State of the Union (origin) discussion

[Drew]

If this concept was for anything, I would prefer it be something to bring $ and interest to Australian rugby.
I’m not sure what concept would work, but I don’t think a trial match is what’s looked for.
If you’re a professional athlete your week to week form should be how you’re selected for higher honours, not a one-off trial match. Say Marika K doesn’t play well in the trial, he’s not selected for the Wallabies?

 

[Omar Comin']

You’re more likely to stand out if you’re a good player in a weaker team/contest. Regardless that’s just the nature of sport isn’t it? It’s going to be harder for Force and Chiefs players to make national squads this year because their teams aren’t playing great. Players from 2nd division mitre 10 cup get contracts with super franchises after a good season

Think you’re underestimating that %, there’s at least a close to 50:50 split here that don’t like it, and any casual sports fan (especially the league ones) I imagine would find it rather amusing that we have a state of origin but let anyone play in it

How would that even work? What is 3-4 wallabies all nominate say QLD and go as a package then that tips the scales and qld win for the next 7-8 years straight, in league it was fair play because they’re all from there but that’s a pretty hard pill to swallow if the guys causing the pain aren’t even from the s

The guys who perform well in NSW vs QLD would be playing well in a test match quality game, VIC vs WA would not be at that level so standing out at that level won't have the same significance.

The people that post on this site or any other rugby forum are a pretty small % of rugby fans. How many of those that don't like it on this site (or other sites like it) wouldn't watch the game or series because each side had 2 or 3 players with little connection to the state in it? I think it would be pretty close to 0. Most people probably won't know the actual background of any of the players, they'll just understand the concept of the game and support their state. Keep in mind that this is going to be called State of Union, not Origin, so I think there's scope for a few outsiders to be included. And it'd basically be Origin just with a handful of exceptions.

If anything, something like that would just create more spite, which would be a good thing. But if you wanted to create an objective criteria for everyone that's possible too.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

If they go with the SoU format then I hope they go with NSW vs Qld and Vic vs WA. I'm not a fan of parachuting in players from either state into either NSW or Qld. If we go down this path we should be looking to both enhance what makes the SoO concept such a success while also putting our point of difference front and centre in actually having viable teams from both WA and Vic.

To kick of state of orgin let’s jusf keep it simple a ie make it just nsw vs qld - adopt same eligibility criteria as league and feed off the rivalry already there in league and union.

Don’t look at expanding it to involve other states until prove successful with NSW and QlD

 

[The Honey Badger]

We'd be silly not to do a Green vs Gold series if there are no internationals.

It would be silly to do it anytime, end of story.

Work on 1 concept that puts the top 30 players in the country playing a game.

Make it SOU and engage the 2 biggest fan bases and all the other casual viewers around the country. That is the most marketable concept we have to sell and make money.

 

[sendit]

The guys who perform well in NSW vs QLD would be playing well in a test match quality game, VIC vs WA would not be at that level so standing out at that level won't have the same significance. But again, if that were the case anyone playing 2nd Div ITM Cup would never get a contract because it's a lower level of competition, but they do get contracts, regularly

The people that post on this site or any other rugby forum are a pretty small % of rugby fans. How many of those that don't like it on this site (or other sites like it) wouldn't watch the game or series because each side had 2 or 3 players with little connection to the state in it? I think it would be pretty close to 0. Most people probably won't know the actual background of any of the players, they'll just understand the concept of the game and support their state. Keep in mind that this is going to be called State of Union, not Origin, so I think there's scope for a few outsiders to be included. And it'd basically be Origin just with a handful of exceptions. With all due respect id take my small sample size over your no sample size any day of the week, you cant disregard my comment that at least has SOME merit while taking your thoughts that you've pulled out of your backside as gospel. I would also say that while i agree that not many people would be turned off watching the game if you parachute in players, id challenge that you wouldn't gain a whole heap either, you're not picking up any casual sport fans by doing it and if anything its kind of an insult to WA and Vic fans/players to say they cant put on an engaging and exciting game worthy of their own event. The people that are tuning in to this sort of game from VIC and WA are going to be your pretty rusted on rugby fans, and id hazard a decent portion of them will tune in regardless if 2-3 players happen to be from their supported franchise or not

For me, what parachuting in players changes my perception of the concept, would i watch the game regardless? yes i would. But it goes from something im really invested in, would attend matches, buy merch etc to a passing interest, bit of a gimmick, kinda taking the piss

If anything, something like that would just create more spite, which would be a good thing. But if you wanted to create an objective criteria for everyone that's possible too.

