ARLC must prioritise Test rugby league
By Von Neumann, 20 Jun 2012 Von Neumann is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- ARLC, James Tamou, John Grant, Kangaroos, Kiwis, NRL, Rugby League, Sam Kasiano, State Of Origin
Related coverage
I do not have a real problem with Sam Kasiano being selected in Origin. I can take it. It’s not quite right in the current environment of opinion, sure. But that’s ok.
We all have ideas on how to avoid it in the future.
Read what ARLC Chairman John Grant has to say about Test rugby league
Not because people like Sam should be made ineligible, but because we hope to never be put in a position again where we see a potential key New Zealand player have to leave his country and weaken his national team, just to throw on a state jersey for his adopted county.
Indeed, no. Not when we know New Zealand would kill to have him playing. They need all the good players they can get. Now, and in the future.
Sam may be a lost cause now for the Kiwis. We don’t know what he thinks, will do, or if he will gain eventual Queensland selection.
But just think: what if a future “Sam” was so engrossed in the idea of playing for the Kiwis, that as soon as Mal approached him, he would say, “No thunks, mate. I want to ply for the Keeeewiis. Und theet’s theet.”
Why, because he has been itching to chuck on a jersey since he was a kid, and what’s more, the rewards to play for his country (above sheer prestige alone) are financially worth it.
ARL chairman John Grant recently spoke about the Kasiano eligibility issue. The issue has caused a furore among fans of the game (if the 138+ comments on the Daily Telegraph site are anything to go by).
But it just doesn’t seem right does it, Kiwis in Blue and Maroon jerseys?
Recently the ARLC made changes to the eligibility test.
Grant said the criteria that had been established to cover representative eligibility had to be the main guide when it came to Origin. If Sam Kasiano is qualified to play State of Origin for Queensland, then he has every right to play it – and if the New Zealand rugby league wants to change that situation, it needs to get tougher at international board level.
”Players have some decisions to make about which country they can choose to play for, and the players who play in our competition have some decisions to make about whether they play State of Origin,” he said.
There are five levels of criteria for selection and a player needs to meet three of the five. Of those five, Sam makes three. That’s 60%, so if he wants to, he will not be stopped.
Somewhere deep inside us all, we hope Kasiano will be proud to be (or have been) a Kiwi. But only Sam knows who he wants to play for.
Grant said yesterday, “The first decision (Kasiano) should be making, what we’d like him to make, is if he is going to play for Australia,”;
“Now, if the rules allow him to play for Australia then clearly he’s got to be allowed for State of Origin.
“I don’t think the State of Origin rules are going to change, I think more the issue is the international rules.
“Internationals should come before State of Origin. You either play for Australia or New Zealand or whatever before you contemplate about either New South Wales or Queensland.”
It’s clear to me that the commission is setting things right with comments like this. You don’t restore an old car to its former gleaming glory in a day. Such is it with rugby league. But you do buy the right parts, and you do go about the business of restoring it in the proper manner.
On the one hand, one may say he is not going far enough. But this is not an issue that the ARLC itself can solve. He later called upon the NZRL to get into the mix at the next board meeting, which makes sense.
If anyone was doubting whether Grant knew anything of rugby league’s workings, they would be wrong.
However, it’s one thing to have the rules in place, yet another for people to want to adhere to them. Oh, people are always trying to sneak through the cracks, if the price is right. Look at Mal Meninga and Ricky Stuart right now, courting players to throw on state jerseys.
If it were me, I would not go near Kiwi players, for fear of tampering. But I can understand Mal and Ricky. They will be wanting to take any advantage they can.
Is it enough to leave it up to New Zealand? No. The NRL has a responsibility to assist with this issue also. But New Zealand must be doing its best to make players want to play for the Kiwis. They need to work harder to instil youngsters with Kiwi pride, so that they would not dream of switching to Australia, ala Sam Burgess.
I have no doubt that packed out Test matches against highly competitive opposition year in, year out will generate money to match Origin. Would it not be great if we had two series each year without fail that were massive – Origin and Tests?
