RLWC2007 plus international news

[AuckMel]

So long as, Lebanon, Greece, Italy, Russia, Scotland, Ireland, Wales etc. aren't filled with players who are first eligible to play for the country of their birth, then there will be no problem.

 

[griff]

And it doesn't really expose players to a higher level of competition.

How do you work that out?

Exactly what I say, having Maori and Aboriginal teams in the WC does not expose any players to a higher level of competition that aren't already exposed to it through the Kangaroos and Kiwis.

Players in the Maori and Aboriginal teams are players who already have the opportunity to play in the World Cup by playing for NZ or Australia.

I see. I must remember that next time I see an Australian playing for Scotland.

I agree with your sentiment that teams full of Australians playing for other countries is just as bad, if not worse, for the image of the RLWC than the Maori or Aborigines.

But ALL Maori players are also eligible to play for NZ. Not all Scotland players are eligible for Australia.

If you then give them a second opportunity, you are denying people from Tonga or Fiji or USA or wherever their only chance to go to the World Cup.

So long as this rule is applied to all other players, and not just Maori and Aborigine, then that's fine by me.

As I said, I agree with your point about not having teams full of Australians taking the place of 'real' players.

But if you have someone like Petero Civoneciva misses out on the Australian team then I have no argument with him playing for Fiji in the World Cup.

Similarly I would welcome people who miss out on the NZ team playing for Samoa if they are Samoan.

The other point is that having the Maori or Aboriginal sides in the WC would take the place of a whole nation who would otherwise be able to compete in the WC and greatly develop Rugby League in that country.

Australian-born players playing for Lebanon will be beneficial to the game in Lebanon, but New Zealanders playing for the Maori does nothing for the game in Tonga, or Fiji, or USA, etc.

 

[carlnz]

Hmmmmm how about one aussie allowed per team?? They do this in Basket ball and it looks like it works....just an idea so dont go nuts over it!

 

[AuckMel]

Exactly what I say, having Maori and Aboriginal teams in the WC does not expose any players to a higher level of competition that aren't already exposed to it through the Kangaroos and Kiwis.

It does if they weren't selected for NZ or Aus which is generally the case.

I agree with your sentiment that teams full of Australians playing for other countries is just as bad, if not worse, for the image of the RLWC than the Maori or Aborigines.

And yet you remain in support of this while disqualifying Maori and Aborigine players that very same right.

If you then give them a second opportunity, you are denying people from Tonga or Fiji or USA or wherever their only chance to go to the World Cup.

By allowing Luke Ricketson to play for Ireland, despite him being an Australian, aren't you doing the same thing?

Australian-born players playing for Lebanon will be beneficial to the game in Lebanon, but New Zealanders playing for the Maori does nothing for the game in Tonga, or Fiji, or USA, etc.

Well, that's true, but it does great things for the game in New Zealand, and of course it does expose Australians (who may never have got the opportunity) to play at a higher level.

The upside to that I guess, is more depth in Australian RL.

 

[griff]

Exactly what I say, having Maori and Aboriginal teams in the WC does not expose any players to a higher level of competition that aren't already exposed to it through the Kangaroos and Kiwis.

It does if they weren't selected for NZ or Aus which is generally the case.

What I mean by exposed to the WC is that a Maori player, if he is good enough, will represent the Kiwis. Therefore he already has the opportunity to play in the WC.

A Tongan (for example) player's only chance of playing in the WC is if Tonga are competing. If their place at the WC is instead filled by the Maori then they will miss out on their opportunity.

Obviously this would be detrimental to RL in Tonga.

I agree with your sentiment that teams full of Australians playing for other countries is just as bad, if not worse, for the image of the RLWC than the Maori or Aborigines.

And yet you remain in support of this while disqualifying Maori and Aborigine players that very same right.

...

By allowing Luke Ricketson to play for Ireland, despite him being an Australian, aren't you doing the same thing?

I'm not in support of players like Luke Ricketson playing for Ireland. Here and back on rleague I often argued against it. But I think most people would agree though that it would be good for the WC if (for example) Petero Civoniceva played for Fiji if he misses out on Australian selection. There is a difference between Civoniceva playing for Fiji and Ricketson playing for Ireland.

