Can international RL ever be really competitive?

[Atticus Finch]

At the risk of attracting the attention of lunatic name-calling Polynesian morons :lol: I am having a go at starting a thread of my own. So try and be friendly.

The thing is, although rugby league has never looked busier internationally (a very very good thing) will countries like Russia, lebanon, Serbia, Argentina etc ever be able to seriously compete with Australia and New Zealand, never mind Great Britain?

Seeing as how those countries all have full-time professionals playng for them, I can't see how they can - unless they fill their teams with NRL or Super league players of course.

In some ways, that doesn;t matter. It's just important that they are playing. But surely as league fans we want as many competitive countries as possible.

I can't see any more full-time professional leagues popping up anywhere but England and Australia (although I suppose USA and Russia are outside bets). Perhaps then we need to get teams from other countries in our two strongest full-time comps, as with NZ Warriors (stronger New Zealand) and perpignan (hopefully stronger France)? One day maybe Moscow, Rome, Athens etc could be in Euro Super league for example - Cardiff, Glasgow & Dublin should be too - and the Aussie NRL should be looking to get teams from PNG, South Africa and maybe even Japan in.

Seems to me, we either do that or acccept that at best international RL will be about four top class teams with the rest just there to add colour (and enjoy themselves playing obviously). Amateurs can't be expected to compete with professionals.

 

[inertia666]

competitive to the big 3 - maybe not. but there's more teams playing together at a lower level that makes it competitive between them so i am sure they are having fun.

its really a question of funding. if smaller teams can't afford to travel they can't afford to play.

its all very well all these teamss cropping up but they need crowds to go and watch matches and with no domestic comps they will never get interest in a few international matches a year. it's not particularly business like to fund teams that won't make any money in the long term or even short term.

 

[Ari Gold]

i dont want to take a shot at Union....but how many teams would be able to beat the top 4-5 in Union(NZ, OZ, SA, ENG, FRA)? practically none....but doesnt mean Union is poor Internationally.....

 

[Dakink]

competitive to the big 3 - maybe not. but there's more teams playing together at a lower level that makes it competitive between them

That is where RL has its main problem internationally. Aus, GB and NZ are competitive. The tier below them are also competitive amongst themselves and so on down the levels of League played. The biggest challenge is to develop the nations so they can jump up a wrung and become competitive with the more developed countries.

ie. Aiding France and PNG to become competitive with AUS,GB & NZ. The aim is so that the smaller less competitive countries are always trying to reach the standard of the bigger nations.

 

[bayrep]

Get the numbers up playing at club level and you have more chance of getting star players. Get the star players and you get the youngesters wanting to be like their hero's. Get a team of star players and they will beat any of the top three.

 

[yakstorm]

France I feel will be able to once they get their Super League franchise. PNG as much as I'd love them to....I can't really see them reaching that level, but that said if they get their two Queensland Cup sides, I expect them to have far more respectable scorelines and perhaps push the big 3 for most games.

As for the rest, I think you would be kidding yourself if you expect them to even threaten the top 3 (or 4 with France) within the next 10 years. Even with sides like Lebanon and co which can draw together a pretty strong side of Australian based players, have and I feel still would struggle against the main three sides, just due to the level of talent they have at their dispossal.

 

[rugged]

Well you know how the ARL expanded to Melbourne (and Perth, and superleague in Adelaide etc) and there was hardly anyone playing there?

Why don't the ESL set up a team or two where the game is just beginning? I know France is an excellent start. It would give fringe ESL players a chance and would raise the profile of rugby league in that country. Or maybe have a combined eastern Europe team so that it represents more countries (as there are so many). It would need to be heavily sponsored by the ESL no doubt.

Probably more holes in this proposal than substance, but I was just brainstorming.

Also, the NFL does quite well in the USA and no other team in the world would be able to touch them. So does it really matter?

The AFL also will no doubt survive without international competition.

Also, you are wrong about there only being 4 of 5 competitive teams in international rugby.

 

[Thomas]

i dont want to take a shot at Union....but how many teams would be able to beat the top 4-5 in Union(NZ, OZ, SA, ENG, FRA)? practically none....but doesnt mean Union is poor Internationally.....

Ireland beat South Africa and England last year and in 2002 they beat Australia convincingly at home. They also only lost to Australia by a point in the RWC pool matches. Wales are also making a comeback having pushed the All Blacks all the way but losing by 1 point recently.

Aregntina have also consistently beaten France both home and away the last few years and also remain one of the hardest teams to beat at home.

I see your point. I don't think we'll see teams like the USA, Georgia or Namibia beat the top 5 teams anytime soon.

