What can the RLWC learn from the 2015 RUWC?

[miguel de cervantes]

- Prestige
- History
- Referees that aren't everyone's mate and are respected
- Neutral referees
- No double headers

 

[langpark]

- Prestige
- History
- Referees that aren't everyone's mate and are respected
- Neutral referees
- No double headers

Agreed!

The first two though, are not really things that can be 'created' last-minute.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

Rugby league has a lot of presitge and history, it is just ignored for the most part. The best run of it we see is at the Challenge Cup final.

 

[Misanthrope]

EDIT: Wrong thread.

 

[deluded pom?]

History? Our WC began in 1954, thirty three years before the union version. How can they have history over us?

 

[shiznit]

I think RL would get more from looking at the netball world cup to be honest...

In regards to seeing how they deal with having 2 strong teams with a 3rd competitive and the rest woeful.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

Bit harsh saying PNG, France, Samoa, Tonga and Fiji are woeful. Look at some of the 1987 RUWC videos on youtube - teams like Japan and the USA - now that is woeful. Or Romania and Namibia from later RUWC not much better.

The former rugby league nations don't have much chance of winning it but are the key to increasing competitivity. They certainly have potential to be serious 2nd tier nations with a fair bit of depth in the ESL and NRL.

 

[BODISGOD]

Bit harsh saying PNG, France, Samoa, Tonga and Fiji are woeful. Look at some of the 1987 RUWC videos on youtube - teams like Japan and the USA - now that is woeful. Or Romania and Namibia from later RUWC not much better.

The former rugby league nations don't have much chance of winning it but are the key to increasing competitivity. They certainly have potential to be serious 2nd tier nations with a fair bit of depth in the ESL and NRL.

All totally amateurs at the time vs the mentioned League teams who are sprinkled with professionals?

 

[BODISGOD]

History? Our WC began in 1954, thirty three years before the union version. How can they have history over us?

Both have history, the issue is that the RLWC took place is spits and starts, (with multiple formats including 3 year events) with just 5 teams max per tournament before 1995 and the England/GB issue unresolved.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

All totally amateurs at the time vs the mentioned League teams who are sprinkled with professionals?

Yes, that is in part why they were woeful. Well done.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Semiprofessional versus shamateur.

Same diff.

 

[deluded pom?]

Both have history, the issue is that the RLWC took place is spits and starts, (with multiple formats including 3 year events) with just 5 teams max per tournament before 1995 and the England/GB issue unresolved.

History is a record of events over a length time. It's irrelevant what format or schedule is used, we have more history than union as far as the WC is concerned. What history did the RUWC have prior to 1987? Zip.

 

[BODISGOD]

History is a record of events over a length time. It's irrelevant what format or schedule is used, we have more history than union as far as the WC is concerned. What history did the RUWC have prior to 1987? Zip.

We are talking in terms of through the lens of the fans. 2 of the World Cups pre 1995 were simply keeping points on normal tests played over a 3 year period. There's no stock archive footage of a host or a piece of time of that which bring back memories for people, although the 1992 final is pretty famous I'd agree. Compare it to the FIFA World Cup though - the host and place in time with many nations (some of whom having their first taste of a WC competition, not returning for years). It's not surprising that the recall and feel of history just isn't the same.

The one biggest difference is that the RWC is in a 4 year cycle, which all teams build for. It just isn't possible in the RLWC. I'd agree on the person above talking about it, they're really not worth comparing.

 

[BODISGOD]

Semiprofessional versus shamateur.

Same diff.

Are you saying Japanese and US players in 1987 were shamaterurs, ffs.:lol:

Compare that to actual PROs who lined out for the sides mentioned above in the 2013 RLWC.

 

[BODISGOD]

Yes, that is in part why they were woeful. Well done.

So how is that remotely comparable to 2015?

 

[Evil Homer]

The one biggest difference is that the RWC is in a 4 year cycle, which all teams build for. It just isn't possible in the RLWC. I'd agree on the person above talking about it, they're really not worth comparing.