They are really two separate issues - one is a second NZ side taking a spot at the WC and forcing a whole nation to miss out, the other is players who miss out on selection for one country playing for another country with which they have tenuous links.

If a Maori side competes, not only will it damage the image of the WC, it will also cause a developing nation to miss out. If you have a 12 or 16 team event, with one of those being the Maori, then by necessity that means another nation misses out who would otherwise be there.

Australian-born players playing for Lebanon will be beneficial to the game in Lebanon, but New Zealanders playing for the Maori does nothing for the game in Tonga, or Fiji, or USA, etc.

Well, that's true, but it does great things for the game in New Zealand, and of course it does expose Australians (who may never have got the opportunity) to play at a higher level.

The upside to that I guess, is more depth in Australian RL.

I'm not convinced a Maori team would have any benefits to the game in NZ that the Kiwi team wouldn't. Is there any evidence of benefits to the game in NZ as a result of the Maori's appearance in the 2000 RLWC? It may even be detrimental in that instead of the whole nation getting behind the team's WC campaign the nation will be split.

Even if it is beneficial to NZ, if you have a choice between benefiting the game in NZ or benefiting the game in a developing nation, I think we should choose the developing nation.

 

[The Observer]

Griff, you have made a large number of points. I look forward to addressing your reply to my post and the Statistics NZ info soon, suffice it to say that there is a HELL of a lot to tear into there.

In the meantime:

What I mean by exposed to the WC is that a Maori player, if he is good enough, will represent the Kiwis. Therefore he already has the opportunity to play in the WC.

A Tongan (for example) player's only chance of playing in the WC is if Tonga are competing. If their place at the WC is instead filled by the Maori then they will miss out on their opportunity.

Obviously this would be detrimental to RL in Tonga.

I know you are only using Tonga as an example, but there are only two players that were born in the Kingdom of Tonga, grew up there and are a product of Tongan sport, playing in top line RL worldwide. One is Tevita Vaikona, the other is Mal Kaufusi.

There are a couple of other players that were born in the Kingdom of Tonga but moved to other countries like e.g. Les Vainikolo or Fifita Moala. For all intents and purposes they are products of NZRL.

Now a Tongan RL product does not have to rely on Mate Ma'a Tonga qualifying for RLWC as his only chance of playing in a WC. He could move to NRL or ESL to play pro RL (perhaps after showing his wares in a tournament like the World Sevens) and qualify for the Roos or Lions on the basis of 3 years residency. It is a possibility and good luck to him. In fact, realistically, it is his only chance of getting a decent career ATM. Tonga is a 3rd world country and has no cash. Alternatively, that Tongan player could stick with Mate Ma'a and play in the Emerging Nations RLWC.

Did you see the Tongan and Samoan lineups in RWC? RU is the no 1 sport there, and the IRB employs the One Nation rule, but the lineups were dominated by Aussies and NZers of islander descent. Look at opinion polls in those countries - New Zealander Joe Rokocoko and Australian Lote Tuqiri are two biggest celebrities there. It doesn't matter that they play for other countries. So ou're hypothetical Tongan player might not make it into his own team anyway for the biggest event - this is in Tonga's number 1 sport as well.

If Tonga is good enough to qualify for RLWC, then they should be able to prove it beating other teams in their regional qualifying tournament, including the Maori. If they can't beat the Maori, and don't qualify for RLWC proper, then they can play in the Emerging Nations RLWC. Pretty simple.

There is a difference between Civoniceva playing for Fiji and Ricketson playing for Ireland.

Fijian born Civoniceva has said that he is not interested in playing for Fiji.
Forster born Ricketson said he loved playing for Ireland.

I would be very interested in seeing what you think the difference is.

Is there any evidence of benefits to the game in NZ as a result of the Maori's appearance in the 2000 RLWC?

Are you asking if there is any evidence of benefits to the game in the Maori communities and amongst Maori people? The question should be looking at benefits to the game as played in Maori communities before it starts looking at benefits to the game in NZ as a whole. In answer, it would be unrealistic to put that expectation on the team given the general climate of RLWC 2000.

