Australia thrashing New Zealand in the World Cup final. Good or bad for international rugby league?
It’s the sort of question that is inevitably asked in the wake of a tournament like this, but is such a question really relevant?
I mean, we knew before the World Cup began that Australia would most likely win it, and that the team they would beat in the final would most likely be New Zealand.
The only other team with any chance of upsetting the status quo was England.
Plenty of people got excited about the semi-final between the Kiwis and the Poms because it was a great game, but all the result of that game told me was that the Aussies had the final won.
New Zealand needed a stunning late try from Shaun Johnson to beat England, who had been shown to be well short of Australia back in the opening game of the tournament.
And that form held true in the final, with the Aussies winning 34-2. A bigger margin than anyone expected, but on form it would have been a surprise had the Aussies not at least won comfortably.
I think Australia had two big advantages in this World Cup.
One, they didn’t play New Zealand in the group stage. And, two, the Kiwis didn’t have Wayne Bennett to help coach Stephen Kearney this time around.
You will recall Bennett was in the Kiwis’ camp throughout the 2008 World Cup, and that it was plain at the time that his influence had been major.
Kearney failed as an NRL club coach with Parramatta, and at the World Cup just gone he had to do it on his own, without the assistance of the seven-time premiership-winning master coach.
He couldn’t get the Kiwis to compete with the Aussies in the final, after his team had barely made it to the decider in the first place.
Also in the 2008 World Cup, New Zealand was in the same group as Australia and England.
Australia thrashed the Kiwis 30-6 in the group stage, and recent history shows that in events like that and Four Nations tournaments the Aussies can become vulnerable if they meet the Kiwis in the final after beating them in the group stage.
The Kiwis are great at getting themselves up for a final, and they beat the Aussies 34-20 in the 2008 World Cup decider.
But this time around there was no chance of the Aussies either underestimating the Kiwis or being ambushed by a suddenly much more intense Kiwis side than in the group stage.
The lasting memory the Aussies had of the Kiwis throughout this event was of that loss in the 2008 final. They were able to focus on that, and I’m sure it helped enormously in getting them as ready as they were ever going to be when they finally came up against the Kiwis this time.
So in terms of international rugby league, the result of the final doesn’t really change much, although it will presumably put Kearney under pressure to hold his job.
That could be a good thing for the Kiwis.
In terms of international rugby league on a wider scale, was the event good for that?
I’m sure it’s done more good than bad.
At five weeks, the World Cup is too long. The depth of international rugby league simply doesn’t justify that length when you are headed towards an inevitable conclusion in which there are only three genuine winning chances.
Three or four weeks is long enough.
And, obviously, a lot of “manufacturing” is allowed to go into the formation of some of the so-called minnow teams, to make them as competitive as possible.
But that is understandable when you are trying to grow the game internationally.
I don’t know if they will ever get international rugby league to grow to a level where the outcome of a World Cup becomes anything less than predictable.
It looks a hell of a long way off, but I’m not going to boo them for trying.
In Brief
Guest
I think the tide is turning. The issue is that match day pressures force club doctors to make poor decisions re player welfare.
Cathar Treize
Roar Guru
"Keeps spinal injuries in the shadows" Now what's wrong with that? Shall we pick on everyone's grammar, spelling or typos? We'd be here for a long time and have no discussion about anything else. So don't give me the lesson sunshine. I do know more players suffer spinal injuries in RU than just about any other sport in the world and as you think this is political point scoring, shows you are all too aware of union's less highlighted fabric but we'll just discuss Hayne's concussion (pretend union doesn't have a problem with spinal injuries) and the RL's so-called inept dealing of it, shall we?
Cathar Treize
Roar Guru
I think most sports have nice shiny guidelines. The issue is do they follow them?