I have a few ideas that might allow this to happen:
Loyalty payments for Kiwi players given over time, in accordance with their service would assist the Kiwis to build a strong team. There should be immediate bonuses to such a funding pool should they win a series or complete a certain number of years of service. We don’t want any potential or current Kiwi player feel like he is missing out just because he’s chosen the joy of playing for his nation over immediate Origin gain. In order to fund this, the ARLC could provide the NZRL with subsidies until the team becomes more financially strong.
Another idea is Kiwi Origin. Whether North v South Island, Auckland v everywhere else or New Zealand in the State of Origin, there is a significant gap that could be filled by New Zealand players participating in some form of Origin contest.
This may be facilitated by shortening the NRL season.
But the best thing the NRL could do is start up a second New Zealand team. Firstly, a second NZ team could join the Toyota Cup, with a view to building a squad in three years time. This would allow the team to be competitive from the start, unlike the usual case with expansion teams (take note, Gold Coast Suns).
Overall, we need to take the strengths of Origin and the things that are common for successful sporting teams and replicate them to the Test arena for NZ. We need players choosing to be a part of the Kiwi side because they truly want to. Financial return is just one thing. What of belonging and representing?
What if those two things also meant the player got to showcase his skills in front of big crowds and big TV audiences, and be lauded in the paper for days on end, just like in Origin?
And what of the youth coming through? Maybe this generation is lost, so let’s not lose the next one.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby League articles
- How to increase crowd numbers in the NRL (181)
- How rugby league should expand (132)
- All I am saying is give Pearce a chance (123)
- Why do NRL fans love empty seats? (115)
- Let me tell you why people don’t like Manly (103)
- Ease up on ASADA: NRL boss (90)
- It’s time for Channel Nine to get serious about the NRL (89)
- STEVE TURNER: Only one Origin newcomer for the marauding Maroons (7)
- Whittling down the Blues contenders for State of Origin I (19)
- Time for the NRL to introduce silver point (22)
- A Blues Origin jumper for everyone? Why not (3)
- Dugan for Origin? Lay off the Breezers! (22)
- NRL golden point must get the flick (18)
- Cronulla Sharks fighting a war they can’t win (25)
- Time for the NRL to introduce silver point (22)
- A Blues Origin jumper for everyone? Why not (3)
- NRL golden point must get the flick (18)
- Cronulla Sharks fighting a war they can’t win (25)
- Where were you when sport sold its soul? (22)
- NRL Power Rankings week 10: Where is your team ranked this week (11)
- Melbourne Storm vs Manly Sea Eagles: NRL live scores, blog (150)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- ARLC, James Tamou, John Grant, Kangaroos, Kiwis, NRL, Rugby League, Sam Kasiano, State Of Origin

June 20th 2012 @ 8:48am
turbodewd said | June 20th 2012 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Id rather watch NSW v Qld than Aus v NZ. How can I cheer for a country that beats up on a little one?! Australia pound-for-pound is the world’s leading sportspower and outright we are top 5. I find it hard to get super thrilled as we beat up on the kiwis every year at ANZAC test time. I admit I rarely watch it! And Im not alone, this test is rarely packed.
So any proposal for more tests will just be met with similarly so so crowds. You can put lipstick on a pig as much as u want, but everyone knows Aus v NZ is a mismatch.
By all means try Kiwi Origin…I dont think it will rate well in Aus.
June 20th 2012 @ 8:55am
Redback said | June 20th 2012 @ 8:55am | Report comment
Same. The commission can’t make international league anymore important than what it is as the people choose which games are more important. There is no interest from the people about the international game. I would rather watch my dragons than watch Aus v NZ league test. More people would watch the Anzac game between dragons and roosters than the Anzac test. I would rather watch a semi final without St george than watch a test match anyday let alone a Grand final or State of Origin. Why would you want to watch a league test when the other country does not really follow the sport.
June 20th 2012 @ 6:38pm
Queensland's Game Is Rugby League said | June 20th 2012 @ 6:38pm | Report comment
The ANZAC rugby league Test draws higher ratings than the Bledisloe Cup!