Given that the RLWC was not a commercial success, one could argue that the Kangaroos were the only team (if they even did) that really derived any benefit because they got a cash prize. Maybe the Cedars had an impact on setting up the game in Lebanon.

It may even be detrimental in that instead of the whole nation getting behind the team's WC campaign the nation will be split.

Perhaps the people of NZ will get behind both the Kiwis AND Aotearoa Maori?

Even if it is beneficial to {the Maori peoples of }NZ, if you have a choice between benefiting the game in {the Maori communities of }NZ or benefiting the game in a developing nation, I think we should choose the developing nation.

Why? We also have a duty to put on a competitive RLWC. Its not about picking and choosing who is more worthy. If there are going to be regional qualifying tournaments then the teams will choose themselves.

A developing nation may not be in a position to make use of the opportunity OR may not be able to play well.

For example, RLWC 2000 organisers selected South Africa and Russia to compete in RLWC 2000. Perhaps they thought that since RL was played in those nations, then it would be good for the profile of the game and make RL appear to be an international sport. However the Rhinos and Bears were not ready for an RLWC.

South Africa railroaded a bunch of Union players to participate in RLWC 2000. The team was flogged by Tonga and France and they all went back to Union once the tournament finished. What good did that do for RL?

Russia also was put straight into the RLWC 2000. They did not have the development structures in place back at home. The Roos flogged by a world record score which created the worst headlines for the game and they still didn't put the structures into place afterwards!

Unlike teams like Russia and South Africa, the Maori will compete and won't concede 100+ points.

 

[The Observer]

As yakstorm said, it would only make the tournament open to more criticism.

I read Yakstorm's point as being that if RLIF were to include those teams, then you would need excellent marketing to sell it to the world. That is a sound point.

If this is the case then there should be a different South Africian Rugby sides, one with Anglo-Saxons and one with Balck South Africians.

It appears you only read the last page.

1. The ATSI peoples of Australia are the indigenous people of this country. 'English' South Africans (AFAIK that is the correct term) and Afrikaaner South Africans are not indigenous to South Africa.
2. Black South Africans haven't sought a separate Rugby side for Blacks so it is a moot point. In fact, they have sought a more cosmopolitan united Springbok team.

Anyway, %wise Black South Africans represent an overwhelming majority of the population so I would object to an indigenous South African team going into the RLWC if they asked for one. To use another example that people might bring up, In a country like Fiji, indigenous Fijians (as opposed to the other major group, Indian Fijians) represent around 50% pop. and Indian Fijians around 45% (51-44 according to the CIA World Factbook).

3. ATSI peoples represent a distinct minority of the population of Aus %wise i.e. 1-1.5%. Maori represent a distinct minority of the pop of NZ but estimates vary from 9-13%.

 

[griff]

Griff, you have made a large number of points. I look forward to addressing your reply to my post and the Statistics NZ info soon, suffice it to say that there is a HELL of a lot to tear into there.

Feel free to go for it, just wanted to make the point that England, Scotland etc are universally recognised as countries, and Maori isn't.

In the meantime:

What I mean by exposed to the WC is that a Maori player, if he is good enough, will represent the Kiwis. Therefore he already has the opportunity to play in the WC.

A Tongan (for example) player's only chance of playing in the WC is if Tonga are competing. If their place at the WC is instead filled by the Maori then they will miss out on their opportunity.

Obviously this would be detrimental to RL in Tonga.

I know you are only using Tonga as an example, but there are only two players that were born in the Kingdom of Tonga, grew up there and are a product of Tongan sport, playing in top line RL worldwide. One is Tevita Vaikona, the other is Mal Kaufusi.

There are a couple of other players that were born in the Kingdom of Tonga but moved to other countries like e.g. Les Vainikolo or Fifita Moala. For all intents and purposes they are products of NZRL.

Now a Tongan RL product does not have to rely on Mate Ma'a Tonga qualifying for RLWC as his only chance of playing in a WC. He could move to NRL or ESL to play pro RL (perhaps after showing his wares in a tournament like the World Sevens) and qualify for the Roos or Lions on the basis of 3 years residency. It is a possibility and good luck to him. In fact, realistically, it is his only chance of getting a decent career ATM. Tonga is a 3rd world country and has no cash. Alternatively, that Tongan player could stick with Mate Ma'a and play in the Emerging Nations RLWC.

