Jeffles said:
dimitri
I think 16 teams is crap in a RLWC. I also thought 20 was too high i the RUWC but let's put thing in perspective. 92 countries play Unions, about 20 play League. Also, Unions has full time professional Leagues in Aust, NZ, RSA, the four UK ome nations, France, Japan (and others I'm sure). We have the NRL and RSL as well as semi pro comps in France and NZ.
While union has more players and more countries, you have to also look at the standard of the players.
To put things in perspective, while Uruguay are the 16th best country in the world at Union, (ie there are 76 other countries they are better than) they would only have about 200 players to choose from. Then look at the 16th best nation in Rugby League, the USA, who have about the same number of players.
Union may well be played in 92 countries, but the standard of the bottom 80 countries is woeful and most of these nations have very few players. I would guesstimate that 98% of the number of RU players in the world are in the top 16 nations.
In other words, #1 in the world versus #16 in the world in League would be pretty much the same difference in class as in Union.
When it comes to the top class players - professionals - the global number of RL players would not be fair short of the number of RU players.
In Australia, there are probably 700 professional RL players, and about 90 professional RU players.
In the whole world, there would be maybe 2000 pro RU players, and 1300 professional RL players.
The head of the IRB today said that the key to helping minor nations improve is not money, but competition. Therefore to help the largest number of minor nations improve, you need more teams involved in competitions like the World Cup.
The best number of teams in the RLWC would be the highest number that is economically viable. I think we therefore could and should have 16 teams in the RLWC.
The grandparent rule was criticised in the RLWC as opposed to the RUWC because it was used so much in the RLWC to push NRL and RSL players. The variety of player origin was mch smaller inj the RLWC, hence the criticism.
Limiting the GPR might be an idea, but think of the short term drop off in Standard while we wai to develop home grown players in these nations that rely on them. Still, home grow development is the best solution.
The grandparent rule was ridiculously overused in the RLWC, but the criticism the tournament encountered because of it was over the odds in comparison to the RUWC. A majority of teams in the RUWC would have had at least one New Zealander in their team.
The difference was that some teams in the RLWC were composed almost entirely of grandparent rule players - Scotland for example. Then there were teams like Russia, which because of the shortsighted use of Australian players made them seem like a joke team even though they weren't.
It's all about perceptions, and the general public's perception was that the RLWC was a joke.
To combat the perception, you need to avoid the spectacle of Luke Ricketson playing for Ireland and blokes from Brisbane suddenly discovering long-lost Russian grandmothers. When the average sports fan reads in the paper that Australia beat Russia 110-4 with Russia's only try scored by someone named Matthew Donovan it should come as no surprise that the perception was that the Russian team was not the genuine article.
A cap of some sort is definitely the way to go - whether this is an official rule or whether the teams just informally agree to limit their use of grandparent rule players I'm not sure.
We'e talking about 2007 because that's the RLIF date. 2008 is an Olympic year whic rlues those years out of rotation. It's for the Aust. centenary of RL. I think it is established that ideally the best year would be 2009, 2013 etc. Perhaps after 2007 this will be looked at. It may be a problem if scheduling clashes with RUWC, especially for nations outside Aust and NZ. But this would be for press coverage mainly. I think something will be worked out. A mid year tournament (interrupting NRL and RSL) may be a possibility. Who knows???
Sure, 2007 is the RLIF date, but that doesn't mean it is a good time to have a World Cup. In fact, it is the worst possible time. You say that 2008 is out of contention because that is an Olympic year, but it would be preferable to have the RLWC in the same year as the Olympics (at a different time of year of course) rather than having it in 2007 just after the directly comparable RUWC and less than 6 months after the Cricket WC. The domestic competitions ensure that October/November is the only real window for the RLWC.
In the last 5 years, the RLIF has had, at one point or another, plans for World Cups in 2002, 2004, 2005, and now 2007 or 2008. I don't think we should place any particular confidence in this 2007 date.
2005 and every 4 years thereafter is the best possible time for the RLWC. It isn't too late to get a 2005 world cup planned and delivered in time. If not 2005, we would be better off waiting till 2009.
To celebrate 100 year of Australian RL (and 100 years of international RL) in 2007 instead of a World Cup we should have a "Centenary Cup" involving the four original international RL nations - Australia, New Zealand, England and Wales - playing each other once in replicas of their original strips.
Centenary Cup 2007
wk1
Eng v Aus in Aus
Wal v NZ in NZ
wk2
Eng v NZ in NZ
Aus v Wal in Aus
wk3
Eng v Wal in Eng
Aus v NZ in Aus
