How do we help the rest of the world

[Kurt Angle]

If you have five times as many players, you're also going to have five times as many international standard players, and your top 17 out of that pool is going to be substantially stronger.

Correct, you increase your chances of having the best players by having 5 times as many to choose from.

But once you have picked your team, it is still only 17 that can walk out in the field.

If NZ had 17 world class players, and Australia had 5 times as many in 85... all that means is that Australia will have 68 sitting on the sidelines.

It's like if you picked 17 random players out of the NRL and were asked to make a team out of them, or given 85 random players and told to make the best 17. Obviously the 17 picked from the 85 would be a lot stronger.

Yep.. so to overcome that deficiency you need better coaching.

It's 17 v 17, yes, and the Australian top 17 is and always should be stronger than the NZ top 17 for pretty obvious reasons.

Historically it has, but that needn't be the case... Lets compare next tier of NZ and GB. You're saying GB should always be stronger, so NZ may as well give up right now.

There's really no logical reason why NZ should ever have a league team that is anywhere near as good as Australia's.

:lol:

Or Serbia world champions of basketball...

 

[Kurt Angle]

Some very valid points here.

It sounds like: grassroots development
coaching and development of staff
more players available (for NZ)
some funding (ok, alot)

will help IRL progress further. Why isnt this happening?

RL is a club based game, like all proper sports. That is where the money is made.

However big money and development profile for new markets comes from international games, unless you have a Michael Jordan like figure.

RL has never really focused on the international aspect, and the problem is this requires the use of the assets that the clubs invest in.

RL has a great opportunity in that it is a sport with the entire global calender close to be synchronised. Other than the GB lower leaguers and the french domestic competition, they all play the same time of year.

This can allow for periods of playing club football, and periods for playing international football, such as a October and November window.

This opportunity is no tbeing maximised due to poor administration.

RL needs administrators who are focused on growing the game... for a game that has always been as revolutionary in change and adaption as RL, it's inertia to developing the game in other countries seems wierd. The recent results of Fiji, Tonga and PNG for example should be having these countries flooded with talent scouts.

Also the marketing of the international game, its appears we suffer the curse of having the name 'rugby' in our name, and they appear to be our benchmark.

Our crowds should be near theirs, or its a failure, our 'competitiveness' should be near theirs, or its a failure.

We shouldn't be marketing our product on that basis.. look at cricket.

The Aussies thrash everyone, but market themselves on "watch the excellent aussie team play'.... that's what we should do..

The cricket grounds in Australia like the WACA and Adelaide oval rarely get crowds above 20,000, yet their revenues are booming..

With a central administration that has RL as its core focus, not Foxtel subscriptions, we have a central body that can withhold funds to clubs if they interfere with the international game, thus they would have to release players.

That is how we fix the situation... a central body that tells the clubs what to do, not the other way around.





Or is it?[/quote]

 

[eels_fan_01]

The reason Australia dominate is because they have 10 times as much of everything as everyone else and are the only country that *really* cares about league

Australia should beat NZ by 100 every match by rights, and the fact they don't should be mildly embarrassing to them. The Kangaroos are underperformers.

The whole of Australian league would have to underperform terribly to stop being dominant.

The only way NZ can be expected to be competitive is if league suddenly becomes a big sport in NZ.

ummm, yeah....the whole discussion is kinda stupid really. It's like saying "why isn't American Samoa as good as Brazil at soccer?!?" and then ripping into the American Samoans for their coaching structures etc.

You only care about Union and we have won more world cups than you, thats what is embarrassing.

 

[Misanthrope]

I think it goes both ways. The quality of coaches produced by England and New Zealand certainly isn't a patch on what comes through the Australian system - and the setup in Australia from junior level to club level to Origin to international level is first class.

But to place all of the blame on New Zealand/England/PNG etc is just ludicrous. The ARL does everything within its power to stunt the development of nations not named Australia so they can keep winning.

International rugby league is, largely, an exercise in masturbating the Australian ego.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Correct, you increase your chances of having the best players by having 5 times as many to choose from.

But once you have picked your team, it is still only 17 that can walk out in the field.

If NZ had 17 world class players, and Australia had 5 times as many in 85... all that means is that Australia will have 68 sitting on the sidelines.

No, it means the 17 who walk out on the field will be much better!

Yep.. so to overcome that deficiency you need better coaching.

Yes. New Zealand would need to have much BETTER coaching than Australia. If Australia and NZ have the same level of coaching, Australia should still easily win. Australia will have to f*ck up and allow NZ to overtake them.

Historically it has, but that needn't be the case... Lets compare next tier of NZ and GB. You're saying GB should always be stronger, so NZ may as well give up right now.

Not really. The Poms have proved themselves to be chronic under-achievers in most sports, plus league isn't exactly massive there.

:lol:

Or Serbia world champions of basketball...