Obviously it's possible that a given Tongan player will be eligible to play for other nations especially if he was a professional playing in Australia or GB.

But I think it would be preferable for him and the game of RL if he played for Tonga. If he made the Aus or GB teams this would just strengthen already strong nations at the expense of developing nations. I'm sure Tongans would love to see a full strength side with the likes of Vaikona, Moala et al take on the top nations.

Did you see the Tongan and Samoan lineups in RWC? RU is the no 1 sport there, and the IRB employs the One Nation rule, but the lineups were dominated by Aussies and NZers of islander descent. Look at opinion polls in those countries - New Zealander Joe Rokocoko and Australian Lote Tuqiri are two biggest celebrities there. It doesn't matter that they play for other countries. So ou're hypothetical Tongan player might not make it into his own team anyway for the biggest event - this is in Tonga's number 1 sport as well.

Yes a lot of the players for the island nations were living in NZ. But most of those were islanders by birth rather than by descent. Caucau for example - lives and plays in NZ (and would have been eligible to play for NZ) but certainly Fijian by birth.

If Tonga is good enough to qualify for RLWC, then they should be able to prove it beating other teams in their regional qualifying tournament, including the Maori. If they can't beat the Maori, and don't qualify for RLWC proper, then they can play in the Emerging Nations RLWC. Pretty simple.

You can't really say a nation doesn't deserve to be at the World Cup because they can't beat the Maori. Would France not deserve to go to the World Cup if they can't beat Yorkshire?

By all means have Tonga play against Fiji, Samoa etc to qualify, but the Maori being better than Tonga is not a reason in itself for their inclusion in a WC.

The WC provides benefits to a country in exposure and competition that the Emerging Nations World Cup does not. Even if they are in the ENWC, they are missing out.

There is a difference between Civoniceva playing for Fiji and Ricketson playing for Ireland.

Fijian born Civoniceva has said that he is not interested in playing for Fiji.
Forster born Ricketson said he loved playing for Ireland.

I would be very interested in seeing what you think the difference is.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Civoniceva was born in Fiji of Fijian parents and lived in Fiji. Ricketson was born in Australia of Australian parents and never would have had anything to do with Ireland until he suddenly discovered an Irish grandparent prior to the World Cup.

If you qualify for a country by birth rather than by descent it makes you playing for that country that much more valid.

I'm not sure what the answer is to the grandparent rule problem. But it's clear that overuse of the grandparent rule in the hope of making teams slightly more competitive damages the World Cup much more than blowout scorelines.

Is there any evidence of benefits to the game in NZ as a result of the Maori's appearance in the 2000 RLWC?

Are you asking if there is any evidence of benefits to the game in the Maori communities and amongst Maori people? The question should be looking at benefits to the game as played in Maori communities before it starts looking at benefits to the game in NZ as a whole. In answer, it would be unrealistic to put that expectation on the team given the general climate of RLWC 2000.

Fair point about the lack of success of RLWC 2000 meaning that it was not as able to benefit anyone as much as it otherwise may have done. Perhaps another WC may benefit Maori communities, but I don't see why they wouldn't be benefitted by the Kiwis if the Maori didn't compete.

Given that the RLWC was not a commercial success, one could argue that the Kangaroos were the only team (if they even did) that really derived any benefit because they got a cash prize. Maybe the Cedars had an impact on setting up the game in Lebanon.

It may even be detrimental in that instead of the whole nation getting behind the team's WC campaign the nation will be split.

Perhaps the people of NZ will get behind both the Kiwis AND Aotearoa Maori?

Possible, but when it comes down to who they want to win, they would have to make a choice. Instead of the whole country uniting behind the national team, the support would be divided.

From a purely marketing point of view, this means you lose the notion of a whole country vs a whole country which is extremely valuable in international sport. Look at how much the RUWC made of it when in actual fact 99% of some of those countries wouldn't have even cared the match was going on.

Even if it is beneficial to {the Maori peoples of }NZ, if you have a choice between benefiting the game in {the Maori communities of }NZ or benefiting the game in a developing nation, I think we should choose the developing nation.

