Euro seedings

[bender]

Didnt they get thrashed by Italy in their last match though? I dont rate Greece at all, in fact i think Ireland would thrash them.

Actually, I dont know why I wrote ireland there. I think I meant to type italy (referring to the expat basis). they did get thrashed, but I think in 10 games against Italy they would win at least one. Didnt they have a close game with Malta a year or so ago? This is why there needs to be a list of international games somewhere.

 

[hutch]

It seems a bit ridiculous that some people can suggest that nations be ranked based on a domestic competition. This is stupid. Do we rank Souths as the number 1 club last year, because they have a good junior setup? If a country plays internationals, they deserve a ranking based on those results. If they choose to play with weaker than full strength teams, then so be it. It is up to other nations to improve and beat them. Yes, Holland (for example) will not beat Italy and raise above them (due to expats).

i cant agree with you here at all mate. to me, what seems ridicuous is ranking countries where rugby league isnt even played above countries who do play the game and are doing there best to promote the game in that country. no disrespect to anyone involved, but malta v greece or italy is not international rugby league, they arent legitimate national teams. they are australians playing for the country of their parents or grandparents. they came through the aussie junior system, and are playing for these teams because they are not good enough to play for aus.

the goal for these teams of course is to get a rugby league competition up and running in the country they are promoting. hopefully by playing all these exhibition games in australia they are rasing money to be sent back to malta, italy etc.

the world cup, qualifying tournys, euro cup etc should be left to legitimate national teams, playing each other home and away in the actual countries.

 

[Mr_Ugly]

I think many, if not most people believe that teams that so-called "International" teams that are purely Sydney based shouldn't be included in these rankings unless they have some domestic activity. These are not true national sides, and should be denoted by names such as "exiles", "heritage", or even the imaginative suffix "A".

Perhaps this is why there is no Greece, Italy or Portugal in the rankings (although curiously, the Czechs appear despite apparently never having played a game). Perhaps Malta is included because they played a couple of Maltese locals in their side last year's match, and did some domestic development work around this game, which is fair enough I suppose (by the way MRLA ... what is the latest on domestic development in Malta).

However neither Estonia, Holland or Georgia appear to have "domestic comps" (although as Yanto pointed out, the Dutch have tournaments with domestic clubs represented), and I think the Germans are just about to start their first domestic comp this year. However, despite the absence of a domestic competition, I don't think that there is any doubt that they deserve to be included in the list due of their domestic development work, and the fact that largely field locals in their national teams.

 

[bowes]

ENC A

I thought it would be just one pool and everybody plays each other once in 2006 and once in 2007. That would be the best option and that way you have a clear 3 placed team to go in the repacharge. This would be a great tournament.

It is one pool, I'm pretty sure.

 

[screeny]

A word on Ireland. Don't you think that their team is ageing? McDermott, O'Connor and Cummins, all played in thier last match against Wales, and all are retired from top level footy and getting older.

Littler and Stewart in the centres won't scare many. Fitzpatrick is an ace in the hole, but is negated by having a cretin like Daryll Powell as the coach.

Dean Gaskill from Wire is no terror on the wing. Where're the young guns? Finnegan from Widnes is good, and their local comp will be strong-ish, but we all know qualification begins and ends with the SL/Australian expat players, and I think Ireland might struggle here.

 

[bender]

i cant agree with you here at all mate. to me, what seems ridicuous is ranking countries where rugby league isnt even played above countries who do play the game and are doing there best to promote the game in that country. no disrespect to anyone involved, but malta v greece or italy is not international rugby league, they arent legitimate national teams. they are australians playing for the country of their parents or grandparents. they came through the aussie junior system, and are playing for these teams because they are not good enough to play for aus.

the goal for these teams of course is to get a rugby league competition up and running in the country they are promoting. hopefully by playing all these exhibition games in australia they are rasing money to be sent back to malta, italy etc.

the world cup, qualifying tournys, euro cup etc should be left to legitimate national teams, playing each other home and away in the actual countries.

So, if an italian team is selected (according to international rules) and plays and beats Australia, New Zealand and England in the one year, you would rank them below Holland in about 15th spot? Yet, if that exact same team has the exact same results but also manages to start a social competition between 3 or 4 universities or union clubs in the off season, they suddenly become the no 1 ranked side in the World?

If a team qualifies and plays to the rules they should be ranked by on field results. Some people think France have a great set up with a pro team, a semi pro competion etc. If Lebanon beat them with an all sydney based team, Lebanon deserve to rank ahead of France. Anything else is just subjective and silly, imo.

If you want to rank according to Criteria and not ranking results, that is okay, but it is not a rankings system and should be stated as such.

