With about twenty minutes to go of the Kangaroos master class yesterday morning, I found my rapture at Australia’s silky skills beginning to give way to a rising sense of irritation.
Maybe it was watching the talented Kiwi side play well within itself, maybe the cheap cider mixed with red cordial from a mate’s farewell from a few hours earlier, or maybe the dread of impending seasonal unemployment.
However, I’ve got a feeling that my foul-er was from knowing I’d get woken up by the next door neighbour’s sausage dog just a few hours later and the media from the Cup’s other nations moaning that “Australia are just too good!”
Now, the song will tell you that “there ain’t no ugly people after 2am”, and I’m of the belief that rugby league also becomes more attractive in the wee hours when your brain has slowed to the pace of the late night infomercial 1900 numbers.
But even accounting for this, the Kangaroos were looking might fine.
So yes, Australia were very, very good.
But ‘too’ good?
That’s like saying there is a stadium toilet that is too clean, or an in-goal too safe.
And, worst of all, it’s a cop out that doesn’t help rugby league one little bit.
Just imagine, the RLIF holding a snap meeting while the Australians were out on the ran-tan celebrating and hurriedly pushing through a motion named the ‘Stevo Amendment’ to ban the Kangaroos from Test football on the basis of their too-goodness.
Or, at a pinch, only allowing the green and gold to be represented by amateur and collegiate players and coached by Kurt Russell.
It is of course a ludicrous situation that even the bloke who designed the Super League referee kits would label “A bit nutty,” but one that you’d think is an outside shot of getting a run reading some of the comments flying around after the final.
For a long, long time now Australia has been the atomic wedgie specialist schoolyard bully of International rugby league. This is well known.
But sitting around hiding under the monkey bars and getting angry about the Kangaroos playing good isn’t going to do anything.
The only thing that is going to earn the rest of the world respect in the eyes of Australia is to march up and kick them square in the cods.
There’s no doubt this is very tough, with the registered number of players Australia has as well as the strength of the domestic competitions.
But with the success of the World Cup itself, and spirited performances from the smaller nations in the pool stages, the game really deserves to see the other big guns stick it to Australia on a more regular basis in the build up to Johannesburg 2017.
Fortunately, the signs are good.
The New Zealand squad is a young side, and England should still have their Burgii and Tomkins going around in four years.
The Pacific nations are also just scratching the surface of what they can become with a bit more time and money.
It’s just that everyone shouldn’t expect Australia to slow down while they catch up.
duecer
Guest
Glenn Innes - thanks for the interesting historical facts - you do indeed know the history. It really does point out why international RL was popular in those periods - there were competitive games from 4 countries and a real rivalry from England and Australia. If they could get back to that situation, then there may be hope of halting the decline in England, but as it stands they should try and concentrate on keeping the heartlands healthy as the fringe areas are falling further behind to Football, which for numerous reasons, including waves of immigration into the area, keeps getting stronger at RL's expense.
Emric
Guest
James New Zealand would not need the NRL if the NZRU and NZL worked together for the better of New Zealand rugby.
James
Guest
League will always exist in New Zealand and I hope that the NZRL and NZRU will get over their great differences and start to work together especially towards the Olympic games and introduction of the 7-a-side game (game of 7?). Yeah...nah. Why on earth would the NZRL or NRL want to contribute time, money, or players to NZ's rugby (union) sevens team?
Dan
Guest
The wallabies get matches against the all blacks, but even the all blacks have less registered players and lower profits than the rfu. Indeed, the kiwis have less than half England's player stocks and not as much tv money. So I suppose you might also ask the question why England and France aren't the two dominant teams in union. As for the English league team - I still don't buy that. In my view English league suffers because it has no equivalent of origin
Emric
Guest
Kiwis watch both league and rugby and support both games. Glenn when your trying to over throw rugby in New Zealand your going up against true legends in our society from Dave Gallaher to Buck Shelford, all in between and those who have come since. All Black rugby has been the team to aspire to for over 100 years. During the 1905 tour to the UK. Dave Gallaher and his men changed the way rugby was to be played for all time because it was the New Zealand way of playing rugby which encouraged the the Northern Union to begin the series of modifications to their game in an attempt to create the style of play which New Zealand was already playing, in the effort to achieve this the northern unions agreed to drop 2 players from the starting side. Why did they do this? New Zealands style of rugby had created such a stir in the United Kingdom during the 1905 tour (The Originals) with their dynamic style of play that they sold out grounds virtually everywhere they went. League serves as nothing more then a reminder of how great that side is and the fact that League has gone to such great lengths in an continuing attempt to emulate the original style of rugby is probably one of the greatest tributes ever paid to All Black rugby. League will always exist in New Zealand and I hope that the NZRL and NZRU will get over their great differences and start to work together especially towards the Olympic games and introduction of the 7-a-side game (game of 7?).
TREX
Guest
Auckland is still a rugby union city and down to the fact that there are more rugby union kids playing in Auckland schools than rugby league players in all of New Zealand.
