Change the RLWC Qualification Process

[siv]

As noble as it is to play a 100% home grown team, it's too much of a swing in the opposite direction. They simply aren't good enough. Like other nations, they should use heritage players to raise their own standard and at least put them in the running.

Agree

But a key item that helped PNG for many years

Was a Residents v OS/heritage SOO style match

 

[adamkungl]

Agree

But a key item that helped PNG for many years

Was a Residents v OS/heritage SOO style match

I think countries that use heritage players should attempt to involve them a lot more in their development.
Get a couple of them over there playing in their competition. Play residents v heritage style games in lead-ups to tournaments. Make the heritage players invest in Italy Rugby League (or whoever) rather than jump on for the World Cup ride. Blokes at NSW Cup/SL Championship level might relish the chance to play footy in Italy for a few months if they were given some accommodation and employment.

As an aside, considering how many England and England-eligible players are in the NRL now, they should consider a similar game. The Exiles concept didn't really work, but an England SL v England NRL game could be a better prospect.
If England play a mid-year test or two down here against NZ or PNG or whoever, they could play against 'themselves' as a warm up/selection trial.

 

[adamkungl]

deleted double post

 

[hutch]

there is noting wrong with heritage players as long as they are committed to that nation. NZ's only World Cup winning captain was a heritage player. Heritage players become a joke when they switch national teams as soon as they are good enough for their preferred nation.

 

[Big Picture]

As others have advocated, heritage qualification should be scaled back to players with a parent from the country in question, those with just a grandparent from there should not be eligible. There should also be a cap on how many players in a team's roster can be heritage qualified which should not exceed half, e.g. maximum 12 out of the 24 named for any tournament. Teams full of heritage players are a disgrace.

 

[marv]

if countries like Russia or Serbia were more accepting to outside help and coaching and tried look outwardly more than whinging and just playing biff and barge they might get somewhere.

I have watched the top Russian club side get 50 points put on them by an English amateur team, that amateur team had no "heritage" players but it did have well coached Rugby League players.

The Russians are not well coached. Their results and the recent thread re the game at leigh suggests this too

 

[kiwileaguefan]

if countries like Russia or Serbia were more accepting to outside help and coaching and tried look outwardly more than whinging and just playing biff and barge they might get somewhere.

I have watched the top Russian club side get 50 points put on them by an English amateur team, that amateur team had no "heritage" players but it did have well coached Rugby League players.

The Russians are not well coached. Their results and the recent thread re the game at leigh suggests this too

Yet the previous match between the two nations last year Russia beat Italy 26-6. Even Serbia has between Italy twice in their last two meetings. It wont be long before nations just throw the towel in.

The issue I have is since the 2013 RLWC what have Italy done in terms of their National team? They play domestic players for all games until Qualifiers, then they call in the ring ins.

 

[marv]

Yet the previous match between the two nations last year Russia beat Italy 26-6. Even Serbia has between Italy twice in their last two meetings. It wont be long before nations just throw the towel in.

The issue I have is since the 2013 RLWC what have Italy done in terms of their National team? They play domestic players for all games until Qualifiers, then they call in the ring ins.

Throwing the towel in would be a real shame but Russia have been at this game for years and have got nowhere, one of the main reasons I think is because they are so insular. I understand it is difficult with regards to visas etc in Russia but back in the days when Ovchinnicov went to wests tigers, there were Russian and Serbian players in the English conference it should have moved on. Sadly it hasn't, the game hasn't helped these nations enough and they haven't seeked enough help.

We can bemoan heritage players or we can look at how other nations leagues can become as competitive as the English/Australian lower grades. (where many of these nations draw players from) Even France the USA and possibly New Zealand and PNG cannot boast this right now.
You have to say that if Serbia or Russia were able to play at the world cup we wouldn't want to see Russia taken apart by Australia like they were in 2000, removing Italy or Scotlands heritage players wouldn't stop this happening.

Italy are playing the game within the rules and also within their budget. Domestic players play lower games and hopefully improve themselves enough to take a place in the World cup squad, when the chips are down they call on their best players. some of which pay their own way. (despite being labelled as mercenaries by some on here) Italys biggest problem is losing the players Like Tedesco or Guerra, but as they are Australian, Australia has every right to them, lock them down to one nation and you get dedicated heritage players rather than those looking to further their careers or fancy a jaunt round europe off the back of their nanna.