 

[screeny]

So, if an italian team is selected (according to international rules) and plays and beats Australia, New Zealand and England in the one year, you would rank them below Holland in about 15th spot? Yet, if that exact same team has the exact same results but also manages to start a social competition between 3 or 4 universities or union clubs in the off season, they suddenly become the no 1 ranked side in the World?

If a team qualifies and plays to the rules they should be ranked by on field results. Some people think France have a great set up with a pro team, a semi pro competion etc. If Lebanon beat them with an all sydney based team, Lebanon deserve to rank ahead of France. Anything else is just subjective and silly, imo.

If you want to rank according to Criteria and not ranking results, that is okay, but it is not a rankings system and should be stated as such.

Generally agree with you there, except that if these rankings have been worked out with an eye specifically on the last two years, Lebanon should be beneath France, I agree with that.

There's something to be said that results should be gauged on the status of the competition they come from. So, France, as European Champions, ranks higher than Lebanon who won a lesser tournament, the Med Cup. Also, France had to beat Europe's best while Lebanon didn't. On that note I'd have been happy to see Ireland, as 2004 finalists, in 4th, with lebanon in 5th.

But it's good as it stands now too......

 

[Mr_Ugly]

So, if an italian team is selected (according to international rules) and plays and beats Australia, New Zealand and England in the one year, you would rank them below Holland in about 15th spot? Yet, if that exact same team has the exact same results but also manages to start a social competition between 3 or 4 universities or union clubs in the off season, they suddenly become the no 1 ranked side in the World?

If a team qualifies and plays to the rules they should be ranked by on field results. Some people think France have a great set up with a pro team, a semi pro competion etc. If Lebanon beat them with an all sydney based team, Lebanon deserve to rank ahead of France. Anything else is just subjective and silly, imo.

If you want to rank according to Criteria and not ranking results, that is okay, but it is not a rankings system and should be stated as such.

To my mind, if a Sydney-based Italian heritage team knocked off Oz, NZ and GB, then they would certainly be the best team in the world. However, they would not be the highest ranked nation, because Leichardt is not a country.

If however, they had a small domestic competition, the game was administered from there, and the team was representing that national league (small though it might be), then I think they would deserve to be called the top ranked nation. However, if they had a comp and still only played Australian-based players, they would undoubtedly cop some criticism (as would the Australian selectors for not picking these world-beaters in the Aussie side). If the team included a number of truly Italian players, then it would certainly increase legitimacy (not sure why we a picking on Italy).

I suppose this would be the same situation as the Cedars - their domestic comp, small though it may be, adds legitimacy to the side.

Whether you believe a purely Australian based "foreign" national side is right or not, you must recognise that this view is not universally held, and as such will lack legitimacy in the eyes of many.

 

[hutch]

So, if an italian team is selected (according to international rules) and plays and beats Australia, New Zealand and England in the one year, you would rank them below Holland in about 15th spot? Yet, if that exact same team has the exact same results but also manages to start a social competition between 3 or 4 universities or union clubs in the off season, they suddenly become the no 1 ranked side in the World?

no, i think you miss my point. i wouldnt rank them at all as they are not an international rugby league team, they are a team of australians representing the country of their parents, grandparents. as mr ugly said, they would be the best team in the world, but not the best nation.



i dont mean to pick on italy, they arent the only international team based out of sydney.

i am not saying we should scrap games involving teams such as italy a, malta, greece etc. but they should be put into perspective, they are not national teams, they are teams playing exhibition games trying to raise funds to get the game started in other countries. i am sure and i know for a fact that some players are damn proud to represent their parents homeland, but would drop it all to play for the kangaroos.

i think the rlif should make it clear which countries are test teams and which are not. this way they can record caps, points, results etc. i think that the 10 countries who make the world cup should be made test status, as long as they meet certain criteria. at least this way, the matches can be counted as tests (unlike the last one), and we can differentiate a rugby league test nation from an exhibition team. if other countries meet the criteria then they can be added as well. it would certainly help with scheduling for the future.

 

[jvujosevic]

Not that anyone cares and without referring to other rankings, i would expect rankings should look something like this:

1. England - Undisputed Standing.
2. France - European Champions and performed well against NZ and Aust.
3. Lebanon - Undefeated in Europe for some time and hold recent win against French
4. Wales - Consecutive 4th Placings in World Cups and seem to be gaining in depth.
5. Ireland - Underated, pushed England hard in last WC and have done very well in European Tournaments.
6. Italy - Very unlucky not to qualify for last WC, after losing to Lebanon but beating France.
7. Scotland - Have been very solid consistently against other British nations, but cant quite take the next step.
8. Malta - Good win against Lionhearts and also have previously done well against southern hemisphere opposition.
9. Greece - A very good side about the same level of Malta and Ireland.
10. Russia - Consistently qualify for Euro cup and beat Georgia well.
11. Georgia - Not too far from Russia after qualifying for Euro Cup.
12. Holland - I am fairly certain that they beat both Georgia and Serbia
13. Serbia -
14. Germany
15. Other nations who have not yet played a game

Looking at those nations, a European Cup would be a very good competition. Maybe more exciting than a World cup.

