International League

[Jeba]

I want to persue this debate so as per admin request have opened this thread.

The International game is fine anyway and IMO doesn't need strengthening.

That statement is laughable. There's only 2, maybe 3 countries who are serous contenders at international level.

Let's get one thing straight, it is 3. Australian, New Zealand, Great Britain. No doubt.

Now, have a look at all the other World Cups. Out of the popular or "mainstream" ones, the only ones that have more than 4 serious contenders are Soccer and Cricket. Now the Rugby World Cup is regarded as the 3rd best tournament in world sport, with what, 5 serious contenders - Australia, New Zealand, England, South Africa and France. Other teams like Ireland, Argentina, Scotland and Wales are all good against each other, but realistically when they come up against the 5 contenders they are cannon fodder. Not so different to the RLWC, all things considered.

Rugby League is more a club level and Origin level game, and a very successful one at that. When you consider that an Origin game between Queensland and New South Wales gets the same crowds as a Bledisloe Cup game, why does the International game need a rocket up the arse? Origin is the pinnacle (more than some want to admit) and is the equivalent of a Bledisloe Cup game in Union and has the same amount of success.

People look at our game and say that just because we can't get 80,000 people to a Test Match or more than 3 competitive teams in a World Cup, that we are a laughing stock. But what they need to realise is that the true measure of our game's success is through club and Origin level. Look at the other competitions on a domestic level in Australia - A-League, Super 14, Sheffield Shield and Ford Ranger Cup - all of them have ordinary standards across the board, but it's not really relevant to the debate because like I said, they are not as highly regarded in their sport as the club competition in our game.

 

[pennywisealfie]

Basketballs would be way bigger than Cricket.

 

[Flutterby]

I'm not so sure I agree with you that Aust is a really a serious genuine contender in Rugby Union at the moment either.

But a very well put together arguement Jeb. I for one would love a stronger international game where playing for your country is the biggest challenge and what you strive for most in the game. I remember when I was growing up getting up in the wee hours of the mornings to watch the matches coming in live from the Kangaroo Tours of England and really not knowing who would win and being nervous for the Aussies. These days I probably don't even bother getting up early to watch Test matches from OS (when we do tour) live, as I am always pretty confident we will win (even though we don't 100% of the time) and I'm just as happy to catch it on replay. And even though RL has only have had 3 real contenders internationally, these days even England and NZ aren't really all the close to Australia and that does disappoint me.

However I have dealt with and accepted that is the state of our game - we are lucky to be able to see it at such a high level basically every week with club footy and especially lucky to have such a showpiece as State of Origin.

 

[Bajar]

I remember when I was growing up getting up in the wee hours of the mornings to watch the matches coming in live from the Kangaroo Tours of England and really not knowing who would win and being nervous for the Aussies.

And the thing is, is that when we did lose back then, it wasn't because we played like arse, it was because we were out-played.

Now whenever we lose, it looks like Australia didn't even try.

That being said, I think that the only way things will improve on the International scene is if each country has a strong domestic comp. Have a look at GB with Superleague, where Aust/NZ have the NRL.

Part of the reason I would love to see a PNG team is because of the massive boost it would do to PNG on the international games as well.

 

[Je$ter]

Yeah cricket on international level is awesome but they get like 6 people to watch sheffield sheild.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Yeah cricket on international level is awesome but they get like 6 people to watch sheffield sheild.

True but who can go watch cricket with no atmosphere on a week day??

 

[Je$ter]

True. But what aobut One day games played on a weekend?

 

[Bucking Beads]

True. But what aobut One day games played on a weekend?

I don't know how many people they get to those crowds, Look at the KFC big bash though most were sell outs.

 

[Bajar]

[quote="Je$ter":3prz1z4z]True. But what aobut One day games played on a weekend?

I don't know how many people they get to those crowds, Look at the KFC big bash though most were sell outs.[/quote:3prz1z4z]

Seriously though - how many other major sports are on at the same time of year as the cricket?

 

[Kimlo]

Hey Jeba, did you hear about Heighington saying if he doesn't get picked for rep teams soon he will consider changing his allegiance to the Great Britain team?

That right there is everything that is wrong with the international game. Players time and time again CHOOSE to play for Australia because of origin which boosts their value, gets them and extra 40k a year in match payments and their overall profile.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that you can choose which country you play for. There are so many players that other countries miss out on because they choose to represent Australia which is a big reason why other countries are always so far behind because Australia gets an unfair advantage. You'll hardly see an Aussie player choose another country to play for because there is no incentive to choose another country.

If the international scene is to ever become competitive and dress it up anyway you like, it's far from it, then they need to sort out this problem. I don't know what the solution is because forcing people to play where they are born won't work and letting them choose between birth place and the country they live in also won't work because all league players are in Australia or the next best team New Zealand.

