It seems like every year following the representative round we have the same discussion: international football is so exciting, of such a high quality and the players play with so much passion, we should have more of it.
The conversation invariably turns to State of Origin, the supposed centrepiece or Australian rugby league. Typically the conversation turns to how to ensure State of Origin remains the pinnacle of rugby league.
This is dumb. Really, really dumb.
While State of Origin is the centrepiece of rugby league, it shouldn’t be, and we should be doing everything we can to ensure that within the next five to ten years it isn’t the biggest game in the sport.
Rugby league is an international sport, it is time we treated it that way and it’s time those at League Central stop looking at the game with an insular mindset.
People will still watch and turn up to Origin in the future in their droves. It will, and should, always remain a hugely marketable event, one of the biggest events on the rugby league calendar, and if it doesn’t League Central has failed. But it shouldn’t remain the biggest event on the rugby league calendar.
Origin is New South Wales versus Queensland. That is it, just two states competing against each other, devoid of any other rugby league players from around the world. While State of Origin used to pit the 34 best players in the NRL against each other, that can no longer be said. And that is a good thing.
Whenever I hear television personalities claim that Pacific Islanders, New Zealanders or Englishmen should be allowed to play in State of Origin I shudder. It’s like America drafting Swedes playing in the NHL to help them defeat Canada at the Olympics.
As Paul Kent quite rightly pointed out last week, as soon as we tinker with the formula that made Origin great, the best of Queensland against the best of New South Wales, the magic is lost and we will be left with a glorified All Star game. That will not be popular and the game will lose the intensity that has made it so big.
One of the arguments for allowing Pacific Islanders to play Origin is that these players deserve to be able to play in the biggest game rugby league has to offer. That is exactly why we shouldn’t let Pacific Islanders play. By letting all-comers play, if it retains the magic that it currently holds – and that’s a big if – we are ensuring the NRL always rates Origin above international football.
But if the NRL wants the sport of rugby league to grow nationally and internationally, and by extension the quality of rugby league played to increase, they need international rugby league to be the pinnacle of the sport. And for that to happen Pacific Islanders must be playing for their country, not some state they moved to at the age of 15, 20 or even 24, as Eto Nabuli was when he moved to Sydney.
On top of those who claim that Pacific Islanders should be eligible for State of Origin selection, there are those that claim that Australian players from outside of New South Wales and Queensland should be eligible for Origin. Again, we can’t let this happen if we want to ensure national growth.
It’s important to make the distinction here between allowing Australians with Pacific Islander heritage and those born in the Pacific Islands to play Origin. Anthony Milford was born in Australia and I agree 100 per cent that he should be eligible to represent Samoa if he is not selected for Australia as this can only help those nations grow.
However, if Milford was born in Samoa he should not be eligible for State of Origin. And yes, this is different because the smaller nations need help to grow, State of Origin doesn’t need any more help.
Rugby league is not a national sport in Australia; it is an east coast sport. The NRL will eventually have a professional team located in Perth, hopefully sooner rather than later. People claim that when this time comes, Perth juniors will need something to aspire to, higher representative honours. They already have this, a green and gold jumper, what should be the pinnacle of Australian rugby league.
We may eventually get to the point where we can play Western Australia versus Victoria in conjunction with NSW versus Queensland, and I hope we do, but we never will if all Victorians or Western Australians are representing NSW or Queensland.
Because the NRL seems to think about money before anything else, it is important to highlight the financial benefits of State of Origin diminishing in value.
Dave Smith and Todd Greenberg have repeatedly told us in the past couple of months that international matches are not included in the current broadcast deal; they are just aired by Channel Nine and Fox Sports. It seems absolutely absurd and is quite hard to believe, but if it is true it highlights how little the NRL cares about international rugby league.
Additionally, if it is true it shows that the increased importance of international rugby league can be used to bump up the value of the coming broadcast deals as international matches are actually incorporated into the rights agreements.
New South Welshmen and Queenslanders are constantly searching for ways to ensure an interstate match remains the pinnacle of the sport of rugby league. This is all too typical of the insular attitude of most involved in rugby league. The sport is never going to grow if this continues and if the sport is to grow, we need to do everything we can to ensure that international matches surpass State of Origin.
We have seen the winds change in direction ever so slightly in recent years, let’s not jeopardise all that good work with yet another shortsighted, narrow-minded decision.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
Hi Santa. The RLIF rankings are weighted towards recent matches, margins of victory and quality of opposition. New Zealand have smashed Australia the last three games they've played (two and a half games if you take into account Australia's spirited comeback attempt in the last minutes of the final) all while Australia were the number one team. So yeah, for Christmas, I'd like the Game of Thrones box set and a new Xbox. But no socks please. You got me that last year. :)
eagleJack
Roar Guru
Whilst it is certainly a great achievement by New Zealand, the ranking system appears to be designed to give the impression of a close international competition. The Kiwis have won 3 of the past 11 games between the 2 nations. And only 7 of the past 35. If that makes you number 1 then I'm Santa Claus. But still they are certainly playing great football at the moment and have hopefully given the Aussies the kick up the backside to take International league seriously again.
Ian
Guest
Its official, State of Origin is now the Best of the Rest following the announcement tonight that the Kiwis are No1. http://www.eurosport.com/rugby-league/kiwis-clinch-top-ranking_sto4726965/story.shtml
Bondy
Guest
A good read couldnt agree more ...
MikeTV
Guest
Perhaps lucky is wrong word and of course New Zealand deserved to win the those matches against Australia, but my point is that the context of those matches is very different from a best of 3 series where the results are aggregated. NSW defeated Queensland plenty of times in the past 9 years - but people only remember the overall series result - 8 to 1. These two teams were actually much closer than what "8 to 1" implies. Some of those series came down to the wire. When NZ defeated Australia in the Four Nations / World Cup Tournaments, they were not clearly the best team for the duration of those tournaments - but that is the nature of competitions that end with a final match. You have to turn up for the final, which Australia did not.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
I know you are joking. But I also know you are not.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
"NZ were very lucky to beat Australia in one-off matches where past results were meaningless – eg World Cup Finals and Four Nations Finals." Yeah, you're right, luck comes into when they consistently do so. Geez MikeTV, I'd hate for you to be on the jury if I was ever wrongly accused of anything. Ouch.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
That's argument goes nowhere. If you haven't promoted it, worked on it and made a conscious effort to improve it, then asking if Australia v New Zealand would fill Homebush is disingenuous to say the least. Of course it won't. The psychological landscape for the last twenty years has been Origin. And yet, without any effort, Big Three Test matches still draw 25,000+. The Anzac Test at Suncorp drew 32,000 AFTER it had to be rescheduled. I can reasonably imagine 5-10,000 asking for refunds after the rained-out original event. The only thing I agree is that Origin filled a void in quality. The 'contrivance' such that it is, came about when nobody bothered to work on Tests, took the easier path of running with Origin and started the marketing campaign to let everyone know that Origin is the 'pinnacle'.
kevin dustby
Guest
why single out PI people, surely its the same for everyone? "make a positive contribution to society:?
stu
Guest
No it wouldn't. This is due to the intense rivalry though, not the quality of football. Last years was horiffic. Kiwis v Kangaroos has far more quality.
Ian
Guest
No need - Wednesday, June 11th, 1980 South Island 12 beat Kangaroos 11
Johnno
Guest
turbowed Aussies V Kiwi test at homebush hasn't been done since year 2000
MikeTV
Guest
If NZ are capable of beating Australia then why have they not developed a North Island vs South Island Origin competition ?
Kirk
Guest
You can argue Origin is the pinnacle of RL but it is not "the best vs the best". The NSW side of the past 9 years wouldn't have beaten the Kiwis in many of those years.
Aaron Killian
Guest
MikeTV your proposal is not happening FULL STOP.
Ian
Guest
Correct, but if their parents aren't Citizens or permanent residents then they won't be granted Australian Citizenship by birth. This is particularly acute for Pacific Island people as they typically do not comply to Australia's normal migration criteria and hence have no automatic pathways to permanent residency or citizenship despite positively contributing to society. Even in some cases representing their adopted country.
MikeTV
Guest
One proposal to include the Kiwis is to expand SOO to 3 teams - NSW vs Qld vs New Zealand. But the question arises - would the kiwis be interested in playing State of Origin if invited ? Is it a bit demeaning to invite a National team to participate in a Provincial competition ? The Kiwi team would not be out of place in SOO. Super League did that in 1997. But the Kiwis would have to decide whether they would allow their National team to be downgraded to "provincial" status for an expanded SOO series.
MikeTV
Guest
The fans seem to crave a "Pinnacle of Rugby League" but there is no unanimous decision on what that pinnacle is or should be. It certainly needs to be an even contest when the results are examined over a 10 year period. It cannot be a one-sided affair. It also needs to have teams that mean something, which could be based on geo-political lines, ethnicity, heritage or residency. So far, the NSW vs Qld series satisfies all of the above - but shuns the Kiwis and Englishman. Can the NZ vz Australia series be elevated to the "Pinnacle" ? I would say not just yet. If each series comprised 3 matches (like SOO) then Australia would win every series. NZ were very lucky to beat Australia in one-off matches where past results were meaningless - eg World Cup Finals and Four Nations Finals. SOO is always a best of 3 contest. Over the past 30 years, it is actually quite rare for a team to win 3-0.
Renegade
Guest
Turbo, " origin is the best vs the best" That was a good laugh....give me another.
Numbers Man
Guest
For the NRL there is no bigger games in the calendar year than SOO. There is no way from a revenue, popularity and promotion of the game would there be anything different. From the 30,000 that watches the ANZAC test ( rain delayed or not) to the sell out year on year with record rating the SOO is the biggest game in league and will remain so. The only way would be if NSW dominated for 8 year like Qld that it would change.