Why? We also have a duty to put on a competitive RLWC. Its not about picking and choosing who is more worthy. If there are going to be regional qualifying tournaments then the teams will choose themselves.

Just to pick up on the bolding - as part of NZ, Maori communities already have the benefit of a team in the World Cup. Using Tonga as an example yet again, if they miss out they will have no team in the WC. NZ 2, Tonga 0.

Maori people already have the potential to play in the WC via the Kiwis, so if it comes down to the choice between a Maori team or a developing nation, I think it is self-evident for growing and fostering the game internationally that the developing nation should be preferred.

We may not pick and choose exactly which teams should make it, but all sports make the choices about what teams should be there. Soccer for example does not just go for competitiveness and pick the best 32 teams in the world for the WC. They have regional quotas, and structure it to virtually ensure that the USA qualifies, such is the importance of the US market.

We are certainly entitled to make the choice that every other sport in the world does except Lacrosse - to have only countries in the World Cup.

A competitive WC is just one element of what makes it successful. Being truly international is probably more important, as is the legitimacy of the countries competing.

A developing nation may not be in a position to make use of the opportunity OR may not be able to play well.

For example, RLWC 2000 organisers selected South Africa and Russia to compete in RLWC 2000. Perhaps they thought that since RL was played in those nations, then it would be good for the profile of the game and make RL appear to be an international sport. However the Rhinos and Bears were not ready for an RLWC.

South Africa railroaded a bunch of Union players to participate in RLWC 2000. The team was flogged by Tonga and France and they all went back to Union once the tournament finished. What good did that do for RL?

Russia also was put straight into the RLWC 2000. They did not have the development structures in place back at home. The Roos flogged by a world record score which created the worst headlines for the game and they still didn't put the structures into place afterwards!

Unlike teams like Russia and South Africa, the Maori will compete and won't concede 100+ points.

True, the developing nation may not make the most of the opportunity to make the most of its appearance at the World Cup. But to quote you, it would be unrealistic to put that expectation on a team given the general climate of RLWC 2000.

South Africa certainly didn't use the opportunity but I think there is a strong argument that RLWC 2000 did in fact benefit Russia despite the scorelines.

But at least developing nations got an opportunity.

The worst media for the RLWC was not about Russia being flogged but "they only have teams like Maori and Cook Is in it to make up the numbers", "there are no actual Scottish players in the Scottish team", "Bob Campbell playing for Russia despite having a Polish grandfather", "every team is full of Aussies and NZers" and "the whole thing is a joke".

The point about the Maori being more worthy of a spot because they are competitive is shortsighted. It's the competiveness vs legitimacy trade off that I've mentioned in the past. Teams stacked with GP rule players, the presence of the Maori team, players with tenuous links to that country, all made the WC slightly more competitive but also greatly contributed to the WC's lack of legitimacy in the public view.

You may not agree with the view, but in most people's eyes (and the media's eyes), the presence of the Maori team at the WC contributed to making the event lack legitimacy. Maybe the Maori are (slightly) more competitive than a developing nation. But the small benefit they bring to the WC in having some closer matches is more than outweighed by the damage their inclusion does to the event's public image.

The RUWC marketed itself heavily on legitimacy ("true colours") and the lack of competitiveness through most of the tournament didn't really impact on its success. This shows that the next RLWC needs to put the emphasis on legitimacy over competitiveness.

 

[The Observer]

Josh Reading made a good suggestion on the NRL forum

NRL World Cup Promotion Idea

Eg. Bulldogs/West Tigers joint - Lebanon
Cowboys - PNG
Broncos - Fiji
Roosters - Russia
Newcastle - France
Melbourne - Celts

Each NRL club should use its resources to promote the games at their stadiums. Encourage all Newcastle fans to follow France over the tournament - even follow them to Sydney for games - thus we could group in NRL groups virtually.

What do you think of the promotion idea? Maybe you have different connections and for a reason?

Bulldogs/West Tigers joint - Lebanon
Cowboys - PNG
Roosters-Russia

These 3 fit well. Roosters-Russia also fits because there is a large ex pat Russian community in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney.

