King of the Hill
Coach
- Messages
- 15,203
April 18, 2004
I can imagine a lot of players walking around with a knot in their stomachs, nervously awaiting the announcement today of the Australian team for the Test match against New Zealand, hoping their name will be read out as part of this elite squad.
The Test will be played in Newcastle on Friday night.
The national rugby league team has an outstanding record over the past three decades. Sure, our opposition hasn't been all that great, but international football must be maintained and the green-and-gold jersey should always be revered as the single biggest honour the game can bestow on a player.
I was often bugged by the fact selection of national sides was somewhat tainted by politics and favouritism. Consistent form in the domestic competition has not always been the major criterion for selection.
That coaches and selectors used their position and status to select their favourite players, rather than making representation a true reward for form, has been all too obvious.
The general public is not fooled. I have been in the game for 30 years and I have witnessed CEOs, coaches and selectors nod and wink to players that they can arrange selection in the Kangaroos squad.
Some have even used their influence as a lever to lure players to their club. Players were led to believe that if they joined certain teams their chances of representative selections would improve. They made good on the promise, too.
I have felt pity for worthy contenders who missed out on selection and at times I have shaken my head in disbelief at the inclusion of a player less deserving.
Such situations may be in the minority but there is no doubting the existence of the trend.
Then there is the case of selectors sticking with players who seem to be out of form. These decisions have been justified with words and phrases such as "incumbent", or "he has always served us well". Coaches have pushed for a player because "he suits my style of football".
Other than loyal fans on the radio open lines, no one really challenges these decisions and quite often members of the media can be a party to this system of justification.
There is virtually no danger of the selections coming unstuck because in all probability Australia will win. Our opponents are often mediocre, to say the least. Occasionally they rise to the challenge but, even then, if the Aussies play to their ability, they should win.
I'm not suggesting current-day coaches and selectors conduct their affairs in such a manner but it does beg the question of whether a Kangaroos selection should be a reward for outstanding achievements at club and State of Origin level, or subject to preferences and politics like any other football team.
And no, I am not deaf. I can hear you saying that as a representative coach I may well have been a party to such lobbying and preferential treatment myself.
Perhaps I have, but I have only ever dealt with the Origin format of rep football and this is a different situation altogether. I will also respect those who argue against me on this point. I am not trying to justify myself and I am not saying I am right.
It's just that State of Origin has become so big, the competition with Queensland so intense and the results of these games so important, that any coach at this level is entitled to have the major say in how the team will play and which players best suit that role.
Queensland beating NSW or vice versa is a lot harder than our national team doing battle with other nations. Sometimes tactics and one-on-one match-ups have to be considered when putting an Origin team together. I think other state coaches would agree with me in principle.
I also argue that the national team is a totally different situation. Test coaches are usually given a long tenure. Our national team is unlikely to lose, no matter who we play. It is not like cricket, where they play in all sorts of countries on different kinds of wickets.
The national team should be the best of the best. This should be the one team in all of rugby league that can truly be a reward for current form, without really risking loss to another country.
I also think Test matches should be played after the State of Origin series has been completed. This rubbish that New Zealand and Great Britain won't play Australia again after an interstate series is just childish. They are looking for an easier task. Handicaps are for the racetrack, not the football field.
As it stands this season, the selection of the Australian team will probably dictate who plays in the State of Origin teams. Surely State of Origin should dictate who plays for Australia?
This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/17/1082140116711.html
I can imagine a lot of players walking around with a knot in their stomachs, nervously awaiting the announcement today of the Australian team for the Test match against New Zealand, hoping their name will be read out as part of this elite squad.
The Test will be played in Newcastle on Friday night.
The national rugby league team has an outstanding record over the past three decades. Sure, our opposition hasn't been all that great, but international football must be maintained and the green-and-gold jersey should always be revered as the single biggest honour the game can bestow on a player.
I was often bugged by the fact selection of national sides was somewhat tainted by politics and favouritism. Consistent form in the domestic competition has not always been the major criterion for selection.
That coaches and selectors used their position and status to select their favourite players, rather than making representation a true reward for form, has been all too obvious.
The general public is not fooled. I have been in the game for 30 years and I have witnessed CEOs, coaches and selectors nod and wink to players that they can arrange selection in the Kangaroos squad.
Some have even used their influence as a lever to lure players to their club. Players were led to believe that if they joined certain teams their chances of representative selections would improve. They made good on the promise, too.
I have felt pity for worthy contenders who missed out on selection and at times I have shaken my head in disbelief at the inclusion of a player less deserving.
Such situations may be in the minority but there is no doubting the existence of the trend.
Then there is the case of selectors sticking with players who seem to be out of form. These decisions have been justified with words and phrases such as "incumbent", or "he has always served us well". Coaches have pushed for a player because "he suits my style of football".
Other than loyal fans on the radio open lines, no one really challenges these decisions and quite often members of the media can be a party to this system of justification.
There is virtually no danger of the selections coming unstuck because in all probability Australia will win. Our opponents are often mediocre, to say the least. Occasionally they rise to the challenge but, even then, if the Aussies play to their ability, they should win.
I'm not suggesting current-day coaches and selectors conduct their affairs in such a manner but it does beg the question of whether a Kangaroos selection should be a reward for outstanding achievements at club and State of Origin level, or subject to preferences and politics like any other football team.
And no, I am not deaf. I can hear you saying that as a representative coach I may well have been a party to such lobbying and preferential treatment myself.
Perhaps I have, but I have only ever dealt with the Origin format of rep football and this is a different situation altogether. I will also respect those who argue against me on this point. I am not trying to justify myself and I am not saying I am right.
It's just that State of Origin has become so big, the competition with Queensland so intense and the results of these games so important, that any coach at this level is entitled to have the major say in how the team will play and which players best suit that role.
Queensland beating NSW or vice versa is a lot harder than our national team doing battle with other nations. Sometimes tactics and one-on-one match-ups have to be considered when putting an Origin team together. I think other state coaches would agree with me in principle.
I also argue that the national team is a totally different situation. Test coaches are usually given a long tenure. Our national team is unlikely to lose, no matter who we play. It is not like cricket, where they play in all sorts of countries on different kinds of wickets.
The national team should be the best of the best. This should be the one team in all of rugby league that can truly be a reward for current form, without really risking loss to another country.
I also think Test matches should be played after the State of Origin series has been completed. This rubbish that New Zealand and Great Britain won't play Australia again after an interstate series is just childish. They are looking for an easier task. Handicaps are for the racetrack, not the football field.
As it stands this season, the selection of the Australian team will probably dictate who plays in the State of Origin teams. Surely State of Origin should dictate who plays for Australia?
This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/17/1082140116711.html
