nospam49 said:
We go one of two ways.
We either have a real world cup.....or, we allow any old teams to join in an call it a world championship.
I really dont think it has to be either or. The invitational tournament you sort of suggest featuring Qld, NSW , Abroriginals, Maori, NewZealand, Pacific Islands etc could be held in alternative yearly periods and it is a natural extension of the origin series that has the potential to be massive if done properly. If nothing else, all Qld/NSW games would get brilliant ratings.
I prefer a World Cup...the original rugby world cup.
What we need to do is make it an attractive competition, and there are a few things we need to do to make that happen.
Agreed... if it becomes a choice.
First, you need the WC to be something EVERYONE works towards. That means instead of endless Tri Series and playing the same old teams, you need a system in place that means every Test against every nation you play counts towards your seeding in the world cup.
You also need regular competition between ALL test nations. One off Test....or no tests at all between world cup absolutely KILLS the world cups credibility. We need the top nations playing atleast three lower ranked nations every year no matters what the circumstances are.
Agreed. But you also need to present these games/results properly. For example if Ireland have played Wales, commentators/media need to be aware of this fact when commentating. When/if USA play, constant reference needs to be made to the number of internationals players have played, the us team they play for, Tries they have scored. etc. If a US player or a PNG player is the leading try scorer in his competition, a big deal needs to be made of this.
You need the competition to be a COMPETITION. That means making some tough decisions for some teams and a chnage of mindset for others.
We need to merge the Pacific Islands. Alone, they are very week teams that hardly ever play and have no chnace at all of making any impact in the game. Combined, they become a force. They become something for islanders to workd towards. They have a good shot at doing something positive in the WC and all their reasources work towards a common goal.
Disagree. Look at the results of Samoa and Tonga in previous world cups. Both are very close to NZ level. Fiji and Cook Islands are not, but this is addressed by a proper qualifying system where it is doubtful they would be good enough to qualify (assuming 10 teams which is the current flavour of the month).
Ontop of this, the RFL needs to get rid of its slow, 1800's methods and build quickly. Sack Noble, you sack a coach when they perform terribly. Sack Noble and throw money at the likes of Craig Bellemy and Rickey Stuart. Make them offers they cant refuse....the money spent on a quality coach like that would be made up many times over if GB were to be a success once again.
The NZRL needs to do the same. This idea that Australia plays an Australian style of League is wrong. We play the most successfull style and a style all other nations should look to improve upon. The NZRL needs to look at signings the best coach avalible no matter where he is from and become MUCH more professional then they currently are.
Not disagreeing with what you say, but i dont think it matters. Both sides put up good enough fights and if we had 30 nations at their level it would be a great competition. I'd be happier if each nation found a reason why they were going to win and marketed this massively. Eg a 17 yr old whiz kid poised to tear apart australia, or England proving their dominance of the WCC isnt a mistake or something similar.
Another thing that need to be sorted out include this farcicle eligability rules we have in the game where by you can basically pick a team you want to play for and thats good enough.
Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain need to make it a rule that to play for their respective counbtries you need to become a naturalised citizen of that country.
Cant agree here. The only rule which needs to be changed is that it one country for life (possible exception only in cases such as an australian accepting citizenship in a minor nation or a Finland born player whose country wasnt playing league at the time they played and even thouse situations would be debatable).
The RL rules are as stringentor more stringent than soccer, RL, Basketball etc, with the only possible exception of Rugby union and who knows or cares what they are doing?
Its very easy to see what needs to be done....
Actually, i think that you missed the most important improvement. which needs to be made, imo. The standard world cup in most sports is group games and then a straight knockout. This means in RL that the group games are totally meaningless. I think the key is thinking outside the square and using traditional rugby league methods. Assuming ten teams. I would like two groups of 5 (totally random). Each side plays the ohters in the groups (possibly include a cross over game) but there is just one premiership table. Instead of a straight top 8 knockout, there is a traditional top 5 or top top 4. This means that if Australia, New Zealand, or England lose a group game (at least one will) they will be at a major disadvantage. So, The group games are not the same boring meaningless contests they would otherwise be.
but the games administration is so poor and so self important that it has no time to actually do anything positive for the game.
I think 2008 will be a low class failure. I hope Im wrong.....but the track record suggests Im right.
i'd like to disagree but you are right about the track record. Still, all signs are that they are improving in there attitude towards international league so you never know.