Then again, France could also work well with the Roosters too. France RU stayed in the Swiss Grand in Bondi during RWC 2003. The Roosters adopted their msacot from the French RL national team., the Chanticleers (which means Rooster). In a Centenary of RL year, that would be a nice marketing tool.

Perhaps GB could be based in Newcastle? Hunter Valley tourism would get a boost from Poms coming over for the Cup, and its a great destination to visit. Knights fans will flock to see any good international RL.

I'm not sure that Fiji would qualify before Tonga or Samoa. If Samoa or Tonga qualify, then it may be better to base their games at Ericsson Stadium and have them work with the Warriors. The Warriors are based in the South of Auckland where there is a huge expatriate Pacific Islander population.

Alternatively, there is also a huge PI population in Western Sydney, so Parramatta and Penrith could host those games.

 

[griff]

Josh Reading made a good suggestion on the NRL forum

NRL World Cup Promotion Idea

...

It is extremely important to make use of the existing club based support for a World Cup in Australia to be successful, but I'm not sure if this proposal is the right message to be sending.

I think it has the potential to devalue the World Cup.

Clubs 'adopting' WC teams effectively sends the message that the clubs are more important than the international teams. This would then mean that the WC as a whole would be seen as less important than the club competition.

I know the AFL tried to forge a club/nation link when they had their little world cup but I think RL should be above that.

Definitely have Lebanon play their games in Western Sydney and have Samoa play in Auckland. Would be good to base GB/England in a particular area for a few matches to make it easier for travelling supporters, and would be a good idea to somehow make use of the Bulldogs support amongst the Lebanese community. But I don't think it has to be formalised with a club/nation link.

A better way to make use of the club support for RL and transfer it across to support for the RLWC might be for all clubs and the NRL to pool their data on season ticket holders, members, and people who have bought tickets to big events and allow WC marketers to target specific segments with targeted letters. eg Souths fans might get a letter from George Piggins talking about how proud he was to play in the RLWC and urging people to take this once in 30 years chance to see a RLWC in Australia, Canberra fans get something similar from Mal Meninga, people with Lebanese surnames get something from Hazem El Masri, people who went to the NRL grand final get something telling them the World Cup final will be even better etc.

 

[AuckMel]

The RUWC marketed itself heavily on legitimacy ("true colours") and the lack of competitiveness through most of the tournament didn't really impact on its success. This shows that the next RLWC needs to put the emphasis on legitimacy over competitiveness.

What a crock.

Have you seen the list of players from the RUWC who played for countries they weren't born in?

Western Samoa alone had something like 20 born and bred New Zealanders in their squad.

The RUWC was successful, because it's percieved to be a true International sport.

Rugby League World Cups will always be considered inferior so long as the game has International matches 2 or 3 times a year, and club football remains the games main focus.

 

[AuckMel]

Even if it is beneficial to NZ, if you have a choice between benefiting the game in NZ or benefiting the game in a developing nation, I think we should choose the developing nation.

I won't bother banging my head against a brick wall, but I will pass a comment on this.

If it wasn't for the Warriors, Rugby League in New Zealand would be in very serious trouble.

Many people seem to think just because the Warriors are going well, then Rugby League must be well too. On the just completed NZA tour of the UK, the team (IIRC) won only one game. This to me is very disturbing, and suggests to me, that all's not as well as it may seem.

English clubs still feed of the junior development done by the Leagues around New Zealand. This suggests to me, that there is still not nearly enough money involved in the game to keep players at home.

Young Kiwi players are snapped up at high school level, taken to Australia and suddenly they become Junior Kangaroos who become brainwashed into believing State Of Origin is the pinacle of the game, and not playing for your country of birth.

"I" think New Zealand is one of developing nations you talk about. It will remain that way while our players have to go overseas to earn a decent living. And yes, I include Warriors players in that group as well.

 

[griff]

The RUWC marketed itself heavily on legitimacy ("true colours") and the lack of competitiveness through most of the tournament didn't really impact on its success. This shows that the next RLWC needs to put the emphasis on legitimacy over competitiveness.

What a crock.

Have you seen the list of players from the RUWC who played for countries they weren't born in?

Western Samoa alone had something like 20 born and bred New Zealanders in their squad.

I'm afraid I don't see what you think is "a crock".