 

[roopy]

I've always said the way to get teams up to professional level is to get players from developing sides playing for one of the 27 fully professional clubs in the world - and the way to do that is to allow them to be exempt from the salary cap - which would mean cashed up clubs like Easts, Brisbane, Parra etc could sign up half the American side in the hope of turning out a few firstgraders.

It would give the rich clubs a slight advantage, but it would do wonders for the code worldwide.

 

[screeny]

I think the very nature of the code makes even competition a very hard phenomenon for RL to get used to.

Even the slightest advantage in fitness and skill levels equates into a massive scoreline against.

RL's an invasion sport with territory and possession equalling points. Once a side gets on a role they're more likely than not to massacre their opponents.

I've always said it, this is the major technical advantage union has over league. More matches are closer towards the end of union games than league games as its harder to score tries in union (more players on field, no offside gap to impede defences, ball in play less, more penalties awarded, higher tally for penalty goals).

 

[inertia666]

i dont want to take a shot at Union....but how many teams would be able to beat the top 4-5 in Union(NZ, OZ, SA, ENG, FRA)? practically none....but doesnt mean Union is poor Internationally.....

when the words "Rugby" "League" and "International" comes up you can be sure someone follows up with "Union".:lol:

Union is poor internationally because there are only 5 teams who can compete at the top and maybe and 5 teams who can compete with each other and pull off the occasional upset over the top 5. But it is still 10 teams of reasonable quality over RL, making it a stronger international game.
THe fact still remains, there is still SOME kind of domestic scene for all the "top" international sides.

England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland , France, Italy, SA, Australia, NZ, Argentina(?) -all these times have club game underneath. might not be the highest quality but its there.

It was like the guy from the Lebanon said (in carlnz's email) - the stronger their domestic league will become - the weaker the international side will be (in the near future).

each country needs to be practising.

 

[carlnz]

I think Rugby Leage will get competive with 5 nations....then maybe 10 years down the track...teams like Wales and USA who are making good in roads witht the juniors will catch up......

AUS will always be to good....Tonga and Samoa will catch up IF they play for their respective countries....

Look at the NRL..their are USA, Kiwi, Brits, Cook Islands, Fiji, Samoa, PNG, Wales, France players all playing in the NRL..

I think USA will go professional one day...same too Wales and Ireland..and Hopefully France and Lebanon....ONE DAY though maybe 20 years......

U16 World Cup is need every two years to bridge the gap before its to late...we are moving int he right direction...but it will take time

 

[bobbis]

Before RL gets even competition from teams outside the top 3 its needs to get even competition between the top 3. I don't really see how other teams will be able to bridge the gap when for the last couple of decades Australia has maintained its number 1 spot and not been headed at any stage.

Out of the countries currently playing the only 3 i could see as ever really moving up 2 compete with the top 3 are Russia, PNG or France. The rest simply have negligible grass roots and its complete pie in the sky to say they could 1day be competitive. Out of those the best prospect is france, which requires fully professional clubs playing in the SL, itll take at least a decade and thats being optimistic before France could compete. While PNG despite being the national sport without better economic conditions it won't be competitive. Russia still has a very long way to go but it could happen if theres a huge growth in popularity. i don't really see anyone challenging the top 3 any time soon but it is possible.

Screeny its just as possible if not easier to rack up a thrashing in RU, just look at the RWC. The reality is a team can maintain almost 100% possesion this can't happen in RL with 100% posession and a huge gulf in fitness the results are inevitable. Theres also just as many thrashings at the top level, in RL theres Aus v GB 44-10 or whatever it was while on the same weekend NZ beats France 45-6 in RU. The real difference is while thrashings can and do happen in both games, in RL no body can ever beat Australia when it matters, there capable of the odd upset but never a WC or test series victory.

 

[yakstorm]

Out of those the best prospect is france, which requires fully professional clubs playing in the SL, itll take at least a decade and thats being optimistic before France could compete.

I can see the theory behind that statement, however just to be annoying I'm going to disagree with you. Whilst France do requre a professional setup prior to being truely competitive against the top 3, I feel they are in a good position to move up and be so in even just 5 years simply cause they have the talented individuals coming through.

France has been no strangers to defeating Australia, UK and/or NZ in the junior levels, meaning they have kids coming through who can play. They also have a decent enough playing base to build a competitive side, and of course there is always the potential to take talented youth from Union, not all the good quality kids can make the Les Blues'.

England have dramatically improved their youth system and thus their national side in around 3 years, lead by Waite, no reason why he can't do the same in France, plus I think he is starting with a higher quality product to begin with. The French play a totally different style of Rugby League to the other three, which is both refreshing, as well seems to daunt the big three a bit already. Imagine if they had the fitness to go 80 minutes.