The only time I believe it's acceptable to play origin and for another country is if that other country is a developing nation because it's unfair for them to choose that country when there is basically never any international games for them to play in.

I would love one day for rugby league to enter a world cup with genuine excitement and fans not knowing who could win the competition because at the moment it's almost certain that Australia will win or NZ if Australia doesn't win.

 

[Jeba]

Sorry to give a blunt reply after your pretty long post dude, but that happens in every sport. Christiano Ronaldo is eligible to play for Australia but chose Portugal.

 

[Bannermania]

..he's selfish anyway. we don't want him. :cry:

 

[Foordy]

Sorry to give a blunt reply after your pretty long post dude, but that happens in every sport. Christiano Ronaldo is eligible to play for Australia but chose Portugal.

also Andrew Symonds was born in England and was chased by them long before he got selected for Australia. and Kevin Pieterson was born in South Africa but plays for the poms. there is no different between what happens in league and other sports, except for the origin factor.

 

[Kimlo]

But that's the point, league has a weak as piss international game because most players will just select Australia where possible.

There is no incentive to play for a lesser nation, less money, barely any games, no recognition and.... no origin which is the big one.

 

[Jeba]

You do remember that New Zealand won the World Cup don't you?

 

[Huge]

Australias great game is suffering world wide and it's due directly and without doubt to an ineffectual or non-existent plan to grow the game worldwide. The administration is utterly and totally to blame. No one else should shoulder any blame for the parlous state of the game on the international stage. The game has gone from strength to strength here in Australia but the short-sighted administration, both currently and previously, have neglected their duties.

The reasons are obvious if you think about it. Imagine an administration here in Australia, pumping millions of dollars into a foreign country. What would they have to show for their efforts, at least in the short-term ?? That's right, sweet fark all. That is enough to stop an administration from doing what should be done. It's exactly the same as a political party, they will never commit to a project that takes years simply because the project may not be finished during their term in office. All they take on is short-term flashy projects so that they receive the accolades.

The same rules apply to footy officialdom. The game has virtually died in France. It's been withering like country football, like league everywhere overseas. The Aussie game has generated millions and millions over the years but successive admins have chickened out and taken on only popularist projects. Only New Zealand and England remain viable and they only due to the enormous efforts of their own admins. No credit to Australia, more like shame on us.

 

[Kimlo]

You do remember that New Zealand won the World Cup don't you?

We all know Australia is by far the best team, regardless of NZ winning that game.
Since 1975 only once has another team won the world cup.

Remember you're the one who was arguing that the international game is fine but I'm yet to see how it's "fine" when it has close to no competition, doesn't generate much hype, gets pushed back for lame tv shows, can't get a live showing, no real excitement from the fans when the world cup is about to happen, stadiums are barely sold out and players are hardly excited at the prospect of a world cup where it's really play everyone else until you get demolished by Australia. It's improving but it has a very long way to go. International rugby league needs to be a lot strong with the world cup being the pinnacle of our game. If we are to be as strong as possible and rival other codes, particularly with regards to funds which ultimately leads to higher paid players.

You can not deny that having a strong international game would do wonders for our sport with the first being how much revenue we make. Union would not be able to touch rugby league if we had a strong international game. Great Britain is hardly what I would call a competitor, they are walkovers against the Australian team.

Here is some results from the last world cup.
AUS(52) V FIJ(0)
AUS (30) V NZ (6)
AUS (52) V ENG (4)
AUS (46) V PNG (6)
The best thing for IRL was NZ winning the title.

Some test match results from 2009
Australia (38) vs. New Zealand (10) Crowd 37,152 - Not even a sellout with NZ winning the last match and this being in Suncorp.
Papua New Guinea XIII (18) vs. Australia XIII (42)
England (16) vs. Australia (26)
France (04) vs. Australia (42)
Australia (46) vs. England (16)
And this year Australia beat NZ again.

You still think it's reasonable to say

The International game is fine anyway and IMO doesn't need strengthening.

?

 

[Jeba]

You have missed my point. You've dead set swing at a juicy one outside leg stump and it has gone straight through to the keeper.

Rugby League has the unique situation whereby we have a different "pinnacle". The pinnacle is a little thing called State of Origin. The game that gets broadcast to just about every continent throughout the world and look at the popularity of it here in Australia. Origin games are the equivalent of your Bledisloe Cup game in Rugby Union.

Many like you look at a sport and think that the International game should automatically be the pinnacle. Not true. Truth is, the pinnacle of our game is what needs work, if anything. Not in Queensland, but in New South Wales. Origin games should be sellout without fail and they obviously currently are not. So that's what we need to work on.

Meanwhile, we have a good 4-nations comp at the end of each season, and a 6-nations between the minnows which are successful tournaments. And despite it looking shaky for the most part, the Rugby League World Cup was a huge success, regardless of the result in the Final.