No it just creates a shit contest. But whats that criteria?

 

[Bobby Sands]

QLD v NSW, strict eligibility. No exceptions. Simple.

Now let’s start getting the eligibility criteria water tight.

Onwards.

 

[kiap]

QLD v NSW, strict eligibility. No exceptions. Simple.

Now let’s start getting the eligibility criteria water tight.

I'll make an early call and say that water has already flowed under the bridge.

There'll be an SoU game. Maybe three if the test season is curtailed. Eligibility criteria will be a minor consideration only.

When the international season returns to normal, they can probably fit one origin in and make it work. Not sure about three, unless .......

....... RA pulls a bait and switch: 3-match origin series, then those two teams get entered into the S8.

 

[Omar Comin']

But whats that criteria?

An objective criteria for guys who have never lived in either NSW or QLD could be something like in which of those 2 states did they first play a professional game.

But we should probably just agree to disagree on this. I'm not that fussed whether the criteria is strict or a few players are parachuted in to ensure all the guys fighting it out for Wallabies selection are involved. I just take the view that the advantage of including those handful of guys is greater than the advantage of having a pure origin selection policy, while you think the opposite (and we obviously disagree on the extent of those advantages).

 

[The Honey Badger]

I'll make an early call and say that water has already flowed under the bridge.

There'll be an SoU game. Maybe three if the test season is curtailed. Eligibility criteria will be a minor consideration only.

When the international season returns to normal, they can probably fit one origin in and make it work. Not sure about three, unless ...

... RA pulls a bait and switch: 3-match origin series, then those two teams get entered into the S8.

Thats what they should be aiming for to get the highest quality S8 tournament AND to keep Fan Engagement

 

[kiap]

Thats what they should be aiming for to get the highest quality S8 tournament AND to keep Fan Engagement

Well, maybe.

That was me throwing a scenario out there, reading between a few lines. -- Didn't say I really liked it.

There's a trade off; good and bad, as posted earlier.

Would need to be some arrangements made....... put it that way.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

QLD v NSW, strict eligibility. No exceptions. Simple.

Now let’s start getting the eligibility criteria water tight.

Onwards.

If it is just a NSW vs Qld series then I guess they should consider a 'guest' rule allowing for players from a particular external state to be selected. From what I know of WA Rugby fans they'll happily back anyone against NSW. So WA players could fall in with Queensland while Vic players with NSW due to the shared border.

 

[KOB1987]

A way around this could be to have higher representative fixtures over a couple of weeks.

To satisfy the purists, the first week is the Qld v NSW Origin game, and the WA v Vic match as it’s curtain raiser. It’s not completely pure as ACT is considered part of NSW, Tas is in with Vic, and SA and NT are with WA. But close enough for the paying public not to notice.

The second week sees a Wallaby trial (Green v Gold or whatever) with teams selected from NSW + Vic v. Qld + WA. The Wallabies are then selected from this group.

Just a random thought.

 

[Brumby Runner]

A way around this could be to have higher representative fixtures over a couple of weeks.

To satisfy the purists, the first week is the Qld v NSW Origin game, and the WA v Vic match as it’s curtain raiser. It’s not completely pure as ACT is considered part of NSW, Tas is in with Vic, and SA and NT are with WA. But close enough for the paying public not to notice.

The second week sees a Wallaby trial (Green v Gold or whatever) with teams selected from NSW + Vic v. Qld + WA. The Wallabies are then selected from this group.

Just a random thought.

Some good logic in the flow of the games KOB. To make it simpler, maybe even retain the same forwards and backs groupings, subject to injuries, and change the combination around, so that Qld/WA forwards then combine with NSW/Vic backs for the G&G trial and vice versa. Could throw some light on the perennial question of which backs operate better behind whichever is the dominant pack.