A game between the Dragons and Roosters on ANZAC Day is not going to rate as highly as a live Test match.
June 20th 2012 @ 9:11am
tom said | June 20th 2012 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Australia needs to make the decision that a Test match is the pinnacle of the sport rather then the SOO – once the ARLC sign the magicle billion dollar TV contract they need to tip in the cash to the international game to ensure that the dollars paid to the players in a test match – including the kiwis and pommies – match what you can make in the SOO. Otherwise why play it in the future. Alternatively rather then the straight out international games, they should play a Country of Origin sTest o all those players can go and play for their country again.
June 20th 2012 @ 9:33am
turbodewd said | June 20th 2012 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Mate, how can you force the NZ team to be as competitive/good/talented as the Aussie team!? You cant. Therefore the games will usually be won easily by Aus and therefore crowds and ratings will never be amazing. Theyll be okay.
SOO is the pinnacle of RL – its shown in the ratings and the crowds.
June 20th 2012 @ 10:25am
Rodney McDonell said | June 20th 2012 @ 10:25am | Report comment
The Australian team has the best of NSW & QLD. So how could NSW v QLD be the best?
It does capture more hearts and minds because it is a closer fought match than Aus v Kiwis – but this doesn’t mean we should let anyone play Origin. Origins big dollars are attracking fijians and NZ. And that hasn’t caused too many problems until now. Soon it’ll attract Englishmen and the French etc. Should we just wait and see? Should we just let the concept of Origin die in front of us?
The reason Origin is so powerful is because it is State against State. But it should lead to bigger things such as Australia v NZ. That won’t happen if Kiwis start to defect to Australia for the sole reason to play SOO. Same goes for Fiji who are experience mind boggling growth in the code – they’ve had a near 100% increase in the clubs competiting in the Fiji NRL on last year.
What happens to all the kids and grew up playing footy from U6s and aspired to play for NSW/QLD but can’t because a Kiwi who moved to QLD at age 16 has taken their spot? Would you like to be the one who tells them they can’t play for QLD/NSW becuase of these imports? I sure wouldn’t.
June 20th 2012 @ 11:02am
Col Quinn said | June 20th 2012 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Guys,
Lack of interest in Test RL is a Sydney thing. Test matches get good crowds in Brisbane and regional areas, like Melbourne. The last NZ/Aus test drew a surprisingly large crowd in NZ. In the UK, in spite of continual losses to Aus, Test matches fill stadiums and RL Tests in France are growing in crowd support. We have to look outside the box and realise that out main competitor is the RU Internationals. RL has to do the same.
June 20th 2012 @ 11:06am
turbodewd said | June 20th 2012 @ 11:06am | Report comment
NSW v Qld is the best because Aus v NZ is lopsided mismatch that generates little buzz amongst fans or the media.
June 20th 2012 @ 12:15pm
Col Quinn said | June 20th 2012 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
The last test was 20 points to 12. 3 tries to 2. That is pretty close and NZ are still the World Champions. They will be this until next year when England will win it. The standard between the Test playing is getting closer. A combined NSW/Qld team, ie the Kangaroos, would play at a higher standard than each repective state side.
June 22nd 2012 @ 9:51am
clipper said | June 22nd 2012 @ 9:51am | Report comment
Col Quinn – you should then put a lot of your hard earned cash on England winning, as they are $8 to win the WC, which is very long odds in a 3 horse race. Australia are at $1.25 – very short odds, even shorter than the last WC and shorter than Nadal was at the French Open. All the other countries (except NZ) are over $100 – with France at $151 – which is worse than last WC, so I can’t see how you can say the standard between the test playing is getting closer.
June 20th 2012 @ 9:12am
soapit said | June 20th 2012 @ 9:12am | Report comment
anyone know exactly what these 5 criteria are? havent been able to find them anywhere.
June 20th 2012 @ 9:19am
Pot Stirrer said | June 20th 2012 @ 9:19am | Report comment
As an Aussie i dont just want someone to represent this country just becuase they qualify through some elligilibity laws, I think if someone wants to represent Australia they have to be a Australian citizen, and as SOO is a supposed selection trial to represent the Kangaroos the the criteria should also apply to SOO. All sports people who represent Australia should be either born in this country or become naturilised.
