona is in Spain. The USA has participated in the Olympics whenever baseball or basketball has been involved. Seriously there is a point where spreading misinformation and/or ignorance becomes irritating.
May 9th 2011 @ 10:44pm
The Cattery said | May 9th 2011 @ 10:44pm | Report comment
JVGO
With everything you say, you strengthen my argument.
That was 19 years ago.
How many internationals have the full US basketball team played since then?
That’s the point!
There’s zero significance in doing so.
The NBL is the real deal – Americans have no interest in their national basketball team taking anyone on.
My thesis is that the importance of representative honours or supra-club competition is overstated – and there is stacks of evidence to back me up – thriving club competitions where no representative honours are involved, of any description, and at the opposite end of the spectrum, countless broke or marginal domestic competitions across the world that play second fiddle to supra-club competitions – that’s the point!
May 9th 2011 @ 10:56pm
Sylvester Hyde said | May 9th 2011 @ 10:56pm | Report comment
The Cattery,
News just in: The US won the Bball world championships last year in Turkey (and in ’94). The also won Olympic gold medals in ’96, 2000 and 2008
May 9th 2011 @ 10:59pm
The Cattery said | May 9th 2011 @ 10:59pm | Report comment
Then you can answer the question: how many internationals has the full American national team played since 1992? Not the second best team, I’m talking about the very best team possible.
It ain’t many.
You’re simply obfuscating – they don’t go out of their way to play international games – they don’t – full stop.
May 9th 2011 @ 11:11pm
Sylvester Hyde said | May 9th 2011 @ 11:11pm | Report comment
The Cattery,
I’m not sure how many internationals they play, and I don’t see how it’s relevant. They send full strength teams to major competitions, obviously because they want to win.
The 2008 gold medal winners include Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Dwyane Wade among its 11 NBA all stars.
May 9th 2011 @ 11:15pm
The Cattery said | May 9th 2011 @ 11:15pm | Report comment
Sylvester
No – they don’t send full strength teams – no team has ever matched that team from 1992 in terms of representing the best of the NBL.
In more recent times, the biggest names in the NBL excuse themselves.
They are simply not interested.
That’s the point!
May 9th 2011 @ 11:26pm
Sylvester Hyde said | May 9th 2011 @ 11:26pm | Report comment
I’ve laid the facts out, choose to ignore them if you will.
Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Tim Duncan, Carmello Anthony, Shaquille O’Neal, Kevin Garnett, Jason Kidd – all US reps in recent years.
Those are as big stars as the NBA’s had since the old “dream team” players.
May 9th 2011 @ 11:29pm
The Cattery said | May 9th 2011 @ 11:29pm | Report comment
At no point since 1992 have the very best Americans in the NBL been assembled together in the one team.
Naming individual names across the last 19 years doesn’t exactly prove otherwise.
Often teams have consisted of young names that would go on to become stars.
As I said, in the past decade, the biggest names in the game have simply refused to take part in international games.
I’m not sure why anyone would be the least bit surprised by that.
May 9th 2011 @ 11:36pm
JVGO said | May 9th 2011 @ 11:36pm | Report comment
Look Cattery I guess this is what parochialism and a lack of international competition can lead to. Complete head in the sand insularity and ignorance on your part. Perhaps we have unearthed the real argument for international competition, so that occasionally you are forced to look up from gazing at your own navel.
May 10th 2011 @ 9:55am
Whites said | May 10th 2011 @ 9:55am | Report comment
The Cattery,
It doesn’t really help your argument to keep referring to the NBA as the NBL. I’m quiet sure the best players in the NBL have never been part of the USA national team.
11 of the 15 at the Beijing olympics were NBA All-Stars. It was the best team they could send.
May 9th 2011 @ 9:07am
Sean Fagan said | May 9th 2011 @ 9:07am | Report comment
RL is the only football code in Australia with three viable and competitive levels – why should it diminish that instead of building upon it? It is a competitive advantage. It differentiates RL from the other codes. The three tiered game has been part of RL for its entire existence in this country. Players can aspire to appear in each, and fans can boo a player one day and cheer him the next.