I think that this list is OK, but I will put Russia in front of Malta and Greece, because Malta won Lionhearts but don't forget that Russia won BARLA side on Victory Cup who is stronger than Lionhearts, also Russia have all domestic players.

About my team, Serbia, we didn’t see Serbia in full strange yet, because Serbia played all games with only domestic players, like Russia. Serbia didn’t use good rugby union players, like Georgia and Holland. This year Serbia will have two Serbian origin players from Australia and few Serbian origin players from UK and few Serbian very good rugby union players and of course other our players have now international experience from Med. Cup, last year Euro B and we have 3 boys who play in UK from our domestic base.

We will see…

 

[disco1]

This whole international rugby set up is just stupid.

Why can a team of aussies be called Greece, Lebanon or Greece??????
They are aussies born and bred for christ sake! These teams take up valuable resources that would be better spent on developing RL in the actual country they claim to represent.

There should be no place in international RL for 'exile' teams. Just devalues the international game and makes it a laughing stock.

 

[jvujosevic]

This whole international rugby set up is just stupid.

Why can a team of aussies be called Greece, Lebanon or Greece??????
They are aussies born and bred for christ sake! These teams take up valuable resources that would be better spent on developing RL in the actual country they claim to represent.

There should be no place in international RL for 'exile' teams. Just devalues the international game and makes it a laughing stock.

In one point you are right, I also like to support sides like Russia, Holland and my country – Serbia, who work with domestic players development, but for example you must know that Lebanon from 2003 have domestic competition with universities clubs that they played on Med. Cup in 2003 with 3-4 players in 2004 with 7-8 players and that they invest lot of money in their development in their team they must have 6 from 20 domestic players for World Cup qualification that means that they will have in 17-man squat at minimum 3 domestic players. Also Greece pull out from qualification, because they don’t have domestic base players and because they think that is better to invest money for development of the game in Greece. I don’t know what will Malta do, but my opinion is that they will also pull out, because I don’t see them in World Cup qualification process that RLEF made.

 

[disco1]

You are talking about the REAL rep teams, not these joke teams set up in Oz.

If the governing body had any sense they would ban/scrap them as it is just a joke.

 

[Evil Homer]

You are talking about the REAL rep teams, not these joke teams set up in Oz.

If the governing body had any sense they would ban/scrap them as it is just a joke.

I don't see any problem,as long as they are called 'Exiles' teams or something similar,and development funds are not being spent on them,which is the case right now AFAIK.

You have to remember that from being an Australian-based team Lebanon now have a thriving domestic competition and are very much a successful country.I think the other teams are looking to follow their need in the near future.

 

[disco1]

OK, lets set up a Australian Welsh team then. Must be hundreds of thousands of Aussies with Welsh heritage. Joey Johns can be captain with Kyle at fullback, rolf at s/half!!

I think its just silly, these are aussies and should be challenging to play NRL then for the Roos.

 

[screeny]

OK, lets set up a Australian Welsh team then. Must be hundreds of thousands of Aussies with Welsh heritage. Joey Johns can be captain with Kyle at fullback, rolf at s/half!!

I think its just silly, these are aussies and should be challenging to play NRL then for the Roos.

Forgive me, Disco 1, but you're talking tosh.

You sound as though you are convinced that national sports teams around the world don't utilise teh GP or residency rule.

You use Wales as an example; well, check the last WC and see which Aussie players the WRL wanted to use. Check out most RU teams and see expat or residency players playing for their adopted country.

The point about Malta and Greece is that they don't have a govt recognised governing body at home. Therefore they're rightly considered ineligible for the WC, as they should be. Lebanon, however, has a govt recignised governing body and, as our Serbian friend said, pick domestic players to play for the national side. Under IOC and Fifa rules the Lebanese RL could pack their side with 100% expat Aussie lebanese but RL rules prohibit them from doing so - and I believe that their steady increase in the number of locals picked for the national side suggests that the lebanese RL themselves are keen on getting more of a balance.

Also, look a little closer to home at the Irish and Scottish national sides, there are f**k all players who have broad Irish brogues or Scottish accents, they're Yorkies and Lancastrians, but just because the Maltese, Greeks and lebanese are from further away you make it sounds worse, but it's exactly the same principle.

 

[disco1]

Forgive me, Disco 1, but you're talking tosh.