In Brief
Guest
In Brief
Guest
Rugby union is actually leading the way in terms of player welfare, particulary regarding concussion: http://www.rugby.com.au/tryrugby/administration/ConcussionGuidelines.aspx
mick h
Guest
but on his good days they won the 4 nations and a world cup not bad trophies
sham
Guest
Great Britain played Australia in Sydney on 4 November 2006 and won 23-12 - seven years ago
Maximus
Guest
the word is kudos Keeps spinal injuries in the shadows - really so how do you know about them - I wouldn't try to make a political point out of a tragedy. Hayne was staggering just on camera but was not assessed by a doctor as is done in other codes now. When is RL going to wake up or are they permanently concussed...
Maximus
Guest
They have played 3 times in Sydney in 20 years and I was at the game 2o years ago with Martin offiah (a rugby man BTW) with 20K others
Maximus
Guest
Col wouldn't be called an Englishman but a few Irish have played for England and Great Britain in RL and the reverse as we have just seen in the last RLWC...
Arnold Kerwanty
Guest
Last game I saw vs GB was in Sydney was a bit over 10 years ago.
Matt
Guest
Figures are fudged all the time. Ie, the IRL "made $5 million". Who paid for all the teams etc? Did IRL cover every single expense by every team at all stages, and that's included already in the figure? More likely they "made 5 million", then will have to reimburse money to the competing teams to cover their costs, THEN whatever is left is the true profit.
The eye
Guest
Certainly I was impressed by the English after the semi and made me re-consider old fixated beliefs I had regarding the quality of their league.But in the grand scheme of things,I admit we can only use hypotheticals,they let themselves down when the pressure valve got turned on.Just one tackle after Sonny threw that pass to RTS,a meat head front rower loses the ball on the line,Sinfield doesn't look for touch on his last set of 6,Ryan Hall drops a sitter of an intercept, then George with that arm,again late in the tackle count when the game was as good as theirs.This wasnt bad luck it was just horrendous play that ultimately got what it deserved. In a WC final against the ruthlessness and guile that are a part of this teams persona as much as their uncanny ability they would have had the valve turned to full for the entire 80 mins and got chewed up and spat out whatever style of football they wanted to play...IMO and that's all it is.
RWB
Guest
When did England lose to your second string team? I suspect you only read headlines and you read them wrong.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
Fair enough. I remember towards the back end of the match, the Kiwis stringing some sets together and thinking, 'where has this been all game?' Like I said, if New Zealand had actually played...
Raugeee
Guest
NZ had the ball.? They had 36 possessions as opposed to OZ 38. They had plenty of ball they were just not good enough to do anything with it. The penalties were 9 - 4 as well.
Tom
Guest
Nope, result would have been the same but also just set english rugby league back another million light years from where it is right now. And if australia was granted access to play in the AR World Cup then the ruslts would be in the 100s of points rather then 34 points - hardly a real comparison at all.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
I tend to agree. England play a different style. It looks fun to watch and you can imagine them beating Australia. You can even imagine New Zealand winning if they had played with confidence, some smarts and had had the ball... In the tournament's opening match, England matched Australia until the very end. They didn't crack like they used to. They were patient and even though they lost, there were a lot of positives to be gotten out of their performance. Same with the match against New Zealand. England were patient enough to absorb the setbacks and keep fighting until the end. In the final, bar a very small handful of sets, the Kiwis NEVER composed themselves enough to attack Australia. Australia eventually won easily but had the Kiwis actually played, who knows?
Simoc
Guest
Pretty rubbish article by Greg. The coach certainly matters but let your next article be about Ricky Stuart and what a dismal Parramatta, NSW and Australian coach he was. But no, you don't understand that having probably 11 of the best players on the field makes a difference. A tad beyond your understanding Greg. Australia have always been as better a team vs NZ as this game indicated but haven't played to that form. Poorly coached previously?
Renegade
Roar Guru
I disagree eye... I think England would have posed a greater threat as they play a different brand of football and move the ball around unlike NZ who just try and play like us - you can't outplay Australia at their own game. They needed to play adlib footy - whenever we have lost matches that's exactly what the opposition has done. We wouldn't have lost to England but the margin would have been closer however it's something that's just speculation as we will never know.