Well, Serbia have never really been the best bball nation in the world (I'm an expert on this tbh, my Serbian missus maintains they are the best, laughably)....the USA have almost always been the best with the Serbs one of the pool of other decent basketball nations who have beaten weakened US teams at "world" tournaments that the US didn't take seriously.

And anyway.....basketball is their biggest sport and they also have the natural advantage of being one of the tallest nations in the world (in all seriousness). I would expect a nation of 10 million with a decent sporting pedigree to be strong in their national sport, just as NZ with only 4 million is strong at Union.

 

[Blaze]

You only care about Union and we have won more world cups than you, thats what is embarrassing.

Yeah but the head to head is something like NZ 85 wins to Australia's 40.

 

[nqboy]

Yeah but the head to head is something like NZ 85 wins to Australia's 40.

You're saying they just choke in the big games?

 

[Blaze]

You're saying they just choke in the big games?

No, I am saying that head to head NZ has clear cut dominance over Australia at the sport of Rugby Union.

 

[winnyason]

One big blow out & it the end of the international game the all blacks have done it a lot to the 2nd ranked team in rugby a couple of things about the kiwi team to note.
*who they where missing in 1st team players brent webb, manu vatuvai, jerome ropati,benji marshall, isia soliola, sonny bill, david kidwell, david falongo, jason cayless plus no ali lautiti so missing.
* it was on the cards the kiwi team had bench players & players who where in & out of 1st grade all year eg jeff lima, jermey smith x 2, luke covell or players out of form dene halutu.
* terrible players in key positions dene halutu at 9 why no issac luke, smith at 7 f**k me.
* the mega loss of 130 tests combined with wiki, jones & vagana.
* the loss of bluey no passion in test jumper with kemble.
*the kiwis unlike the aussies cannot pick 2 teams they have proably a very strong 20 players the trouble is with players all over the globe when will we see the best maybe at the world cup in 2008.
* there simply must be a window mid season where the france vs england test is on at the same time as the anzac test & the superleague should finish the same weekend as the nrl so the best players are available.
* it was a blow out so we whing & moan the aussies have pulled there sh*t together after the 2005 tri nations kiwis have got complacent the still have the ability.
* judging by the png performance vs aussies thw 24 all draw, the french emergence, plus england with the performance of leeds this year with so many english they are the team i believe will ultimately challenge come wc.

 

[eels_fan_01]

No, I am saying that head to head NZ has clear cut dominance over Australia at the sport of Rugby Union.

Umm who cares?? If you dont win the world cup whats the point?? The All Blacks are pretty much the Cronulla Sharks of international rugby.

 

[SilverSteeler]

Umm who cares?? If you dont win the world cup whats the point?? The All Blacks are pretty much the Cronulla Sharks of international rugby.

The funny thing is most of NZ cares about winning the Union World Cup and we are not going to win it with so much media hype over here.
The All Blacks have been the best team for the last four years but that has just been blown out the window because they didn't win the World Cup.
I would compare them to the 00-04 Roosters made 4 Grand Finals and only won one.

 

[nqboy]

I hear Berlei have bought out an All Blacks Wonder Bra. Heaps of support but no cups.

 

[Sam_the_man]

Being able to select a full strenght test team would be an ideal starting point for the Kiwis, following on from that getting the Southern Orcas into the NRL would be good.

For England, they have finally woken up from what i have read and have done two smart things. They have started serious development out side there heart land areas and just as important they are going to start reducing the number of imports per team. More English talent that can be exposed to Super league the better.

Tonga, they are doing wonders over there and have seriously developed there domestic comp, throw into that mix the players available to them in the NRL and Super League and i see no reason why they shouldn't be playing tests against the big three.

Fiji, same as Tonga.

France, give them 5 years on there current path and they really start to shake up the international game.

 

[Sam_the_man]

PNG are doing the right things also.

 

[Sam_the_man]

One of the problems with the New Zealand game is that young pacific islanders take to the game like a fish to water and they develop very quickly at a young age. The natural development for the junior grades in NZ is the power game! Basically overpower with brute force and force mistakes with brute force. Well this is all well and good and to be honest with you is in some ways a good thing BUT when the young Kiwi players come up against determined blokes that can't be bullied and the power game isn't working what do you do then?

The problem is that the small blokes get bashed out of the sport in new zealand at a young age which is why most modern Kiwi test teams feature heavily big powerful forwards and big moble outside backs but with a genuine lack of skilled half's and smart outside backs (Stacey Jones being the stand out exception since Gary Freeman).

Judging by what we're seeing in the Junior Kiwis and throughout the grades coming through that imbalance may have been put to rights somewhat, time will tell.

However as has been said before and is a valid point for current New Zealand tests team....give us our full strenght team and you'll have 3 genuine test playing nations at the highest level. If not then we continue with these half arsed Kiwi teams that take an absolute flogging because NRL and Super League teams wont release players and people go on laughing at international league. And what exactly do you think trotting out under strenght Kiwi sides for hidings is doing to the game in NZ?