June 20th 2012 @ 9:21am
Sailosi said | June 20th 2012 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Tom, I think you’ll be surprised how quickly that billion dollars gets eaten up. Running and international schedule costs a lot of money.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
June 20th 2012 @ 9:28am
clipper said | June 20th 2012 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Aren’t the ARLC meant to be concerned with Australian league and fighting the supossed ‘war’ with AFL?
The big advantage with the NRL and AFL is that week in, week out you are seeing the best players in the world because of their very limited international presence. The other side of the coin is Soccer with its huge international presence, but that means in Australia as soon as you have a great player, he gets whisked off overseas, so you are only seeing the best players in the world when you have internationals.
June 20th 2012 @ 9:35am
turbodewd said | June 20th 2012 @ 9:35am | Report comment
+1 Youre damn right clipper. the ARLC is meant to make RL in Aus as strong as possible in light of fierce competition from the AFL, rugby and soccer.
June 20th 2012 @ 11:44am
tom said | June 20th 2012 @ 11:44am | Report comment
League has it over AFL because it has move then just a club layer of its game – it has club, state and international. You want a meaningful international rather then the pop guns of the ANZAC test then let SOO eat the rest of the game. What has drawn my interest back it that the kiwis actually can beat Australia at league. SOO will always be competitive because that the nature of the contest – there is history and hate there. We don’t need to start pulling hired guns from NZ otherwise change the name from SOO to an All In – the best of the best!
June 20th 2012 @ 11:55am
turbodewd said | June 20th 2012 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Do we have it over the AFL? They are rolling in money and encroaching on our territory everywhere. Now the Wagga local council is giving them a leg up in their latest win. Just like the ACT govt gave GWS $20 million over 10 years for 3 home games here per year.
The AFL and NFL prove that lack of international competition doesnt mean youre not a successful sport.
June 20th 2012 @ 12:18pm
tom said | June 20th 2012 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Fair point, but do you think these tests played by the AFL with Ireland are not an act of desparation to prove to the world that they are more then one dimensional? Also the debate on why the AFL has been able to negotiate better contracts has been discussed elsewhere to death (the AFL at the moment are better at it!) but things do not stand still, there is new management in place in league and time will tell!
June 20th 2012 @ 1:14pm
turbodewd said | June 20th 2012 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
Certainly the AFL v Ireland thingo in the hybrid game is a joke :^) And why should we Aussies keep beating up on little nations like Ireland and NZ?
You dont see the USA trying to organise a gridiron game vs Canada.
June 20th 2012 @ 2:40pm
Col Quinn said | June 20th 2012 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
Hey turbodewd,
Ireland trashed Australia in the 2011 series
June 20th 2012 @ 6:44pm
Queensland's Game Is Rugby League said | June 20th 2012 @ 6:44pm | Report comment
turbodewd,
Do you ever watch Test match rugby league?
I was at Lang Park for the 2008 RLWC Final and 2010 Four Nations Final. The Kiwis sides that played on those nights won both matches. They also thrashed Australia 24-0 in 2005 in the Tri Nations. I would hardly call them a little nation who gets beat up on by Australia. A team doesn’t win 3 finals against Australia unless it has serious talent.
June 20th 2012 @ 5:40pm
Australian Rules said | June 20th 2012 @ 5:40pm | Report comment
AUS v IRE is an exhibition match that is not viewed at all seriously by Australian Footy fans.
I mean, it’s played with a round ball, a soccer goal and there’s no tackling…enough said.
In terms of the NRL, I think the 3 tier-structure of League is both a strength and a frailty of the sport.
Origin is a powerhouse and the most valuable “product” League has. However, it devours the season competition when it’s on and outshines the tier above it, Test footy. It’s a genuine dilemma and I’m not sure what the answer is for the ARLC.
One of the strengths of the AFL is that there was a unified vision to truly create a national comp and make it strong domestically, like the NFL. From junior leagues, to state bodies to the AFL, each arm of interacts and cooperates with the other.