All of the nations who rely heavily on heritage players are they same, they do need their hand forcing but Tonga opened the can of worms prior to the 2008 world cup and even before that the rules were fairly vague regarding domestic players. E.g Ireland picked three Kiwi born "domestic players" around the the 2008 world cup qualifiers.

FWIW I think all nations should include at least 5 domestic players in the 20+ man squad for World cup and qualifiers. But then when Ireland named 3 domestic players in their WC08 squad all were amateur players and didnt play a game.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Actually Ireland had four "domestic" players in 08 and one of them played. The point there is two of them played in the qualifiers and were signed by English semi pro clubs for 2008.

How do you improve your comp and your home grown players? How about giving them a go.

 

[marv]

Actually Ireland had four "domestic" players in 08 and one of them played. The point there is two of them played in the qualifiers and were signed by English semi pro clubs for 2008.

How do you improve your comp and your home grown players? How about giving them a go.

Was that Wayne Kerr who got in the side? I think he and another lad Gibbons had already been signed by London Skolars before the comp itself. Either way its fantastic they got the opportunity, If you read the bottom of my post you would see I really think there should be a number of domestic/trueborn players in a WC or qualifier, so not sure what your point is.

As Kiwileaguefan says Russia and Serbia have both turned over Italy using domestic players recently so someone must have been given a go for Italy if it wasn't their Australian based players.

You seem to have misunderstood my question somehow also and that is what can Nations who rely on their own players like Russia do to get their league to a similar standard as the English/Australian lower leagues? (because most heritage teams rely heavily on these comps in qualifying).

I dont think crying foul about heritage players gets us anywhere, Rugby League has traditionally been a game played in England, Australia and New Zealand so its hardly surprising most of the best players come from those countries.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Then the "best" players should play for those countries and not some other country they've never been to that their granny was born in, temporarily, until they can make their actual nation's team. If it wasn't for some people recognising how f**ked the rules are we would never have had the domestic player rule in 2008 that allowed a few players to play in the WC and we wouldn't have seen recent changes like the five year residency rule and the tier 1 and 2 rule. If the RLEF hasn't told the recent qualifiers they had to include three or four domestic players they wouldn't have got a run either. So I'd say "crying foul" is not only useful but morally imperative.

 

[adamkungl]

if countries like Russia or Serbia were more accepting to outside help and coaching and tried look outwardly more than whinging and just playing biff and barge they might get somewhere.

I have watched the top Russian club side get 50 points put on them by an English amateur team, that amateur team had no "heritage" players but it did have well coached Rugby League players.

The Russians are not well coached. Their results and the recent thread re the game at leigh suggests this too

I agree with this. The eastern european countries try to improve without taking any external influence, it is impossible.

 

[marv]

Then the "best" players should play for those countries and not some other country they've never been to that their granny was born in, temporarily, until they can make their actual nation's team. If it wasn't for some people recognising how f**ked the rules are we would never have had the domestic player rule in 2008 that allowed a few players to play in the WC and we wouldn't have seen recent changes like the five year residency rule and the tier 1 and 2 rule. If the RLEF hasn't told the recent qualifiers they had to include three or four domestic players they wouldn't have got a run either. So I'd say "crying foul" is not only useful but morally imperative.

I think that following the World Cup in 2000 (possibly 95) was the first time we was heritage players en masse, I think I touched on why in the last post. International rugby league has changed so much from the days of just five nations playing worldwide, so in that regard its still in its infancy, all those changes you mentioned can only be good going forward I would say.

Still though, no answers as to whats going to happen when Russia, or Serbia, or the next best placed side will do when faced up to a non heritage nation.

PNG or France would touch Serbia and Russia up big time, let alone Australia and New Zealand.

With or without heritage players, the gap between the big three is too great. We would still have the same problems, just with less competitive nations when it came to a World Cup.

 

[marv]

I agree with this. The eastern european countries try to improve without taking any external influence, it is impossible.