You sound as though you are convinced that national sports teams around the world don't utilise teh GP or residency rule.

You use Wales as an example; well, check the last WC and see which Aussie players the WRL wanted to use. Check out most RU teams and see expat or residency players playing for their adopted country.

The point about Malta and Greece is that they don't have a govt recognised governing body at home. Therefore they're rightly considered ineligible for the WC, as they should be. Lebanon, however, has a govt recignised governing body and, as our Serbian friend said, pick domestic players to play for the national side. Under IOC and Fifa rules the Lebanese RL could pack their side with 100% expat Aussie lebanese but RL rules prohibit them from doing so - and I believe that their steady increase in the number of locals picked for the national side suggests that the lebanese RL themselves are keen on getting more of a balance.

Also, look a little closer to home at the Irish and Scottish national sides, there are f**k all players who have broad Irish brogues or Scottish accents, they're Yorkies and Lancastrians, but just because the Maltese, Greeks and lebanese are from further away you make it sounds worse, but it's exactly the same principle.

OK using Wales as an example, apart from the last RLWC where there were too many non Welsh in the team we have put out a majority welsh born and bred team in all cups. Looking at the future 90%+ of the team will be playing their trade in the Welsh League or with the Crusaders in the Northern Leagues.

My gripe with the exile lebanese team and others is that the players are true blue aussies who play for these teams because it suits them. They have never set foot in the country they represent, can't speak the language and in all honesty have no interest either. I welcome the real lebanese team who live, work and play there.

I am all for promoting the game to new countries but lets help them train their players rather than setting up false lebanese teams based in Oz

 

[YANTO]

back to basis of having a domestic competition to be recognised.
People forget that ireland,Scotland,wales,canada,SA etc etc all played in the last WC with wales reaching the semi final.
Domestic comps. at the time ...NONE of the above.

As I have said previously.people sometimes expect to much to quick.
Wales have been playing on and off for over 100 years yet their domestic comp is only in its third season.
Ireland in its second after over 2o years at it and the same or similar to Scotland.
The likes of Serbia is the exception with a four team REAL DOMESTIC competition going into its fifth year which was created a lot quicker than the welsh,irish and Scots.
If in Holland we have a six or eight team competition fully running in 2026 THAT IS SUCCESS.
This year we have three clubs playing friendlies and touring teams plus Rotterdam Nines.
We have two clubs at under 11 playing english opposition (Oh kids development NOW thats a new thouight!!)
organising a comp takes a lot more work and recruitment than people realise and to be honest why does the success of senior football have to show how succesful a new nation is.
I would rather(if we did it again) start out with under 11's and build up from their.
12 years time these kids are the senior players who have been brought up on the code.
If that happened would Holland be deemed succesful even though they didnt have a senior International side for ten years??
Every country (us included) have started at the top with the aim to work down.
Maybe this is the wrong idea and the use of union players and facilities has maybe worked against.

 

[Copa]

Exile teams raise money for RL development. They can get 1000s of paying cistomers to games in Oz... money that goes into developing RL in parts of europe.

 

[Mr_Ugly]

You are talking about the REAL rep teams, not these joke teams set up in Oz.

If the governing body had any sense they would ban/scrap them as it is just a joke.

There seems to be multiple threads with the same debate at the monent ....

As Evil Homer pointed out, there is nothing wrong with exiles sides provided that they are labelled as such. At the risk of exciting some and offending others by bringing up RU, union has a long history of barbarians sides which play against national teams. These barbarians sides are commonly based around a national side, but generally include players who are there purely because they were invited, and who would never qualify for that country's true national side. These games tend to be more open and entertaining than the dour union game commonly seen at international level, and there would be very few people who think they should be scrapped.

I don't see how "exiles" sides are any different (in terms of their legitimacy), provided that they are labelled as such, and excluded from events involving exclusively national sides such as the world cup, ENC (in my view at least), 4-nations etc. This is not to say that they shouldn't be allowed to compete against true national sides, but such games should not be considered tests.

The problem arises where, as has happened in the past, heritage sides have been passed off as national sides for countries that do not have a governing body or any domestic activity. This practice clearly should be scrapped, and this now appears to be the case (although as Woods99 loves to point out, we haven't really seen that in writing yet ... just in practice).

My gripe with the exile lebanese team and others is that the players are true blue aussies who play for these teams because it suits them. They have never set foot in the country they represent, can't speak the language and in all honesty have no interest either.

I think you will find that many Australians with Lebanese heritage strongly identify with that heritage ... in many cases probably as much, if not moreso than they do with "mainstream" Australian culture. Although living and growing up in Australia, many do so surrounded by their Lebanese culture, and live in areas where the culture (and shop signage etc.) are largely Arabic. I think some of these people would aspire to represent the Cedars.