Aust side for NZ Test announced

[AliN]

GO KIWIS!! \\/ =D> =D>

 

[CanadianSteve]

I saw on the Lockyer injury thread that he was slated to play in the test Friday and a club match Saturday? Is this the case with all the players?

Yes, all the players do have to back up for their clubs. It's a ridiculous situation that happens 5 times every year (3 origins, 1 test, city/country). When I used to play schoolboy Rugby League it used to take about 3 days to get over the bumps and bruises, I can't even imagine the torture first graders put their bodies through week in, week out.

Another case of player burn out is that the top players play about 40 games of Rugby League every year plus pre-season training. For a full body contact sport, it's about 1/3 too much.

All this adds up and is the reason why the top players in our game only reach about 200-250 games in their careers. In other sports some players easily make it over 400.

I know in the NFL a full week between games is considered the norm. It's considered a big factor by bettors when one team played in the Monday night game the previous week, because they had one less day rest. In the NBA and NHL they play many more games, and play 3-4 games per week, but they have less body contact than NFL or RL. In the NBA a growing concern is the overuse of painkillers or SAIDS, which players take to get through the heavy schedule with all the aches and pains in their legs. The concern is over potential liver damage from all those medications. Could this be a problem in the NRL? It seems to me they play too many games, as Kaon suggests.

 

[Cupid Stunt]

I must take back my thoughts on Vaealiki, he was one of the few out there with any heart. Shame it hasn't been the same with a Blue & Gold jersey on his back this year but good on him for showing some form, while he had 2 working pins anyway... =D>

 

[AliN]

Aussie are a step about the rest, that was shown on Friday night..
but why?

We had/have the talent... is Origin the preparation we need?

Well done Kangaroos =D>

 

[JoeD]

Do we have the talent? How many kiwi players would make a fully fit aussie squad? Take it back another level and how many would make a NSW team? IMO no kiwis would make the aussie team and maybe 1 or 2 might make the NSW team, however even they would be marginal decisions. The major reason why NZ will continue to get beaten by the Kangaroos is down mostly to the comparitive number of players each team has to choose from. The fact that NZ has gotten close and even won a few games in the past decade means that on those occasions the Kiwis were punching well above their weight and the aussies probably had an off day. Any time that NZ plays less than their best a result like Friday nights will happen.

 

[AliN]

Yes I reckon we do have the talent Joe. The way the Kiwi players play week in and week out in the NRL comp proves that.
Look at the likes of Utai and Vagana for the Bulldogs, or Wiki for the Raiders..
What the Kiwi players haven't got is the luxury of a build up to set combinations etc before a test.
Oh to have time like the All Blacks have..
What they need is not a one off test, but a series, as has been stated before.
For the sake of the International game that has to happen otherwise they may as well kiss any decent tests goodbye.

 

[salivor]

AliN we got a series last year and a whole heap of games leading up to it and the Kiwis couldn't win against Great Britain. What did Kiwi fans do? Shift all their excuses to the downsides of series. "Oh the seasons too long" "The players were just too tired". So now apparently the one off tests don't work but series aren't good enough either because we are draining the players. Whats the magical solution?

Like I've been saying in the other thread, we need to stop looking for excuses and just work with what we have. I personally think there were enough combinations already formed at club level and enough talent to at least foot it with the Aussies, maybe not beat them but match them. I don't think it comes down to preparation, it was 17 blokes just simply not playing to the ability they are quite happy to show us on a weekly basis for their clubs.

 

[JoeD]

Yes, those players play well for their club but that dosen't change the fact that not one would make the aussie team and only the odd few would make an aussie 'B' team. If you had an NRL 'a' team (the aussies) and had them play the NRL 'c' team (the kiwis) you would expect the 'a' team to win every time.

 

[salivor]

Its funny how in SOO that QLD have always managed to be successful regularly against NSW despite having a significantly smaller player pool to choose from and usually having less players in the Australian team and they don't even get a City v Country match to form these combinations. I think theres alot of similarities between NZ and QLD except one of the two consistantly fails to show up.

I really don't think it matters which of the Kiwis would make it into the Australian team because League is not won on paper and we see that week in week out.

 

[ozbash]

saliva, you know it aint so....

we were beaten fair and square in a game designed to accentuate the aussies win at all cost attitude.......

i say that if it was a 3 test series (in nz or oz ) it would be a more even result.

comparing an international to the soo is like comparing a spud to a kumara......

 

[salivor]

We were beaten fair and square? What special channel did you view this special broadcast on oz? I'm not trying to take anything away from the Aussies but we are not as bad as that scoreline shows and it comes down to only 2 out of 17 players stepping up and playing to their actual ability.

Would a 3 test match series make a difference? I've already given the example of the Great Britain tour last year. We stuffed up and we all found a new set of excuses.

As for the comparison with QLD I think its quite a good one. Both QLD and NZ have comparitively less players to pick from than their rivals. Not as many quality players and they don't have the preperation of their rivals. QLD still manages to compete every year and it shows that Rugby League isn't won on paper. But you are right that some comparisons don't match. The Kiwi boys have shown they don't have half the passion and commitement of the QLD players.

 

[Anonymous]

The Kiwi boys have shown they don't have half the passion and commitement of the QLD players.

Maybe I've mellowed... there was a time when I would said, 'what a load of bloody rubbish..' oops, there you go, I just said it.

 

[salivor]

Your always good for a throw away comment willow.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok.. I'm curious. What makes you think that the Kiwi players don't have half the passion of the Queenslanders?
Keeping in mind that the Maroons laid down and died in SOO I & II.

Christ, I can't believe I'm defending New Zealand. This is all Masterton's fault.

 

[salivor]

Laid down and died in game 1? Now that is a NSW supporter talking, you lot are just extending the truth as time goes on. Before game two, game one was supposedly one of the greatest origin matches of all time. Theres also a little bit of difference between game 2 and the test, QLD only lost by 23 points, NZ lost by 42.

Anyway back to the point. There simply wasn't any passion in that performance from the Kiwis. The amount of breaks Australia were making was just turning into a farce at one point. There was no committment or pride in their defence. It was just woeful and sloppy. I also think alot of belief went out the door when Swann's try was dissallowed.

Just about every Kiwi admits that these guys didn't play anywhere near to their potential but we still want to find any excuse we can for them. They probably were never going be good enough to beat Australia but they are not 42 points worse than them and I think alot of that comes down to passion and committement.