World Cup

[Jeba]

Benji at 5/8th for sure. But for NZ to be a chance he needs a damn good halfback with him. None of the others are any good.

 

[Black Philip]

NZ are gone. If England can't make it to the final against Australia then the international arena is even poorer.

Losing SBW and Asotasi is like Australia losing Civoniceva, Price, Smith, Lockyer, Thurston, Slater and Inglis and Folau. NZ have a good skeleton pack but SBW and Asotasi were their real enforcers. Without them, they are nothing.

Fixed your typo [icon_razz1

The international scene is so one sided in league it's a joke

 

[Coxy]

that makes for a hell of a team

Absolutely. Unfortunately only 13 of them can play at a time. If all 200 of them were on the field, they might keep Australia to 30.

 

[Hamm.0]

To put it inot perspective, how many of those players would you have in an Origin team....well, better yet, in the QLD team?

Because we all know NSW are a joke... except for Thurston...he's over rated...BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Worst.call.in.history.of.sport. LOLZ @ Rock.

 

[mick]

NZ are gone. If England can't make it to the final against Australia then the international arena is even poorer.

Losing SBW and Asotasi is like Australia losing Civoniceva, Price, Smith, Lockyer, Thurston, Slater and Inglis and Folau. NZ have a good skeleton pack but SBW and Asotasi were their real enforcers. Without them, they are nothing.

Fixed your typo [icon_razz1

The international scene is so one sided in league it's a joke

Disagree. One-off tests are ridiculously one-sided.

However, the last three Tri-Nations series have shown us all exactly what NZ are capable of once they play 3-5 games together.

 

[Sabu_2008]

24-0.

 

[Black Philip]

[quote="The Rock":6ll2jye7]NZ are gone. If England can't make it to the final against Australia then the international arena is even poorer.

Losing SBW and Asotasi is like Australia losing Civoniceva, Price, Smith, Lockyer, Thurston, Slater and Inglis and Folau. NZ have a good skeleton pack but SBW and Asotasi were their real enforcers. Without them, they are nothing.

Fixed your typo [icon_razz1

The international scene is so one sided in league it's a joke

Disagree. One-off tests are ridiculously one-sided.

However, the last three Tri-Nations series have shown us all exactly what NZ are capable of once they play 3-5 games together.[/quote:6ll2jye7]

Uh-huh....so the Kiwis (and England/GB once in a blue moon) being able to upset Australia every now and then makes the International scene ok? I don't mean to take the p!ss mick but it's still a very poor standard.

A quote from wikipedia about the 2005 tri-nations final (ok, not a reputable source but it's still true)

The historic win by the Kiwis over a mistake-prone Australian side put an end to the Kangaroo's dominance in international rugby league. It was the first time Australia, hot favourites for the match, had failed to win a series or tournament since 1978. It was also the first time New Zealand had beaten their rivals twice in a year since 1953.

The tri-nations the year after was close as well. But those 2 tournaments and the Kiwis actually making Australia work for their victories doesn't make the international scene any good.

 

[mick]

Wikipedia... gotta love it [icon_lol1.

The fact of the matter is, people trundle out the old line that Australia could bring their "F" team to an international and win it.

Sure, we had injuries that year and the Aussies made a few mistakes. Regardless, that was a farking brilliant and dominating performance from the Kiwis who, IMO, would've won that match regardless.

The amount of 1-6 point wins the Aussies have posted in the Tri Nations since 1999 is amazing. I think there's been 4 or 5 of them all up. And we've still only managed to win 12 of our 18 Tri Nations matches.

If it hadn't been for Lockyer on three memorable occasions against the Poms, or in extra time against the Kiwis in the last final, we'd be looking at 8 wins, 9 losses and a draw in the history of the TN.

 

[Jeba]

Fact of the matter is though we still only have 3 competitive teams and at times 2 of those teams aren't even competitive. Compared to other World Cups where you can't safely predict the winner at the start of the tournament.

 

[melz_111]

so is anyone planning on buying tickets tomorrow for the grand final? i cant decide whether to buy on the net or at an outlet eusa_think

 

[rod78]

why not pull aus out and put nsw and qld in would be better matches

 

[rod78]

really its leagues fault every player should be playing were they were born or have ties to petro to figi and hunt to nz. We hog as much talent as we can to beat who??????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Fozz]

Everyone wants to play for a winning team.

 

[mick]

Fact of the matter is though we still only have 3 competitive teams and at times 2 of those teams aren't even competitive. Compared to other World Cups where you can't safely predict the winner at the start of the tournament.

Absolutely. But to then call off everything international because of it will never help that situation.

I still can't stand the fact that the RL World Cup gets SO much bad press compared with the RU one... where you still routinely see 150-point routs over the likes of Georgia and Namibia.

And I agree with Rod to an extent - there needs to be CLARITY in the international eligibility rules. ATM, they're a joke. But I still can't stand people who use the likes of Hunt as an example. If I moved to NZ when I was 12 or 13, I reckon by now I would definitely consider myself to be right to pull on the national jersey. I would've experienced all of my adult and adolescent life there, probably never had a girlfriend before NZ, finished high school in NZ, voted in NZ for the first time, only ever driven in NZ, got married in NZ...

Hell, if we're making it where people are born, then Mason himself should be playing for the Kiwis! I wish the big, useless lump would do just that, come to think of it [icon_lol1.

 

[melz_111]

just got my tickets! and its not even 9am, but they're available already! seems like there are alot of a reserve left, b reserve on the second level, and not much else. We got 319 row 13. YAY!

 

[Black Philip]

Fact of the matter is though we still only have 3 competitive teams and at times 2 of those teams aren't even competitive. Compared to other World Cups where you can't safely predict the winner at the start of the tournament.

Absolutely. But to then call off everything international because of it will never help that situation.

I still can't stand the fact that the RL World Cup gets SO much bad press compared with the RU one... where you still routinely see 150-point routs over the likes of Georgia and Namibia.

And I agree with Rod to an extent - there needs to be CLARITY in the international eligibility rules. ATM, they're a joke. But I still can't stand people who use the likes of Hunt as an example. If I moved to NZ when I was 12 or 13, I reckon by now I would definitely consider myself to be right to pull on the national jersey. I would've experienced all of my adult and adolescent life there, probably never had a girlfriend before NZ, finished high school in NZ, voted in NZ for the first time, only ever driven in NZ, got married in NZ...

Hell, if we're making it where people are born, then Mason himself should be playing for the Kiwis! I wish the big, useless lump would do just that, come to think of it [icon_lol1.

This is true, but there are a good amount of teams that all have a chance of winning it. I don't like to stick up for Union, my disdain for the sport grows every day, but IMO it's the second most successful international team sport in the world behind football. League doesn't come close at the moment.

That said, your ideas would help a lot and allow the game to develop internationally. At this stage I say have it every 4 years as you say, rotate between Aus, NZ and the UK. I think International or even NRL exhibition games should be played in places such as PNG, the Pacific Islands and around France too to give the game a bit more promotion.

I was thinking about the International eligability rules also. I think Origin is probably the big reason why so many players choose Australia over their country of birth. So perhaps if you play your junior footy here, say U14's and up or something similar, you can be eligable for Origin and also your Country of birth. I'd love it if players like Hunt, Mateo, Mason, Kaufusi etc could play for their Country of birth and Origin also. That is what is really stopping the International game from growing IMO.

 

[Coxy]

Yep. Until they let you play for your country of birth and still be eligible to play Origin if you grew up here we'll have Kiwis, Poms, Fijians etc wanting to be Queenslanders and Australians.

State of "Origin" already refers to where you played your first senior footy. Hell, Peter Sterling, one of the greats from NSW, was born in Toowoomba. So Origin is not about birthright.

Internationals should be.

 

[mrslong]

Yep. Until they let you play for your country of birth and still be eligible to play Origin if you grew up here we'll have Kiwis, Poms, Fijians etc wanting to be Queenslanders and Australians.

State of "Origin" already refers to where you played your first senior footy. Hell, Peter Sterling, one of the greats from NSW, was born in Toowoomba. So Origin is not about birthright.

Internationals should be.

Do you forget 1 Alf born in NZ? [icon_non