taipan said:
Where is rl looking for a quick fix ?-the rugby league conference which now encompasses Wales and all over England,and separate conferences in Ireland and Scotland didnt happen over night.
A lot of league followers look for a quick fix. Just look at the web-sites that spring up alleging that, for example, rugby league exists in Singapore? They cannot even field a frigging team, for crying out aloud.
More to the point, league faces big decisions on the workload that elite players can handle, and there are no quick, easy answers to this. With the expansion of the NRL to 16 teams, that alone is 30 games. The ARU limits its contracted players to 30 games or so each year, it might be 32.
Add SOO, plus finals, and the best players will be up to 36 or more, without any internationals at all.
On one of the league boards, not this one I think, there was a poll as to whether people favoured their clubs over international commitments, and the answer was resoundingly "yes". Rugby league depends on the club game, and when push comes to shove, it will always win out against internationalisation.
These are hard issues, there are not easy solutions. Choices have to be made, and there is no quick fix.
It is interesting that many union people are involved in setting up rugby league teams and playing in themThey will form the basis in the future of national sides.Look what happened in france after the vichy/union thft and the SL war.the game has a side UTC in the ESL in 2006.Its happening in Jamaica.
If rugby union people get involved with league, that's fair enough. I hear that quite a few of the US team that played the Kangaroos recently are rugby union players, but they only play league in the summer. As for the Vichy regime in France, nobody has yet explained to me how it is that France managed to make a hugely successful league tour of Australia in the 1950's, and then defeated Australia in a test series in the seventies. It would make more sense to wonder what happened to league in France from then on, not way back from the forties on. The failure of league to kick on in France has a lot more to do with the fact that rugby union was professional there, with much more money in the game than there was for league.
Why should rugby league change its name ,it is as much rugby as rugby union.That is old school tie thinking and about as out of date.
I simply pointed out that the name "rugby" is far more widely recognised as being the 15 a-side game. Try this test, ask your mates whether they watched rugby or league (or footy) this weekend. The only ones to respond "rugby" will be the ones who watched rugby union. And so it is throughout the world, as far as I know. "Rugby league" is taken to mean a rugby union competition. So it makes it kind of tough to promote rugby league as a game, when the name has been taken by somebody else. This is a marketing issue, not an old school tie issue. Another name for it is "commonsense".
I grew up with rugby union until age 17 years,and am now a fanatical league supporter and internationalist.So its rubbish to assume that because you are brought up on something,that you cant change your preferences down the line.
Many league people consider union a game of technicalities and ref induced stoppages,and prefer league with its simplicity and flow.
Consider yourself shot.
Yes, of course league people don't like rugby union, but that is not your challenge, or the challenge for league...it is to attract people who have grown up to appreciate and enjoy rugby union, with all its complexities and technicalities, with the struggle for possession, and for the turnovers and surprises which happen all the time.
Incidentally, and for the record, this weekend Australia play Samoa (as I type), the All Blacks played Fiji last night, British and Irish Lions play New Zealand Maori tonight, and then South Africa play Uruguay.