League in Australia seems to have always been fighting with itself…from QRL, NSWRL, ARL, Superleague wars etc. There’s no doubt that decades of infighting has hurt it…the creation of the ARLC is now in a position to address all that.
June 21st 2012 @ 7:44am
Crosscoder said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:44am | Report comment
As you commented the fighting with itself argument does not apply anymore AR as to the QRL/NSWRL ,because they are under the control of one body.
if a three tier system is a weakness,then explain how participation rates are at record levels,as is sponsorship,and crowds despite some ordinary weather still down very fractionally.
Explain how SOO continues to grow in crowds/sponsorship and Tv ratings.Explain how the last Oz v Kiwis test had 1.5m Tv ratings in this country ,plus whatever the figure was in NZ.
Perhaps having a RLWC in 2013 in the UK,which has UK govt backing and local council backing,is somehow a feature of failure.
Do not ignore the fact that heh chairman of the ARLC is a former rugby league international,who values that aspect highlyAnd has stated his intention to give it teh respect it deserves..
There are people who live only for NRL club games,there are additonal people who watch rl because of SOO,plus the NRl diehards,and there are still more than you think inrested in ther intnl side.
A weakness? No a plus.
June 21st 2012 @ 10:19am
Australian Rules said | June 21st 2012 @ 10:19am | Report comment
The ARLC is 4 months old. As I said, let’s hope it can iron out the bickering that has plagued league for so long…though Sticky and Mal might take awhile to sing from the same songsheet.
CC, rather than throw up random dot points about how great league is, re-read what I actually wrote.
n Australia, Origin is bigger than International. It swallows everything around it. All Kiwis and Islanders want to play Origin – some choose it over their own national duties. Why? Because the STANDARD of Origin (and the money) is better than international league.
For those reasons, I think the 3 tier structure is both a strength and a frailty.
Do you disagree with the dozens of articles that have been saying this over the past 2 weeks…or just me?
June 23rd 2012 @ 12:25pm
Crosscoder said | June 23rd 2012 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
Sorry to disappoint you AR,but I disagree with you.The three tiers are a strength.My so called random dot points ( a novel description I might add AR) are relevant to the subject matter.Facts tend to get in the way,judging by your response.
For your edification I will repeat once more.I have been on a Kangaoro tour with a travel group.I had the pleasure of speaking to on the .I also spoke to other players at a function.
He(Beetson) placed representing his country as being at the apex.
Yes I do disagree with some of the articles..I place more credence on people who have represented their country,than your suggestion of frailty.
One could argue quite soundly,having a two tiered system,and not being exposed to growing internationalism in a shrinking world, is indeed a minus.Because having exposure to internationalism regardless of how small,also brings in sponsors of such renown as Gillette and Alitalia and therefore exposure..
The effect of having the Warriors and a competitve NZ Kiwis,has also strengthened the game in that country as grassroots is growing strongly.
Having a Catalans team in the ESL,has helped strengthen and grow the game in France.
If that is considered a frailty ,then I didn’t post this message.
Exposure at 3 tiered level,is far better than exposure at a lower numbered level.
Whilst SOO is the most intense and hyped within the code and at present the most popular,internationals still have uniqueness of representing one’s country,to which players aspire.
The fact there is a RLWC in 2013 in the UK, adds to the mix of internationalism.
There is plenty of room for growing and strengthening the international game,as Grant has aluded
I am sure you would like your code to have such opportunities for its players.
June 23rd 2012 @ 12:59pm
JVGO said | June 23rd 2012 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
Admit it CC, everything about the AFL is just better and the removal of the international tier would relieve us of the embarrassment of having to beat international sporting powerhouses such as Scotland, Wales, Oman, NZ, or India. Instead it would enable us to satisfy our lust for victory by taking it in turns to beat the likes of Geelong or perhaps Port Adelaide.
Once relieved of the international tier, and based purely upon contests played amongst ourselves, we could comfortably proclaim ourselves the sporting capital of the world, a title that for the moment Melbourne has conferred upon itself, but which once we have converted to AFL, we could confer upon the entire nation…hell just look at our crowds.