The tv ratings on Friday night’s Test suggest it has more than significant value as a tv product. Kiwis v Kangaroos three Test series in Aust in 1991 & 1995 drew over 82,000 & 75,000 fans respectively. The public are not against in-season Tests.
The Test aids the development of the game in NZ, and provides as aspirational element to boys in Aust deciding which football code that they might actually take up. Playing in a Test is a honour, a reward, but is also “paying back the game” for the development, profile and income it has provided you. The same obligation falls upon the clubs.
If we let club interests determine the game’s path there would never have been Origin and the income that comes to the game from that.
The issue of players backing up has always been there. Yes the game is more demanding today, and maybe a better scheduling solution can be found, but throwing out a mid season Test (or not restoring an in-season 3 Test series) is not the answer unless you are selfishly putting club interest above the game’s interest – and even that is short sighted given the extra income a viable in-season international game/series can bring to RL and then club grants.
May 9th 2011 @ 10:16am
oikee said | May 9th 2011 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Excellent points, you play club footy to make city country and origin teams, you play origin to make the green and gold.
In the past it might not have mattered as much, yes Australia had the wood on NZ,, now it is very close. But ask any kid if the highest honor is playing for his country. No contest.
Rugby league’s time is now, the future is the international game, it is getting stronger and stronger. Their is not much between the best 2 nations, if England France and Wales can keep improving, the internatuional game will be one to behold.
I will not leave out countries like Scotland Ireland Wales Lebanon Tonga Samoa and America and even Jamica and Serbia. It just might take them a little longer to reach the top, but they are all improving at a rapid rate now.
International rugby league is looking pretty good.
I know this for a fact, the Kangaroo team last nite was probably the strongest on paper we have had for quite a while, all the stars were available , we won on mistakes made by NZ, and a undermaned NZ team.
May 9th 2011 @ 9:45am
M1tch said | May 9th 2011 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Switch it to after Origin, amung a rep weekend and it would be great
May 9th 2011 @ 10:06am
Jay said | May 9th 2011 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Its a bit unfair for the kiwis, given that the australian players would have been playing together for their states, whereas the kiwis would have to start from scratch.
Unless, the Kiwis play 3 tests againt England during origin period.
May 9th 2011 @ 10:47am
M1tch said | May 9th 2011 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Thats where a NZ origin series or versus some pac islands teams would be good. To be honest there is no easy solution because Origin on a Sunday night didnt work, plus want the whole nation available on a wednesday with no competition..
May 9th 2011 @ 11:05am
Sean Fagan said | May 9th 2011 @ 11:05am | Report comment
The in-season Test was moved to pre-Origin after complaints from NZ & England that the Test after Origin gave Australia a competitive advantage. Logically it should be after Origin. Perhaps if NZ has some equivalent to Origin then restoring the Test or a Test series to after Origin would be appropriate.
May 9th 2011 @ 12:31pm
Jay said | May 9th 2011 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
There are many concerns with a PI team given that a significant portion of NSW/QLD and NZ players are polynesian.
Would Jarryd Hayne and Aku Uate player for NSW or PI… Would Petro, Ben Teo, Lote play for Qld or PI… Would Manu Vatevui and Steve Matai play for NZ or PI… See the headaches there?
May 9th 2011 @ 12:35pm
M1tch said | May 9th 2011 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
It raises more questions than solutions lol, perhaps a nz origin is the only way to bypass those issues
May 9th 2011 @ 12:38pm
PaddyBoy said | May 9th 2011 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Nah, spread the talent around, if they are from here, then they are NSW/QLD, if they are from the Pacific Islands, that’s who they play for.
May 9th 2011 @ 12:51pm
Brother Fesol said | May 9th 2011 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
good point. I think the way rugby league is designed with having origin as the focus, it effects anything else you try to do internationally. For example Akuila Uate chose to play for NSW instead of his native FIJI, Well what if all these poly players chose to not play origin or for the kiwis or kangaroos and only play for there country how do you think this would be or how would it promote internatonal football. Would it really effect origin or test footy? Would it effect international football?