TREX
Guest
The majority of rugby league fans all over the world couldn't give to hoots about all that CT and thank god its only a very small minority who spreads this rumours and make up excuses and playing the blaming game.
TREX
Guest
Thanks for that Glen, You tell the real story of what it really is. Like I said if only rugby league was given a chance by its professional clubs to spread then maybe it would have been the same or bigger than rugby union. But who knows. CT comes from the blaming everyone except RL group of fans.
TREX
Guest
Glen, I know you been away from England for a long time. Go to a English rugby league forum and they will tell you a different picture where football has all the media follow by rugby union and not much on rugby league. this will give you an idea of what rugby league is compare to the media in rugby union. http://www.totalrl.com/forums/index.php/topic/244412-world-cup-media-coverage/
TREX
Guest
Dan, I think you will find that the Wallabies competitiveness must come from the fact that they play constant test matches with the best rugby union countries in the world every year unlike England RL which are always looking out for games against Australia and NZ but only at times to they play. QLD Reds is really a team from Brisbane just like the London Broncos is made up of a small section of London.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
I think how the Warriors have been managed over their existence has been the problem. South Sydney are supposedly the greatest club in Australia but their management kept them in the Dark Ages for over twenty years. They say that if you build it, they will come. I suppose that is true but unless you keep up the maintenance, they won't be coming for long.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
Unfortunately, soccer has suffered from various predjucies and biases, both internally and externally. Good to see, though, that change has occurred. In another generation, who knows just how big soccer can be in Australia? I certainly think it has more potential than league or union.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
"What I won’t cop is the constant references to the “world” implying that millions around the globe sit fascinated, just waiting to see what Billy Slater’s next move is, and with posters of Willie Mason adorning walls from Tokyo to Timbuktu. It’s just nonsense." What is nonsense is expecting that to be the criteria used to define whether a sport is a 'world sport' or not.
Glenn Innes
Guest
Firstly if dominance is not on Rugby Leagues agenda it should be - whilst I really hate reducing the game to pure business terms the aim of any company is to maxamise it's market share (ie monoply if you can get there) why not Rugby League.People only have so much spare time and money and they can't be in two places at once. Also once things start to get serious it is very difficult to play two games at the same time and both the Warriors and the New Zealand national team badly need the code in New Zealand to grow it's playing numbers - the current player pool is very small which is why they never became the new Broncos. When the Warriers first entered the then ARL plenty of people (myself included) thought they would be the next Broncos but it didn't happen because Rughy proved to have a more robust support than we thought and the New Zealand junior base was much weaker than we thought. I certainly would not deny The Warriors have been a big shot in the arm for the code in New Zealand indeed without them League in New Zealand would attract about as much publicity as field hockey. But 30k crowds are the exception to the rule the club has actually averaged crowds in the low teens for most of it's existence.The simple fact is the game has not made the inroads over there I thought it might and Rugby Union has remained (dare I use that word) dominant.
Dan
Guest
And Rugby Union in Germany. Some have gone so far to suggest that the guy was something of a control freak.
Scotty
Guest
10 fold improvement would have given them 20 points and they still would have lost! Kangaroos = All Blacks NZ = England/Wallabies
In Brief
Guest
Bloody Hitler, invades Poland, bombs England, invades Russia, kills the jews, kills the gypsies, kills the gays, still not happy he bans rugby league in France!
Cathar Treize
Roar Guru
Glenn, when prior to the Warriors entering the NRL would we have seen 30,000 plus crowds at Eden Park? You did know the Auckland based Warriors have the biggest club sponsorship portfolio in NZ? Further, it does not help that the Warriors haven't won the bloody thing (NRL title) and that is the failure over the last 20 years. But league is a hell of a lot better in Auckland then it was prior to the Warriors with more 20,000 plus crowds then ever in the game's history. Also, we have seen in the past 20 years historical high crowds in Wellington, Hamilton, Invercargill etc when the Warriors have visited. The only thing missing is a Warriors premiership. League in Auckland holds its own and I see no reason for it to dominate Auckland (if the Warriors and Blues can both attract 20-30,000 to games each then the winner is Auckland, that should be the objective) let alone NZ when Kiwis can embrace both codes and enjoy success. I think league wants its share. All this talk of dominating sounds like soccer & AFL stuff.
Dan
Guest
I'm sorry but soccer in Australia has hardly been on the receiving end of the kind of discrimination that league copped in France and in parts of England. Soccer was never banned from schools, nor had its players threatened with deregistration from other sports for participating in soccer games, nor officially banned from using the name "football" in the way league was banned from using "rugby" in its name in France. I know Aussie soccer fans like to feel like they've had it rough, but having your game called "wog-ball" by some bogans isn't on the same level as having your sport banned and all the clubs assets seized.
Dan
Guest
Jeez makes you wonder why the England soccer team suck so bad doesn't it?