What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How long until Origin is dead again in Queensland?

Eelectrica

Referee
Messages
21,010
Origin would be dead by the time NSW won 8 in a row.
That seems unlikely. If the Bledisloe can survive when 13 or 14 years of NZ winning then Origin can survive 8 years.
As long as the games mostly remain competitive and we got a contest, people will tune in.

From 1990 - 2005 QLD won just 4 series. Seems to have survived that.

About 140 odd years ago an English paper called Cricket dead, seems to be still around.
 
Last edited:

billygilmore

Juniors
Messages
1,221
As long as we keep getting games like last night where the result wasn't known for the last few minutes and a fairly even contest, it won't be dead any time soon.
My team lost, but it was still a great game to watch.

That’s how I felt, we lost but it’s been good to watch attacking origin football again.

Origin has been a deadset snooze fest for years now
 

T-Boon

Coach
Messages
15,322
The first sign of Origin dying in QLD will be the Toads recruiting Lachlan Lam to play half back for them and claiming PNG is part of Queensland.
 

T-Boon

Coach
Messages
15,322
Typical NSW, you win one series and think you’s are top shit. Why not wait til you’ve won eight in a row before talking shit

I don't think 8 in a row is likely (or desirable), the NSW goal should be to claw back the lead QLD has in the head to head series wins over a period of 10 or 12 years. I think QLD are probably 7 series ahead now so NSW needs to win 2 to Olds 1 for a heap of years.
 

Pedge1971

First Grade
Messages
5,898
What are people’s thoughts on changing the format of origin from a best of to an aggregate model.

It’s been great having a best of three for all these years but would it be worth exploring a points system or aggregate type model where all three games have to be played to net a result?

Obviously if a team wins well over two games it would likely see them victorious but there has to be an alternative to having a dead rubber and a winner after two games.

Thoughts?

No.
 

Haffa

Guest
Messages
15,984
That seems unlikely. If the Bledisloe can survive when 13 or 14 years of NZ winning then Origin can survive 8 years.
As long as the games mostly remain competitive and we got a contest, people will tune in.

From 1990 - 2005 QLD won just 4 series. Seems to have survived that.

About 140 odd years ago an English paper called Cricket dead, seems to be still around.
The Bledisloe is dead in Australia. Most of the crowd these days are expat kiwis.
 

Eelectrica

Referee
Messages
21,010
What is this Bledisloe?
Good question. It's a little known sporting contest played between Australia and New Zealand. Quite popular in NZ though, not so much here.

The result is a forgone conclusion, but NZ like it because they always win and they win a free cup at the end. So that's nice for them.

I believe since it's not an actual contest they use it as a training run.
 
Messages
12,362
That seems unlikely. If the Bledisloe can survive when 13 or 14 years of NZ winning then Origin can survive 8 years.
As long as the games mostly remain competitive and we got a contest, people will tune in.

From 1990 - 2005 QLD won just 4 series. Seems to have survived that.

About 140 odd years ago an English paper called Cricket dead, seems to be still around.

We (NZ) keep the Bledisloe alive, much like QLD keep Origin alive. Aussie crowds turn out cos Australians are competitive and they really want to see us get beat. Whereas the Kangaroos couldn't pull 30k vs the Kiwis in the same stadium while favourites with a team of much better and more entertaining athletes. Australia enjoys the sense of achievement they get from beating the world's best, so they're happy to keep chasing the dream of the odd win and possibly turning the tide in the future (like the 91-94 period in Union). Australian rugby fans don't want to accept that a small country with a tiny population completely owns them.

When NSW won 3 in a row, some said Origin was dead then. 8 wins in a row by the team with a bigger pool of players to choose from would completely murder the concept.
 

firechild

First Grade
Messages
7,742
We (NZ) keep the Bledisloe alive, much like QLD keep Origin alive. Aussie crowds turn out cos Australians are competitive and they really want to see us get beat. Whereas the Kangaroos couldn't pull 30k vs the Kiwis in the same stadium while favourites with a team of much better and more entertaining athletes. Australia enjoys the sense of achievement they get from beating the world's best, so they're happy to keep chasing the dream of the odd win and possibly turning the tide in the future (like the 91-94 period in Union). Australian rugby fans don't want to accept that a small country with a tiny population completely owns them.

When NSW won 3 in a row, some said Origin was dead then. 8 wins in a row by the team with a bigger pool of players to choose from would completely murder the concept.

So why, based on the bold part, is the Bledisloe concept not dead? Australia have a very small pool to draw from since nobody in Australia gives a shit about union. There'd be a LOT more rugby players in NZ than over here. It's the reason why the ARU threw money at NRL players who couldn't make SOO to play for the Wallabies.
 

King hit

Coach
Messages
13,803
We (NZ) keep the Bledisloe alive, much like QLD keep Origin alive. Aussie crowds turn out cos Australians are competitive and they really want to see us get beat. Whereas the Kangaroos couldn't pull 30k vs the Kiwis in the same stadium while favourites with a team of much better and more entertaining athletes. Australia enjoys the sense of achievement they get from beating the world's best, so they're happy to keep chasing the dream of the odd win and possibly turning the tide in the future (like the 91-94 period in Union). Australian rugby fans don't want to accept that a small country with a tiny population completely owns them.

Australia's population means shit when it comes to union. The All Blacks have the support of the entire nation whilst here Union is mainly based in private schools in Sydney and Brisbane and has a limited talent pool to draw upon. Union is our 4th or 5th tier thing with League, Cricket, flogball and arguably soccer ahead. Public interest, crowds and TV ratings are at an all time low, the Wallabies are losing constantly and the ARU have f**ked up broadcasting and grassroots rugby which has left a very negative vibe around Rugby for the last 3 years. At the Australia V New Zealand tests here at least 55-60% of the crowd are ex pat kiwis.

The All Blacks on the other hand are the closest thing to invincibility in sport you will find as you guys have incredible depth and amazing development that will always ensure someone just as good or better will come through. You have the support of just about everyone in the country and Union is the main priority for New Zealand sport.
 
Top