The RLWC is also a four year cycle? There really isn't too much difference in the nature of the two competitions, apart from the fact that RU probably has a couple more 'credible' teams that can be reasonably competitive outside of the two or three that have an actual chance of winning. RU also doesn't seem worried to throw a bunch of non-competitive teams in there and have them beaten by 100 points, which is something I'm glad we don't do in RL TBH.

 

[BODISGOD]

The RLWC is also a four year cycle? There really isn't too much difference in the nature of the two competitions, apart from the fact that RU probably has a couple more 'credible' teams that can be reasonably competitive outside of the two or three that have an actual chance of winning. RU also doesn't seem worried to throw a bunch of non-competitive teams in there and have them beaten by 100 points, which is something I'm glad we don't do in RL TBH.

Well there is no defined cycle and that's partly the point. The WC is still pretty much fitted around when the NRL and Aussie players union want it- so it can be 4 years or 5 years. We'll see though with the changes at the top of the RLIF

It isn't feasible now for so many reasons, reason number 1 being it's down the list in priorities for most. International rugby union is the pinnacle of the sport. There is at least 3 months of every year devoted to it by each of the big union international sides, regular fixtures and a clear focus on the cycle.

 

[Evil Homer]

Well there is no defined cycle and that's partly the point. The WC is still pretty much fitted around when the NRL and Aussie players union want it- so it can be 4 years or 5 years. We'll see though with the changes at the top of the RLIF

No it isn't, it's a clearly defined four year cycle and this has been established for years. The reason there was a 5 year gap between 2008 and 2013 is because 08 was the sport's centenary and it was then necessary to move to an odd year to avoid clashing with other major international sporting events. It's nothing to do with any "Aussie players union" and your view of the RLWC seems to be outdated and inaccurate - although I understand why given that the competition was haphazardly organized and implemented prior to 2008.

 

[BODISGOD]

No it isn't, it's a clearly defined four year cycle and this has been established for years. The reason there was a 5 year gap between 2008 and 2013 is because 08 was the sport's centenary and it was then necessary to move to an odd year to avoid clashing with other major international sporting events. It's nothing to do with any "Aussie players union" and your view of the RLWC seems to be outdated and inaccurate - although I understand why given that the competition was haphazardly organized and implemented prior to 2008.

2008 was the Australian centenary;-)

Where is this clear 4 year cycle?

2013
2008
2000
1995
1992
1888
1977
1975
1972
1970
1968
1960
1957
1954

There is absolutely nothing clear that there is a 4 year cycle, until this competition. Given for example Australia basically took test football off in 2012 and now 2015 it only reinforces the point that there is not a continual build up to the tournament like in rugby union where sides deliberately work in 4 year cycles, blooding young players soon after the conclusion of the last tournament.

I'm sure the RLIF made some great pronouncements on their intentions for a 4 yearly WC back in 2007/2008. We will see how long that lasts, the history of international RL and the WC in particular has been regular new dawns and regular new format changes. Until there there is a clear test rugby league calendar with yearly tournaments and a clear pattern established then you simply can't compare it to the rugby union WC cycle, where it is clearly the top of the pyramid and everything is built around it. International rugby league is built around the NRL calendar. Plans are afoot but we shall see.

 

[Evil Homer]

2013-2017-2021 is a pretty clear 4 year cycle. Just because things have been badly organized in the past doesn't mean it will always be that way, or even is that way now. TBH I consider 2008 to be the first real RLWC, everything before that shouldn't really be taken into consideration when discussing the competition as it is now. And equally we shouldn't really take into consideration anything that was done by the previous RLIF, which was effectively just a couple of half-hearted Australian executives organizing things on a haphazard basis, when discussing the current body which at least has the makings of a legit federation. Although I agree that the changes actually need to be implemented and the proof will be in the pudding regarding that.