The success of League players in Rugby Union

[Train Without a Station]

They are somewhat clever in the way they bend eligibility rules.

They allow changing of allegiances, appearing to assist these lower ranked nations, but in fact keep them down because it ensures the best players play for the better ranked nations when they are at their peak and that the lower ranked nations only get the cast offs.

 

[Pfitzy]

You answered your own question HJ. They have the tiers so they can fill the minnow teams at the world cup without removing the chance of that player to play for the country they actually want to represent. that the selectors finally pick them for when the shit hits the fan

Fixed.

Why is it *we* have a low scoring game and it is proof that rugby is crap, and that debacle is a tough, hard fought manly tussle?

Because Loig is designed with homogeneity in mind: that the best quality product is not too far from the worst. They remove everything from the game that threatens delivery of the same product, time and time again.

As a result, they have low standards.

They also have the most frothingly maniacal media base in sport; a media that knows it has a particular market wrapped around its finger, but also has threats emerging from everywhere.

They dismiss "Rugby Yawnion" because they need to put that threat beyond their thinking, given the obvious international advantage it holds.

They dismiss Aussie Rules as "soft" because they are threatened by the sheer size of the only other domestic-limited product in the bank.


Australian rugby fans are far more critical of the game as a whole than the other major codes, because we aspire to greater things. League fans are, in the main, bogans. And the first rule of being a bogan is: I AM NEVER WRONG!

 

[terry j]

Because Loig is designed with homogeneity in mind: that the best quality product is not too far from the worst. They remove everything from the game that threatens delivery of the same product, time and time again.

As a result, they have low standards.

ah, the McDonalds principle?

It might be crap, but it is the same crap no matter which country you are in.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

The rules are basically the same aren't they? Qualification based on yourself, your parents or your grandparents.

True enough, But I was thinking something like this:

Q1 were you born in (country)? If no go to Q2
Q2 have you resided in (country) since before your 13th birthday? If no go to Q3
Q3 were one or more of your grandparents born in (country) if no INELIGIBLE FOR ANY COUNTRY OTHER THAN THE ONE(S) FOR WHICH YOU CAN ANSWER YES TO Q1 OR 2

I put up something like this on PR 2 or so years ago, some guy claiming to be an expert in these things reckoned the European Court would rule it a restraint of trade hence the reluctance of the IRB & the British, Irish & French Unions to pursue it. Fucked if I know one way or t'other but we need to get rid of the hired guns.

Agree League's international eligibility rules are even more ridiculous than ours but as someone else has pointed out, how else could say Jaryd Hayne play for Fiji at one WC, Australia the next couple then Fiji again once he's no longer good enough for Australia?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

<snip>

Agree League's international eligibility rules are even more ridiculous than ours but as someone else has pointed out, how else could say Jaryd Hayne play for Fiji at one WC, Australia the next couple then Fiji again once he's no longer good enough for Australia?

Simple. It is not a World Cup.

Greco-Roman Rugby has slightly more international presence than Cornish Bog Snorkling.

They need to fabricate teams to give the illusion that people outside PNG, Auckland, NSW, Queensland, and Yorkshire play the game. They will do whatever it takes to maintain that illusion.

 

[en_force_er]

Simple. It is not a World Cup.

Greco-Roman Rugby has slightly more international presence than Cornish Bog Snorkling.

They need to fabricate teams to give the illusion that people outside PNG, Auckland, NSW, Queensland, and Yorkshire play the game. They will do whatever it takes to maintain that illusion.

Kane Douglas is about as Aussie as it gets. He's more Aussie than Aussie, he's country Aussie.

His brother was a starter for surprise WC performer, Scotland.

 

[Highlander35]

Yep. Of the 18 or so in the Scotland Mungoball squad, only 3 were born in Scotland, and only 2 of them had spent any significant time there.

The majority of players were Poms, Aussies and Kiwis, and who had a Scottish Granny somewhere.

And Scotland made it through to the Quarter finals, before being smashed umpteen to nae very much.

Sent from my LG-P713 using Tapatalk

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Yep. Of the 18 or so in the Scotland Mungoball squad, only 3 were born in Scotland, and only 2 of them had spent any significant time there.

The majority of players were Poms, Aussies and Kiwis, and who had a Scottish Granny somewhere, or had, on at least one occasion, consumed a dram of Scotch - (either Blended or Single Malt).

And Scotland made it through to the Quarter finals, before being smashed umpteen to nae very much.

fixed

 

[mxyzptlk]

Simple. It is not a World Cup.

Greco-Roman Rugby has slightly more international presence than Cornish Bog Snorkling.

I think it was Dafydd Jones' attempt to pass himself off as Cornish at the 1975 Cornish Bog Snorkling World Cup that brought an end to it all. Jones is was and always will be from Neath, but in 1952 his aunt took a holiday to Penzance and ate a pasty, so they took their chances. It was just one decade too far out for the commission; had she visited in 1962, no problems, but she went to Portmeirion that year.

The scandal was too much for the commission, and that was the end of the Cornish Bog Snorkling World Cup.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Because Loig is designed with homogeneity in mind: that the best quality product is not too far from the worst. They remove everything from the game that threatens delivery of the same product, time and time again.

As a result, they have low standards.

This I get, especially in the NRL, but why is it more homogeneous in the NRL and not Super League? In the NRL, you rarely get blow-out games, but that's not uncommon in England. They play the same game under the same stultifying rules, so you'd think a bad game wouldn't be much different from a good game, but you still end up with scores like 64-10 (Widnes - London Broncos), 56-14 (Wakefield - Catalan), and 34-4 (Warrington - Hull). And it's not consistent -- a team that gets hockeyed one week might beat a team near the top of the table the next week. (And watching a team get hockeyed in league is no more interesting than watching two teams struggle through a 24-22 arm-wrestle.)