May 9th 2011 @ 1:38pm
Whites said | May 9th 2011 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
So what? If someone has already chosen to represent NSW or QLD and then Australia that’s their choice. At the moment it’s really the rational choice as they’ll have a much greater opportunity to play on the big stage. NZ vs Pacific Island XIII creates another stage for stars to shine.
The Akuila Uate’s of tomorrow should have other options. We don’t want to have every young player in the southern hemisphere funnelled into State of Origin to the detriment of the international game.
Having a NZ vs PI series is a long-term investment in the future of international rugby league. As stated further down this game would be played on a Saturday. It only has to rate 250k+ viewers on Fox Sports to be a success.
May 9th 2011 @ 5:40pm
hutch said | May 9th 2011 @ 5:40pm | Report comment
Exactly right whites, great post! By having more meaningful mid season tests and rep matches, it gives player who may be eligible for more than one country the chance to make a choice knowing they will be playing in big games! This can only benefit international rugby league in the long run!
May 9th 2011 @ 5:01pm
Football United said | May 9th 2011 @ 5:01pm | Report comment
life’s not fair. kiwis should be able to sort themselves out without asking for a handout.
May 9th 2011 @ 9:58am
Brother fesol said | May 9th 2011 @ 9:58am | Report comment
I think you have to ask yourself what the difference is between playing for your club and playing for your country? What does it mean to you to sing your national anthem?
For a game like tonga v Samoa it’s about a deep history between the 2 countries that stems from a Tongan empire that controlled Samoa in the past and about how they became independent and also how much the homeland means to them.
It’s all about patriotism and that’s exactly what origin is. State against state, mate against mate. Instead this time we have to extend this past Origin and nz v Australia and bring significant historic matches like the Anzac test that have meaning to other nations. How about they make a annual cup between Samoa v tonga at suncorp. Every islander will go. What about an annual match between png v Fiji in Townsville or and indigenous all stars v polynesian all stars. There so much we could do. It doesnt matter about quality football. Some origins are just bout intensity and feeling. It’s about pride in the jersey and that’s what union has done to make it an international game
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
May 9th 2011 @ 2:07pm
oikee said | May 9th 2011 @ 2:07pm | Report comment
I think Tonga and Samoa can stand on there own 2 feet, yes i agree. NZ played Samoa in a test match last year, only got beaten by 50. Which is quite respectable for there first game against the Kiwis.
NZ should be playing the islanders more often. It is up to NZ rugby league to do more in this area, maybe a tri nations series between the 3 would be a good start.
May 10th 2011 @ 9:23pm
Sam said | May 10th 2011 @ 9:23pm | Report comment
I agree with this concept, except play it in the islands (it was mentioned above) to generate interest. I think a NZ vs. Pac. Is. would be way to one sided and people would lose interest very quickly. Having a NZ North Island vs South Island would be a good idea. Then you could have less one sided matches like Fiji vs PNG and Samoa vs Tonga played in the pacific islands. This could result in three best-of-3 series that could be played at the same time.
If and when the NRL goes wholly national, and you start to get players from outside NSW and QLD into the NRL, you could include other states like Vic vs. SA and WA vs. NT for example. You could extend this concept even further to the Northern Hemisphere and have England vs Exiles (as they play now), Scotland vs. Wales and France vs. Ireland.
The ANZAC test should be played as a stand alone fixture to give it more significance.
I can’t see why the TV networks would have a problem with having ANZAC test and Origin series on stand alone weekends (although they shouldn’t have a say in it anyway), because they still get the same amount of product, but spread out over more of the year.
May 9th 2011 @ 10:48am
Roarr said | May 9th 2011 @ 10:48am | Report comment
I know this will never happen because every club would almost go broke, but this is what I would love to see.
Pre-season: Indigienous All-Stars game (maybe a few similiar intiatives). Trials, maybe pre-season knockout cup or something, encourage regional games and expansion areas.