Do we ( i mean we as in the RFL, NRL, RLEF!) offer anything though?
serbia have been coached by Lee Crooks I think at one point? but surely an exchange of players with these nations or getting them the chance to attend training with English lower league clubs or Aussie feeder clubs.
Anything would be better than nothing, aside from, of course playing more games with Nations they can compete, learn and improve from playing against.

 

[kiwileaguefan]

Throwing the towel in would be a real shame but Russia have been at this game for years and have got nowhere, one of the main reasons I think is because they are so insular. I understand it is difficult with regards to visas etc in Russia but back in the days when Ovchinnicov went to wests tigers, there were Russian and Serbian players in the English conference it should have moved on. Sadly it hasn't, the game hasn't helped these nations enough and they haven't seeked enough help.

Here is Russia's failures to qualify for the last 3 World Cups:

2008
Beat Georgia, Netherlands and Serbia in first round. Then lost all 4 matches to Ireland and Lebanon to be eliminated. So eliminated by heritage teams.

2013
Lost to Italy and Lebanon but beat Serbia...eliminated.

2017
Beat Spain, lost to Ireland and Italy...eliminated..

Are you seeing a theme here? Last three RLWC Qualifiers they have been eliminated by mainly heritage Nations...is it little wonder Russia (who capture a lot of hearts in the 2000 RLWC) don't take the game very seriously?

The only World Cup they played in was due to them being automatic qualifiers...

And for you info, saying having Russia playing will be embarrassing because of the large scores, well if they made it through instead of Italy they would only be playing Fiji, Scotland and USA. Hardly teams they would put more than 80 on them....

 

[adamkungl]

And for you info, saying having Russia playing will be embarrassing because of the large scores, well if they made it through instead of Italy they would only be playing Fiji, Scotland and USA. Hardly teams they would put more than 80 on them....

Those teams are all far better than Russia. They simply are not good enough to be in the World Cup, and no rule tweaks change that.

They need to get better at playing Rugby League. Look for ways to get their top talent into better competitions, and bring better players and coaching into their own competition.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The game in Russia was stronger between 2000 and 2008. In that time they played in the Victory Cup, including that game against the USA in Moscow that drew 30k, had a couple of clubs play in the Challenge Cup once or twice and they played in the World Sevens when the ARL briefly brought them back. But then Union got into the Olympics and players and clubs switched, including the strongest club, Lokomotiv. Which shows that if you give Russia a shot at playing in big events the game might grow and improve. At the moment they have practically no hope of playing in anything bigger than the qualifiers.

Maybe an eastern Eurpoean place in this new comp or even one in the WC is needed. At least then Serbia or Russia will get a run in one or the other or both if they're good enough to beat each other and the likes of Ukraine and anyone else who gets a shot.

 

[adamkungl]

Qualification for 2021 should be something like

Automatic hosts: England

Round 1 : 2017 WC semi finalists

Round 2 :
2019 European Cup A, top 3 qualify, last place goes to Round 3
2019 Pacific Cup A, top 3 qualify, last place goes to Round 3
2019 Euro Cup B, winner qualifies, 2nd and 3rd place go to Round 3
2019 Pacific Cup B, winner goes to Round 3
2019 Americas Cup, winner qualifies, 2nd place goes to Round 3
2019 Africa-Asia Cup, winner qualifies, 2nd place goes to Round 3
2019 Euro Cup C, winner goes to Round 3

Round 3:
2020 Qualifying tournaments
Europe Pool (4 teams)
World Pool (4 teams)

Round 4:
Wildcard playoff (runner ups Europe v World)

That would give Russia 3 chances to qualify

The breakdown of available spots would be:
Pacific 5-7
Europe 6-8
Americas 1-2
Africa-Asia 1-2

 

[BuderusIsaBeast]

I believe if a country does not have a domestic comp to a required level they should not be allowed to compete in the World Cup qualifiers. This would rule out countries with very little domestic game like Scotland and Italy and would give countries like a Serbia and Russia more of an opportunity

 

[BuderusIsaBeast]

The problem I see with Heritage players is a country like France or PNG who develop there own players being forced to leave them out and draft in heritage players to compete with countries packed with heritage players. I think the best way to stop this as mentioned before is to get rid of nation swapping.