Once we have converted to this closed system paradise CC all we have to do is give the AFL our money and they will confer happiness upon through the miracles of the salary cap and draft which promise periodical pilgrimmages to the ‘G’ in order to have a shot at recieving a flag. Just don’t argue anymore CC, the future is all very clear already……and don;t mention the international rules thing….it’s days as a marketing fiasco are obviously numbered.
June 25th 2012 @ 2:05pm
Australian Rules said | June 25th 2012 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
You really need to slow down and read my comments before responding CC.
No-one suggested that international league is irrelevant, frail or unimportant.
What I actually said, is:
“In terms of the NRL, I think the 3 tier-structure of League is both a strength and a frailty of the sport.”
The point that I, this article, and countless others have made in the last 2 weeks, is that when you have players from NZ and other countries defecting so they can play Origin, it is a problem that needs to be addressed.
I think most fans of league would agree with that.
Of course, perhaps it’s better just to snipe sarcastically from the sidelines – a la JVGO.
June 20th 2012 @ 11:37am
Ian Whitchurch said | June 20th 2012 @ 11:37am | Report comment
“But the best thing the NRL could do is start up a second New Zealand team. Firstly, a second NZ team could join the Toyota Cup, with a view to building a squad in three years time. This would allow the team to be competitive from the start, unlike the usual case with expansion teams (take note, Gold Coast Suns)”
This is going to need three years dedicated funding with no returns. Its also going to have the problem of if any of the kids are in fact good enough to play first grade – do they get paid as first graders ?
There’s also the structural issue of if the NRL is willing to subsidise new clubs, or if the other clubs will whine about the unfairness of doing what it takes to grow the code (note that the Directors of Brisbane Broncos Ltd ACN 009 570 030 have to do this, or they are in violation of their duties as directors to their shareholders. There is no exemption in the Corporations Act for the good of the code).
Finally, theres the issue of where the second NZ team should be based. My understanding is rugby league is strongest in Auckland, and I dont think its likely you could get enough crowd support to permanently put a new team somewhere else, without a financially stable owner prepared to subsidise the club for year after year.
Are two Auckland teams viable ? Probably not.
June 20th 2012 @ 11:55am
turbodewd said | June 20th 2012 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Wellington would have to be home of the 2nd side.
June 20th 2012 @ 12:05pm
Sailosi said | June 20th 2012 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
Col, the Anzac test only just made a profit. That’s the problem and that’s why Jim Doyle said that Eden Park probably won’t be used in future. They had to sell 10,000 tickets at half price. I would much rather a 3 test series at the end of the year.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
June 20th 2012 @ 12:20pm
Col Quinn said | June 20th 2012 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Sailosi
I quite agree about having a viable end of season test series. I didnt know about the problems with Eden Park, although a profit is a profit. One of the beefs I have is the length of the NRL season. When comp expands by 2 or 3 new sides it will be a very long season. The NRL is going to have to consider having an expanded pool groupings to reduce the seasons length so that more rep games can be fitted in without Player wear and tear becoming to high.
CQ
June 20th 2012 @ 12:34pm
The Barry said | June 20th 2012 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
Players have to have some choice in who they choose to play for.
The problem with Kasiano and Tamou’s situation is that within the past couple of months they declared that they wanted to represent the Kiwis.
Paul Kent came up with a decent solution is that if one of these guys decide they want to change their declared allegience then they need to sit out rep footy for two years to become elligible.
That would test their true loyalty – it would also stop this situation of “I’ll play for the kiwis if they pick me first, if not I’ll play for NSW / QLD”
June 20th 2012 @ 12:55pm
SAINiTy said | June 20th 2012 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
I heard Paul Kent last night say that, but 2 years is a long time to sit out of rep footy. During that time you could have a career ending injury or someone else takes the spot while you are waiting and you can’t get it off them. In the end you miss out on playing for the country you wanted to play for. There is also the potential loss of income as a rep player and the increase in your worth on the market. No player is going to sit out of rep footy for 2 years.