Season: 15 Rounds (If it stays as a 16-team comp). Everyone plays each other once, keep it fair and keep it simple, just like english premier league, alternating between home and away. I think it would keep the regular season pretty fresh and big games would be genuinely big games and crowds averages could easily be in the 20′s. Schedule the entire season in advance and actually use some nous when planning when games are played etc. Keep the traditional anzac, easter derbies as well as heritage round etc,
Finals: Keep this september/early october.
Rep Season: Start with city country, then origin, then test series. Filled out with other internationals.
In the end, you could still end up with a 26-28 week season. Who cares what AFL are doing, the best players could still play every round of the regular season and really look into the NFL system where they only play about 17 rounds to see how they maximise profits.
I completely understand the financial shortfalls in this, but from a purely footballing sense, I think it would create the best products for rugby league (provided it is run by a competent, intelligent body).
May 9th 2011 @ 11:00am
Whites said | May 9th 2011 @ 11:00am | Report comment
Let’s be honest. The ANZAC Test did not have the intensity, quality or general interest of State of Origin. The game is also played at the wrong time of the season. And city/country as a concept is past it’s used by date.
The most intense and popular form of rugby league is State of Origin. It’s a brilliant concept that by itself works very well. The problem is it’s impact on the regular NRL competition. There is also the problem that it is no longer the best 34 players playing in the NRL. Young kids have a choice today. Do they want to represent their country of birth(or their parents or grandparents) or do they want to play State of Origin? Many are now choosing the path to State of Origin(although you still have players like Benji Marshall who chose to represent NZ). This development is not good for the long-term growth of international rugby league.
How do you give other players a high intensity representative alternative at the time of State of Origin? What other geographical areas are there in the southern hemisphere that could provide 2 evenly matched quality rugby league teams? Clearly no other Australian state fits that description and won’t for a long time. New Zealand certainly fits that description. Over the last few years it has been very successful in the international arena. The other Pacific Islands are just to weak to be competitive against New Zealand. The only option is a combined Pacific Islands origin team.
A 3 game Pacific Origin Series has many benefits. It provides more big game experience for New Zealand players at the same time as Australia’s best are testing each other in State of Origin. In the same way it also gives pacific islander players big game experience during the NRL season. Over time this will boost the strength of the individual countries in the October/November international season. It also gives a revenue source to the NZRL and the Pacific Island RL’s to further fund the growth of the game.
The Origin Weekend should be as follows:
Friday Night
Under 20′s State of Origin:NSW vs QLD-this game could alternate around regional areas in each state.
Saturday Night
Under 20′s Pacific Origin:NZ vs Pacific Islands XIII-played at the same venue before the senior game.
Pacific Origin:NZ vs Pacific Islands XIII-Two games in New Zealand and one that alternates around the various island nations.
Sunday Night
State of Origin:NSW vs Queensland.
It’s time to seperate State of Origin from the regular NRL rounds. As in international football a window needs to be created to have a stand-alone Origin Weekend. This should be the new format as part of the next TV rights deal.
May 9th 2011 @ 9:02pm
Sylvester Hyde said | May 9th 2011 @ 9:02pm | Report comment
To be fair Whites, it’s likely Origin got such a foothold as being the pinnacle of the game because international RL was so one-sided. There’s more NZ-qualified players in the NRL than ever before, many are major stars of the comp, and the national side is improving at a rate of knots because of it.
I’m sure watching a genuine contest would draw interest back to internationals over time.
May 9th 2011 @ 10:54pm
Football United said | May 9th 2011 @ 10:54pm | Report comment
id like to have a ruling that if you have ‘significant ties’ to the state you can still play origin even if you’re not an australian international. this means that players who have spent a large part of their life/junior years playing RL in NSW or QLD should be allowed to play origin while keeping their international status. players like like Lote Tuqiri and Jarryd hane who both played as juniors in Aus and have done much for Australian Rugby Legue would of been able to still play for FIJI