 

[rugged]

They also have a decent enough playing base to build a competitive side, and of course there is always the potential to take talented youth from Union, not all the good quality kids can make the Les Blues'.

So you are saying that second rate French Rugby Union players can make up a team to be competitive in League against Australia?????

 

[Atticus Finch]

Rugged, If you think French rugby league is made up of "second rate rugby union" players, you couldn't be more wrong. Most of these lads are league players through and through. They usually only end up in union when league can't provide them with the rewards their talents deserve. Hopefully, with Perpignan (and perhaps later Toulouse) in Super League, that may change.

I take all the points above, but nobody has dealt with the central suggestion: that the NRL and Super League show have more out-of-area teams, made up of a mixture of experienced Brits, Aussies, Kiwis and Islanders and the best of locally-produced talent, thereby strengthening the national teams.

 

[screeny]

Screeny its just as possible if not easier to rack up a thrashing in RU, just look at the RWC. The reality is a team can maintain almost 100% possesion this can't happen in RL with 100% posession and a huge gulf in fitness the results are inevitable. Theres also just as many thrashings at the top level, in RL theres Aus v GB 44-10 or whatever it was while on the same weekend NZ beats France 45-6 in RU. The real difference is while thrashings can and do happen in both games, in RL no body can ever beat Australia when it matters, there capable of the odd upset but never a WC or test series victory.

I disagree completely.

Answer these questions:

1. Are there less players on a RL pitch?
2. Is the ball in play more in RL?
3. Is it harder to defend with a 10-metre offside gap?
4. Are more penalties awarded on average in RU than in RL?
5. Is a penalty goal worth more in RU than in RL?

Now surely these points mean tries are more likely in RL than in RU? The facts speak for themselves and picking out an odd scoreline here or there doesn't prove anything whatsoever.

 

[carlnz]

Remeber the French School Boys toured Australia last year and came away with a 50-22 point loss (i think) And from some people who watch that game they said some of the French boys talent was unreal....

Just wished they toured NZ aswell...

 

[rugged]

4. Are more penalties awarded on average in RU than in RL?
5. Is a penalty goal worth more in RU than in RL?

Yes to the above, but usually it is the more inept side, and more the defending side that is making errors and infringing by trying to keep possession of the ball.

 

[bobbis]

Screeny its just as possible if not easier to rack up a thrashing in RU, just look at the RWC. The reality is a team can maintain almost 100% possesion this can't happen in RL with 100% posession and a huge gulf in fitness the results are inevitable. Theres also just as many thrashings at the top level, in RL theres Aus v GB 44-10 or whatever it was while on the same weekend NZ beats France 45-6 in RU. The real difference is while thrashings can and do happen in both games, in RL no body can ever beat Australia when it matters, there capable of the odd upset but never a WC or test series victory.

I disagree completely.

Answer these questions:

1. Are there less players on a RL pitch?
2. Is the ball in play more in RL?
3. Is it harder to defend with a 10-metre offside gap?
4. Are more penalties awarded on average in RU than in RL?
5. Is a penalty goal worth more in RU than in RL?

Now surely these points mean tries are more likely in RL than in RU? The facts speak for themselves and picking out an odd scoreline here or there doesn't prove anything whatsoever.

In your average match where the teams playing are evenly matched yes theres probably going to be more trys in RL.

1. Yes however due to the fact there are rucks and mauls rarely are there 15 men in the defensive line so this is irrelevent in fact often theres less than 13 so making it harder to defend, especially when a team starts building phases.
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes however this just counts against the lesser team, generally the lesser team gets penalised meaning this actually works to make it harder to compete in RU.
5. Yes, however when theres a gulf between the skills of the 2 teams 3 points vs 2 rarely means anything, however 5 v 4 for trys does when your talking about a 50 point thrashing. So the fact that every score is worth an extra point at least in RU works against the lesser teams, say the team is 5 converted try worse than there opponent thats 30 points in league vs 35 in RU.

Whats the bggest factor in making a thrashing more brutal in RU however is the nature of possesion. Its possible to have near total possesion in RU, a superior side won't loss its ball at the ruck. While in RL a cr*p side is gauranteed possesion so long as it can hold on 6 tackles. The 6 tackle rule makes it such that lesser teams get possesion. It isn't possible to have 90% of possesion in league unless a side scores virtually every set of 6 unlike RU.

The nature of possesion in RU makes the gulf between good and bad side more evident that is a fact. The nature of league possesion works rewards inferior teams. So long as a team can tackle adequately they will get possesion they may not do anything with it but the simple fact of life is you can't score without the ball.