The RUWC did market itself heavily on legitimacy/authenticity/credibility. That's clearly the case. Where did I say each team had only home grown players? I know a lot of players played for other countries from where they were born.

A lot of Samoan players were born in NZ - but I don't have any problem with them playing for Samoa provided they have genuine and strong links ie parents born in Samoa.

Don't really see what the number of NZ-born Samoans playing in the RUWC has to do with whether the Maori should compete in the RLWC.

The RUWC was successful, because it's percieved to be a true International sport.

Exactly, no arguments from me. That's what I'm saying.

But why is it perceived to be a true international sport? It is the perceived legitimacy of the teams that is most important. How competitive each team is is less important.

Rugby League World Cups will always be considered inferior so long as the game has International matches 2 or 3 times a year, and club football remains the games main focus.

No-one here is going to argue about the need for more international matches.

The Rugby League World Cup will always be inferior to the RUWC for the foreseeable future.

What I'm saying is let's learn the lessons of the successes of the RUWC to make the RLWC as good as possible. It would be silly to jeopardise the whole RLWC by including the Maori team for little benefit to RL generally.

If it wasn't for the Warriors, Rugby League in New Zealand would be in very serious trouble.

Many people seem to think just because the Warriors are going well, then Rugby League must be well too. On the just completed NZA tour of the UK, the team (IIRC) won only one game. This to me is very disturbing, and suggests to me, that all's not as well as it may seem.

English clubs still feed of the junior development done by the Leagues around New Zealand. This suggests to me, that there is still not nearly enough money involved in the game to keep players at home.

Young Kiwi players are snapped up at high school level, taken to Australia and suddenly they become Junior Kangaroos who become brainwashed into believing State Of Origin is the pinacle of the game, and not playing for your country of birth.

"I" think New Zealand is one of developing nations you talk about. It will remain that way while our players have to go overseas to earn a decent living. And yes, I include Warriors players in that group as well.

That may all be the case, but New Zealand RL has things a lot better than any developing RL nation.

And including the Maori in a World Cup isn't going to stem the tide is it? Hardly going to stop players going overseas or seeing Origin as the pinnacle.

On the contrary, the Maori's inclusion is going to make the World Cup and international RL more open to criticism. In turn this is going to give club and origin football even more importance.

To make any sort of valid argument on these grounds for the Maori's inclusion in the WC instead of a developing nation you would have to show that the benefit to the game of Rugby League caused by their involvement would be greater than the benefit to RL that would be brought about in that developing nation.

There are many better ways to improve the status of the game in NZ than the Maori playing in the World Cup. One would be more regular test matches, another would be approaching the NRL to re-invest some of the revenue it earns in NZ into raising the standard of the NZ domestic competition, still another would be a Warriors team in an NRL elite youth competition, even better would be a second NRL franchise.

In contrast the Maori playing in the World Cup would not make a jot of difference.

 

[IKnowIt]

All this talk about an Aboriginal or Maori team in the World Cup is ridiculous because the World Cup is meant to be the pinnacle of International Rugby League, a competition to see who is the Worlds Best nation, showcase the game, and help develop the areas of nations in the World Cup and near World Cup standard. Having sides based purely on ethnicity is not what representing your county is about, why split a country? When it should be united.

The situation with the UK is different from the norm, but it is international recognised and accepted that sometimes the UK competes as one or as separate nations (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland).

If we are going to split nations up on ethnicity, what happens during the world cup if there are injuries to Australia, and they call upon an Aboriginal player on the Aboriginal Team, its possible for some players to play for one team during the World Cup and then play for a different team during the same World Cup, maybe even play against the team they started the tournament with!

If we are going to start splitting nations based on Ethnicity why not an Australians of Irish decent team? Australians of English Decent? Australians of Scottish decent? These teams would have a larger segment of the Australian Population than the Aboriginals would.

For a 14 team World Cup we could have the following teams:

Australia
Australian Aborigines
Australians of Irish Decent
Australians of Scottish Decent
Australians of English Decent
New Zealand
New Zealand Maori
England
Scotland
Wales
Ireland
France

Plus 2 qualifiers

This would be a great way to help expand Rugby League international!!! (Sarcasm.)