June 20th 2012 @ 1:11pm
The Barry said | June 20th 2012 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
SAINiTy
“No player is going to sit out of rep footy for 2 years.”
That’s exactly what it’s designed to achieve. This isn’t for young players nominating their national allegience when they sign their first contracts, it’s for players who want to change their allegience.
If it means enough to them they’d sit out two years for sure – regardless of the risk of injury or lost earnings. That’s what we want to see – players making these decisions from the heart not the hip pocket.
June 20th 2012 @ 8:56pm
SAINiTy said | June 20th 2012 @ 8:56pm | Report comment
Aware of that The Barry, the result will be that more Kiwis will opt out of playing for NZ and wait for Origin selection IMO.
June 20th 2012 @ 1:04pm
Von Neumann said | June 20th 2012 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
I think you are right The Barry
Did not really mention in my article above, its length was getting out of hand,
I think any proposal needs to make it clear that if you pick playing for a big nation like Australia or NZ, then you need to do so 2 years before you are eligible to be picked in the first place, and if you change, its a 2 year wait…that or you can never change.
**Of course, this may stop a player who is 19 playing for the Kiwis to start with. But in time, the team will be full of older players, and 19 may be considered too young to rep your country. So maybe they need to tweak it. Yet is it so much to ask a 17 year old to pick a country, when he is in a high-level youth squad, and he knows he has a big chance of playing nrl and playing potentially playing rep footy?**
[in soccer, Wayne Rooney played for england when he was 17] how young is too young.
Its not even asking them to cement it in, its asking them to “willingly sit out 2 years should they make a change, that they will not be considered for selection; and to get on the list in advance to be selected.”
I dont know if its possible, but something needs to happen there.
Surely this would stop players moving about willy-nilly
–Also I would like to see the rules slated for flexibility for players to play for NZ. Not because they are weaker right now, but because SO MANY NZ people come over here. We don’t ask them to live in NZ to be eligible, so I think the avenue to play for them needs to be kept as open as possible, should they want to play.
I have tried to talk about incentives, and fixtures, and youth, and eligibility. It may not make a difference for 5 or so years. But surely it will all stem the flow away from NZ.
Lets be honest and say that if NZ had 5 extra current top level players playing for NZ who now do not (have not), they would beat australia more often on a good day.
June 20th 2012 @ 1:14pm
The Barry said | June 20th 2012 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
VN – see above, I think as long as players satisfy the eligibility criteria when they first nominate their nation then they should be able to play for that nation at whatever age.
It’s the guys changing that would need to sit out.
Players that have dual eligibility should have the initial choice who they play for – as John Grant said we live in a democracy.
June 20th 2012 @ 1:19pm
Von Neumann said | June 20th 2012 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
PLayers with duel eligibility should have a choice. Thats fair. I would never want to take that right away. I would only give them a greater choice, of equal weight almost.
Surely its the only way. You can’t walk around waving a stick and saying this one plays for NZ and this one doesn’t.
June 20th 2012 @ 1:17pm
Von Neumann said | June 20th 2012 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
my other gripe is that as you say, The Barry, “it would also stop this situation of “I’ll play for the kiwis if they pick me first, if not I’ll play for NSW / QLD”
I’ve never liked that idea. I think a player should commit to his country for better or worse.
This is not like the once-in-a-while Russian gymnist who comes to australia, or pole vaulter (the hot one), or some such at an olympic sport….this is dozens of young men from a close by country, who is one of our main opposition. Its almost like there is no longer Australia one one side of the Tasman and NZ on the other – its merging.
Still, I think when rules via the IRLF are sorted, players from NZ will be able to make a clearer choice who are in Kasiano’s position. I just would hope to change the minds of those intent on playing for Australia.
It works both ways, I remeber Nathen Feind. I never considered him a Kiwi. Thorn slipped under the Radar, now its blindingly obvious he was playing for the wrong team, but he is such a good player, you keep your mouth shut.
Like I said, NZ only need 5 or so extra players of high calibre. Why the heck does RL do this to itself?