Is it just the difference in NRL vs Super League player athleticism? Or are the NRL clubs that much more developed, so their bottom of the ladder teams are rarely beyond a 12-point difference with teams in the middle of the ladder or near the top?

 

[lpd]

This I get, especially in the NRL, but why is it more homogeneous in the NRL and not Super League? In the NRL, you rarely get blow-out games, but that's not uncommon in England. They play the same game under the same stultifying rules, so you'd think a bad game wouldn't be much different from a good game, but you still end up with scores like 64-10 (Widnes - London Broncos), 56-14 (Wakefield - Catalan), and 34-4 (Warrington - Hull). And it's not consistent -- a team that gets hockeyed one week might beat a team near the top of the table the next week. (And watching a team get hockeyed in league is no more interesting than watching two teams struggle through a 24-22 arm-wrestle.)

Is it just the difference in NRL vs Super League player athleticism? Or are the NRL clubs that much more developed, so their bottom of the ladder teams are rarely beyond a 12-point difference with teams in the middle of the ladder or near the top?

My mate might have been bullshitting but he said super league is much more open and free-flowing, whereas nrl is more physically intense, so the comparison would be super 15 to top 14

 

[lpd]

And also super league is really only played widely in parts of northern england, so don't have the same number of players etc as nrl, so would be more depth there

 

[Braveheart81]

My mate might have been bullshitting but he said super league is much more open and free-flowing, whereas nrl is more physically intense, so the comparison would be super 15 to top 14

In rugby league speak, more open and free flowing is code for crappy defence.

It's like when you hear a real estate agent describing something as a renovator's dream...

 

[mxyzptlk]

And also super league is really only played widely in parts of northern england, so don't have the same number of players etc as nrl, so would be more depth there

Shouldn't the homogeneity of the game help to alleviate the problem of depth? If what they can actually do on the pitch is so limited (compared to union), then there's less room for a team with less depth to fail, because there's just less for them to do in the first place.

As for Super League being more free-flowing, that might be the case. There may be more variety in player size than in the NRL as well, and that just leads to a different style of game. Look at Sam Tomkins at the Warriors. He wasn't nearly as outsized as he is now when he was at Wigan. Not that he's not making a go of it, and he's still skilled, but sometimes he really gets big-brothered, especially within 20 meters of the try line. He was more of a threat in the Greater Manchester Area.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I put the differences between English Mungoball and Australian Greco-Roman Rugby down to a genetic flaw in the English psyche.

They are awesome at inventing games, but once they introduce others to those games, the newbies quickly surpass them, ie Rugby, Netball, Cricket, Hockey, Golf, Tennis, Soccer, Rounders (baseball/softball), Darts, fivekick etc.

That, and the godawful weather.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Professionalism hasn't crept into the English game as much.

Therefore due to this they select more footballers, less 6'3 and 100kg athletes.

They also focus less on the wrestle contest. Aussie coaching input has allowed rules to creep into the game to make this the way to win in games here. The English struggle to adapt to that.

Look at how World Club challenges, generally played and refereed by English based officials are generally won by Super League teams.

 

[wamberal]

The whole question of international eligibility is an interesting one.


Look at it from the point of, say, Tonga. A poor country, one of whose prime exports is sportsmen. Many go to loig, of course, and some go to rugby, preferably in New Zealand (lots of Tongan family connections there).

When I lived in Tonga, it was noticeable that the most prevalent jersey that kids wore was black. With a silver fern. That's because that is where the money was.

What would have been the harm in allowing players like Lomu (if he had been able to) to transfer their allegiance back to their place of birth after they had finished their professional careers in a rich country like New Zealand?

Samoa, Fiji, and the Cooks are in a similar position. I for one would love to see these teams being able to call upon players who were born in the country after they have finished their New Zealand, Australian, or English international careers. I understand all the counter-arguments, but I also believe that the IRB needs to see things from the bottom end of the economic pond.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Right now younger players will pledge their allegiance when they don't consider them likely to make the All Blacks.

As a test player it helps their reputation in Europe.

If you would allow players to change allegiances I think you may get players hold out longer, knowing they can always play late in their career and you will end up with players who are past it playing for them only once they have exhausted all options.

 

[en_force_er]

The whole question of international eligibility is an interesting one.


Look at it from the point of, say, Tonga. A poor country, one of whose prime exports is sportsmen. Many go to loig, of course, and some go to rugby, preferably in New Zealand (lots of Tongan family connections there).

When I lived in Tonga, it was noticeable that the most prevalent jersey that kids wore was black. With a silver fern. That's because that is where the money was.

What would have been the harm in allowing players like Lomu (if he had been able to) to transfer their allegiance back to their place of birth after they had finished their professional careers in a rich country like New Zealand?

Samoa, Fiji, and the Cooks are in a similar position. I for one would love to see these teams being able to call upon players who were born in the country after they have finished their New Zealand, Australian, or English international careers. I understand all the counter-arguments, but I also believe that the IRB needs to see things from the bottom end of the economic pond.

I agree with this, but I think the issue is people know that this will see the Pacific Islands quickly pull ahead of countries like Scotland.

It would drastically mess up the status quo, probably in ways we can't even predict. People don't want that level of change.

 

[Highlander35]

Sometimes I'm more than happy for the status quo. While its not perfect, it's pretty reasonable.

Then I look at guys like Salesi Ma'afu. He'll never play for Australia again, but he's in really good form for Northampton. Fiji and to a lesser extent Tonga, really need props to be playing at international level. What would be the harm in letting him grab 25 caps for the Flying Fijians?

Ah well. Whatever happens, we will endure.