Seriously though, the World Cup is for Nation’s only and both Aboriginals and Maoris are represented already by Australia and New Zealand. The situation for the UK is something that needs to be sorted out by the IRLF (together or separated, is both accepted for international sport). Personally I think its best for now for the UK to be separated to help grow the game in Scotland and Wales.

I think that Aboriginal and Maori teams can add a lot to Rugby League, they can be used as warm up games for tours to Australia and New Zealand, warm up games for World Cups, these teams can also be used to help in developing areas by going on their own tours (USA, Pacific Islands, Holland, Scotland etc), but when it’s the World Cup it should only be for Separate Nations, which both Aboriginals and Maoris already have a team representing them, Australia and New Zealand.

 

[AuckMel]

That may all be the case, but New Zealand RL has things a lot better than any developing RL nation.

And including the Maori in a World Cup isn't going to stem the tide is it? Hardly going to stop players going overseas or seeing Origin as the pinnacle.

On the contrary, the Maori's inclusion is going to make the World Cup and international RL more open to criticism. In turn this is going to give club and origin football even more importance.

To make any sort of valid argument on these grounds for the Maori's inclusion in the WC instead of a developing nation you would have to show that the benefit to the game of Rugby League caused by their involvement would be greater than the benefit to RL that would be brought about in that developing nation.

There are many better ways to improve the status of the game in NZ than the Maori playing in the World Cup. One would be more regular test matches, another would be approaching the NRL to re-invest some of the revenue it earns in NZ into raising the standard of the NZ domestic competition, still another would be a Warriors team in an NRL elite youth competition, even better would be a second NRL franchise.

In contrast the Maori playing in the World Cup would not make a jot of difference.

You seem to have this fixation about the Maori team, and yet no once did I mention them in this post.

You do, however, suggest a couple of good options for the game in New Zealand.

 

[AuckMel]

All this talk about an Aboriginal or Maori team in the World Cup is ridiculous because the World Cup is meant to be the pinnacle of International Rugby League, a competition to see who is the Worlds Best nation, showcase the game, and help develop the areas of nations in the World Cup and near World Cup standard. Having sides based purely on ethnicity is not what representing your county is about, why split a country? When it should be united.

Don't panic mate.

You'll get your World Cup with only real nations in it. Never mind that they'll be full of Australians and NZers, it's all good for the game in those developing nations, right?

It's just a pity those nations will probably never see those players play in the country their grand-parents or parents were born in.

 

[ripper]

Too Bad the actual League will be a farce with the Aussies sending a full strength team and scoring 8 trys to 2 in the final again.

 

[The Observer]

The RUWC marketed itself heavily on legitimacy ("true colours") and the lack of competitiveness through most of the tournament didn't really impact on its success. This shows that the next RLWC needs to put the emphasis on legitimacy over competitiveness.

What a crock.

Agreed. RWC did use True Colours to promote its legitimacy at all because the RWC never had to prove itself to anyone that it was an international sport. Only a superficial reading of it would come to that conclusion. All True Colours was about was getting people to support a team, any team, passionately - which it did.

Have you seen the list of players from the RUWC who played for countries they weren't born in?

Western Samoa alone had something like 20 born and bred New Zealanders in their squad.

This was the example I was referring to. I don't have a problem with Samoa picking 20 NZers in RL or RU, but I was demonstrating that regardless of whether the Aborigines/Maori make it, we will not see all these born n bred Samoans Tongans in the Cup anyway.

The RUWC was successful, because it's percieved to be a true International sport.

Rugby League World Cups will always be considered inferior so long as the game has International matches 2 or 3 times a year, and club football remains the games main focus.

All good points as usual, Auckmel.

 

[ripper]

and all the internationals are one sided thrashings unless the Aussies play a servely weakend team

 

[carlnz]

oh please....the side that toured GB will be your side in 2004, Andrew Johns will retire from Rep footy because he cant handle it no more....Australia will get knocked if Its number one postion in world rankings this year!! Gorden Tallis is correct in saying is bosy cant handle it no more, look at all the injuries aussie had....who will be the new half back once kimmorely gets injuried? or retires?

As for us kiwis....we get heaps of kids growing in our back yard...as long as Rugby dont steal them :roll: