Crichton repeats Grand Final magic as Samoa complete insane 55-point turnaround to reach first World Cup Final

Rob9, I like you, & from the things you say, we're more alike than different. Just one final observation, I'm not anti-heritage, I'm anti all the bullcrap surrounding it. You identified the 'chop & change' which is at the centre of my dislike. I'll say it again, we all have heritage we can be proud of, but we only have one country that we can serve faithfully, one master to die for. People come to this country at all ages of their life & buy into & contribute to our society. But sport is a shorter lifespan, so a player must make the decision earlier where his true allegiance rests. The Globalisation dream was trashed as fanciful rubbish in 2008 when the GFC hit. It's a nice ideal but doesn't work in the real world for very long. Now sport is taking a bit longer to find this out, thinking a player can be all things to all countries. Like clubs. All for money & entertainment. No, it doesn't work like that. If, in the unlikely event Samoa beats Australia, we'll have to endure all the waffle about how proud they are of their Samoan heritage. All the while conveniently ignoring that the country of either their birth or their rearing, Australia, is the country that shaped & moulded them, gave them their skills, resolve & character, made them the good players that they became, all the way from when they first played rugby league to when they won a NRL contract. They might be proud of their Samoan heritage, but they disrespect Australia by ignoring or playing down that side of their heritage.

‘I think it’s equally valid they have disrespected the country of their birth’- this I don’t buy into. I don’t begrudge a player for making a decision that’s inside the rules of international eligibility that they’re completely entitled to make. Even when I don’t agree with said rules. This would also infer that you don’t agree with the heritage rule whatsoever. With some slight adjustments discussed above (at least 2 grandparents or 1 parent born in the country), I have no problem with it. But I agree; I’m against the allowances that pave the way for players to chop and change allegiances (which now exists in rugby too) and play SOO mid year and roll out for Tonga/Samoa at seasons end. What provides me with equal amounts of humour and confusion are fans that struggle to have certain aspects of their sport challenged or criticised. These articles seem to bring the gaggle together quite nicely. I love rugby union as much as I love rugby league, but that doesn’t stop me from voicing and discussing rugby’s shortcomings (which there are a-plenty when it comes to the local game) while providing a realistic account of where it sits. Despite what John O’Neill believed at the turn of the millennium; Rugby could only ever dream of the domestic presence that Rugby League enjoys. Rugby is in world of hurt locally and will never be within cooee of rugby league on Australian shores. I’m not blind to that reality and I’ll keep my head above the sand when discussing it- even as a fan of the game. But for some reason there are rugby league fans that take uneducated (and just plain wrong) shots at rugby union when trying to justify rugby league’s international presence. Plenty also couple this with their rose coloured predictions of where the international game is heading and what it can be- often times putting forward ideas that involve eating into the NRL's presence (the game's great strength in Australia) to feed an illusion of international grandeur.

Rob9, You expressed yourself very well in these discussions. Yes, I'm a pot stirrer & I'm too old to change. I realise that social media is a mostly hit & run exercise. Very few people are willing to have a long, drawn out discussion arriving at a mutually agreeable (without necessarily agreeing) outcome. Even myself a lot of the time. As for me disrespecting the decisions of some players, I think it's equally valid they have disrespected the country of their birth. I certainly agree that Oz fans shouldn't concern themselves with the international landscape. It wasn't that long ago that the 4 footy codes in Oz were inversely popular to their international appeal: 1. Australian football. Barely played anywhere else. 2. Rugby league. Only played to a seriously high standard in 3 countries - Australia, NZ & England. 3. Rugby union. Second most popular football code in the world after soccer/football. Has now swapped positions in Oz with soccer/football. 4. Soccer/football. The most popular football code throughout the world by a massive margin. Has now leapfrogged rugby into 3rd position in Oz. Too many unthinking folk fall for the line that the international appeal of their sport helps the domestic code. No, it doesn't. The key thing for administrators is to give the domestic market fans what they want. What is happening elsewhere is largely irrelevant. The massive mishandling of super rugby by SANZAAR is a prime example of what not to do. Australia A will be playing Australia B in the WC final until such time as the IRL seriously tightens the eligibility rules. At present it is a mockery & I treat it as such.

It’s the execution that doesn’t sit well with me Sheek. The ‘Australia A vs Australia B’ type stuff is just pot stirring and demonstrates a low level of respect to the players, the countries they represent and their fans. A lot of what’s coming back at you can be filed in the irrational ravings bucket and I couldn’t give a hoot about this ‘more froth than beer’ mob- but you don’t make it easy to leap to your defence when you’re including a lot of unnecessary stuff in your arguments. These players have made a decision and as you’ve alluded to, even with the eligibility rule tinkers that I think we’re somewhat aligned in- it may not dramatically change the make up of many of the teams involved. But for now, it is what it is and some will tune in and care, and others (including a decent number of RL fans such as myself) won’t. My motivators for commenting on these sorts of articles is to: Put forward my thoughts on what I would deem a more meaningful representative landscape. Put forward why rugby league interests in Australia shouldn’t be too concerned the dream of a ‘global game’. Give the uneducated like Picklett above a dose of reality when they try an invent some comparisons between international RL and RU.

I do understand, I know that most of the English will be cheering for Samoa, but you're assuming a large crowd of mostly English fans. I'm not so sure this will happen - will they be interested to attend if England aren't playing? Therefore, I would think the percentage of Australians in the crowd will be much higher.

Rob9, Having read your excellent responses to HR in depth, I’m really surprised why you think your thoughts are different to mine. There’s been a lot of hysteria responses to my argument, name calling, getting personal, which my assertions essentially, are aimed at the too loose interpretation of international eligibility. Let me repeat this again, I can accept an Aussie born player turning out of his heritage county, but it comes with caveats. 1. Make the decision early, like end of teens. Choose your country ONCE. Choice of country should not be seen as a flip-flop from one country to another like changing clubs. 2. Once you choose your heritage country you lose the right to play state of origin. I don’t know where this nonsense comes from that SOO isn’t the final dress rehearsal for Kangaroos jerseys. That’s been the case since 1908. 3. Give so called T2 nations a similar test intinerary to T1 nations. This then levels the playing field. International rugby union has stuffed up seriously by snubbing less developed nations from the international itinerary. Even Roos coach Mal Meninga has changed his tune on eligibility. Initially he thought it was a great idea, & didn’t see any problem with a guy playing for NSW & Samoa, or Qld & Tonga or whatever. But as soon as he realised that the SOO would impact on his ability to choose Kangaroos if there were too many ‘heritage country’ players involved, the whole process would become counter-productive. The NRL & its junior domestic structures are there for the development of guys who want to play for the heritage country. State of origin should be the preserve of guys who want to play for Australia only. It’s simple, straight-forward logic.

Yeah, I think you maybe misunderstood / misunderstand. Now that England are out, I would hardly think Australia become the Poms 2nd favourite team. You are aware, England are hosting the Ashes series in 2 months time ? The Aussies are hardly flavour of the month. The sentiment will now be massively for Samoa, being the team that's not Australia. Probably 15% of the crowd for the Green and Gold, that's still 10,000. Just the other 60,000 will be baying for them to go down. I think few punters recall that Samoa started $1.65 favourites v England in game 1. Now they have proven that opening price correct ... and now they pay $8 and they boast a raft of current Grand Finalists and multiple Premiership winners. These aren't Minnows. They absolutely capable of winning, and I think the $34 to win by 13 is worth a nibble too.

Sheek You are bored and have too much time on your hands. Clipper You are splitting hairs. Bugs won't like that. You say tomato, I say potato. Rob9 You are too verbose and always want to have the last word. Penny from Jenny You heard it here first. Australia 64 - Samoa 6. Signing out for the year. Merry Christmas and see you all in the happy new year. God bless Pickett.

I doubt if there are more than 1000 Samoans in England, and most would be around London, so I don't know if there would be 85% cheering them on considering the number of Australians over there. Will be interesting to see how many turn up - would many have bought a finals ticket expecting England to be there? If it had been in NZ, which has double the number of Samoans as Aust, or even Sydney, you would expect a sell out, which is what should be expected in any world cup final.

HR, I don't care about offending you. Dual passports is all about "convenience". It has no relevance to pride in country. Like I said to someone else, we're ally hypocrites, you, me, everyone, because all of humanity is hypocritical. It is only the degree that changes. At least I don't pretend to twist the logic of international competition eligibility or even state of origin eligibility to suit some dubious "entertain me" desperation. So find some other barb to direct at me.

Pickett, That's crap. Assuming Wikipedia is correct, Stokes moved to England when he was 12, in 2003. That's pre-teens. He made his test debut in 2013 after being in England for a decade - 10 years. So his most formative years, teens to early 20s, were spent in England, his adopted home. He's more English, ie, more native qualified, than some of these guys playing for their "heritage" country.

You won't mind if your footy nous is out of kilty by a margin of over 50 points ?

David Thompson, There's something else. I've made a horrible mistake thinking that social media is occupied by some rational people. It isn't. Silly me for thinking I could converse with rational people.

What I’ve put forward is the widely accepted demographic forecasts (available for all countries) that use trends in social metrics (including current and forecast economic conditions that impact fertility and migratory patterns) to make future projections. What you’re talking about there isn’t ‘projections’. They’re predictions that use trends in other areas of study to ‘predict’ what might happen in an adjacent sphere. Under the scenario you’re talking about; the trend of ‘climate refugees’ will have emerged. These Pacific Islands still have fertility rates that are akin to developing nations (eg. high). Where do you think these climate refugees are going to land? And we’re back at the start- ongoing migration from the Pacific Islands to Australia. Anyway, to pull this back onto topic; you haven’t addressed what I said below. If migration from to Islands to Australia stops, whether it’s 1 or 2 grandparents to qualify on heritage grounds will be irrelevant. It will need to be a great grandparent and then a great great grandparent. Is this ongoing loosening of international eligibility where you’d like the game to head to keep these nations competitive?

Rob9, And why did Islanders move from home to NZ, Australia, Japan, England, Wales, France, etc? Because when professional rugby came the rest of the world, ie, Europe powerbrokers, decided the Pacific had nothing to other. Hell, they couldn't even sell pay-TV subs to them! The playing itinerary of the Pacific Islands sucked compared to Australia & NZ. So they went to those countries seeking glory. Two wrongs don't make a right & playing for your second choice of country is just as wrong as being denied the opportunity to play for your first choice of country. You want hypocrisy HR? It is writ large right there. I actually don't mind Aussie born players representing their heritage country, contrary to what some people think. My message has been lost in all the stupid, dumb, wonky, woke emotion. But there's some conditions attached. One, make the call early, like at end of your teens. Don't wait to see if a bigger nation will select you, ie, Oz or NZ. You also play for only one country. International representation is not like club representation, where you can chop & change. Two, once you decide to play for your heritage county, you lose the privilege of state of origin. That's the other hypocrisy, allowing players who want to play for Samoa o Tonga or whoever, to also play for NSW or Queensland. When was the last time you saw NSW as a region of Samoa, or Qld a region of Tonga??? More hypocrisy. So yeah, these small island nations can use the NRL & its other domestic structures to develop their players. But there's a cutoff point for privileges. Life is not a free for all, even in sport.

Well said Rob9.

Geez Pickett, I'm "only" attacking rugby league on a rugby league article. I don't cut any slack with rugby union either. Geez, geez, geez.

David Thompson, We're all hypocrites - you, me, everyone. Only the degree changes. We're humans, all humans are hypocrites. I can safely say my degree of hypocrisy is less than most. Certainly less than the hypocrisy of international rugby league & state of origin. What's your next barb?

I've read the 2050 projections you've cited. They don't look at the long term impacts of climate change affecting localised weather, nor any economic factors. There are also stacks of other research out there that shows population decline in Samoa and especially Tonga due to climate change, and general economic bleakness.

So, by your own admission, you’re just trolling. __ I thought you decried such things – attacking other people’s values for no purpose other than your own prejudice. Hypocrite!