 

[Braveheart81]

Thats what they should be aiming for to get the highest quality S8 tournament AND to keep Fan Engagement

I disagree. The Super 8 tournament has to be the top teams from each competition, not two teams of the tournament or similar.

It also has to be the same criteria from each country.

 

[dru]

I disagree. The Super 8 tournament has to be the top teams from each competition, not two teams of the tournament or similar.

It also has to be the same criteria from each country.

Why?

I don't mind it that way but you'd imagine a rep Japanese side would do far better. Also NZ are wanting to condense Aus talent. I don't think keeping those two teams going through Super 8 is such a bad idea.

How did things work in the early forms of Super? Didn't the top NZ clubs go through while NSW and Qld teams were wrapped into Waratahs and Reds? NZ changed shortly after. RSA started with the top Curry Cup teams, but then went down the path of nomination as "Franchises" were annointed and anyone wanting to play top rugby moved across creating a two tier Curry system.

Happy to be corrected.

 

[drewprint]

Personally I really like the idea of it being a Champions League kind of thing where only the top two teams of each comp qualify. If it’s done right, it’s an elite, next level mini tournament that every team is desperate to qualify for. The kind of thing where fans would get behind rival clubs, ie Reds fans supporting the Brumbies Champions League tilt as they take on the dirty Crusaders etc. If they can capture some of the energy of soccers version of this it’d be brilliant.

 

[Braveheart81]

Why?

I don't mind it that way but you'd imagine a rep Japanese side would do far better. Also NZ are wanting to condense Aus talent. I don't think keeping those two teams going through Super 8 is such a bad idea.

How did things work in the early forms of Super? Didn't the top NZ clubs go through while NSW and Qld teams were wrapped into Waratahs and Reds? NZ changed shortly after. RSA started with the top Curry Cup teams, but then went down the path of nomination as "Franchises" were annointed and anyone wanting to play top rugby moved across creating a two tier Curry system.

Happy to be corrected.

It's meant to be a Champions League style competition. That has certainly been the model they have talked about. Why would we try and have a different entry criteria than the other countries? Likewise, I doubt the Japanese teams would want that. The company teams finishing first and second in the Top League would want entry to competition.

The Super 10 prior to Super Rugby starting included the two Australian teams, the top three NZ teams, the top three South African teams and a Pacific team. None of the teams were combinations of multiple teams from the level below. This only went on for three years (and one year with only 6 teams prior to that) before Super Rugby started.

After that there were permanent entrants rather than participation from the top teams in the domestic comps.

I just can't see anyone wanting the entry criteria to be different for different countries. It would devalue what it is.

 

[sendit]

I don't mind it that way but you'd imagine a rep Japanese side would do far better

The top 2 sides in Japan would be more than capable of holding their own.

 

[The Honey Badger]

I disagree. The Super 8 tournament has to be the top teams from each competition, not two teams of the tournament or similar.

It also has to be the same criteria from each country.

We agree to differ.

Whilst I understand the champions league concept and actually dont mind it. I haven't heard RA actually use the term Champions League - please correct me as I am probably wrong. But they might be thinking along the same lines that these are the teams to play S8.

The problem I see with the champions league is that we are starting with low and declining fan base for Rugby. The moment you enter the S8 phase we are then cut to 2/5 of the base. Especially bad if Brumbies and Rebels are the 2 to go through (2 franchises with the smallest fan bases). So we start to lose viewers and interest.

And yes I get it that most people on this site are going to watch it, as I will. But the casual fan will become confused and lose interest because the 1 or 2 players they know are not involved.

If we go with the 2 best teams that AUS can field for S8 (and the other countries involved need to do the same) then we should be looking at a near test match standard and spectacle. Perhaps something that will rate close to what the wallabies do. Fans are engaged, TV rights are going to worth more. The big turn around for the code begins

 

[Braveheart81]

If we go with the 2 best teams that AUS can field for S8 (and the other countries involved need to do the same) then we should be looking at a near test match standard and spectacle. Perhaps something that will rate close to what the wallabies do. Fans are engaged, TV rights are going to worth more. The big turn around for the code begins

They will have better players, that's for sure but is that going to make up for the fact that they are cobbled together at short notice?

Everything I have read points to the top 2 sides from the domestic competitions which I think is easily the best option.