Should Darren Lockyer's SL Test's be recognised?

[broncos2011]

They should not be recognised. They were not the official Australian Test team and were merely a mickey mouse outfit used by News Ltd.
Anybody who recalls those games realised they were a joke.

The games that the super league guys played were against full strength English/NZ teams. Why didn't the ARL play any internationals? OH WAI.. cause they were all sh*t players with no opposition. That rest of the world game was a pretty big deal LOL nope. Somehow it is considered a big deal from those idiots at the ARL.

disclaimer: I don't give a sh*t about ARL or superleague. However at least talk out of your mouth and not your arse.

 

[alexwilliams_66692007]

Of course it should. The Super League grand final win for the Broncos is recognised as a premiership for them, so why should a test in Super League be any different?

 

[Rooster Cogburn junior]

Sure why not. Broncs 97 premiership is recognized.
.

By Broncos fans.

 

[griffo346]

i think it should be counted

as someone has said is the tri series we had in the super league is that counted as SOO games? if so his sl australian games should be noticed

 

[Red Bear]

See world series cricket 20 years earlier.

He was playing for the Australian Super League side, not the Australian Test Side. So no, his games should not count

 

[LeagueXIII]

if Lockyer had only played 23 Tests would the media be pushing this......no of course not.

RL made a ruling, it's not an official test, now for once can they just stick with it.

It is similar to world series cricket, those tests don't count, hoiw would the Chappell's, Lillee, Marsh etc records be if their performances during this time was included?

Lockyer and his mates sold the game out back then

 

[roopy]

Only if Dennis Lillee can add his world series cricket wickets to his test total.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

You only have to look at that f**king disgraceful SL jersey with the big S on it to realise that side did not represent Australia, it represented News Ltd. It was not representative of the governing body of the sport in this country and that is the end of it. As someone else said, if you let bogus organisations pick their own "Australian" teams then anyone could do it in theory. Other countries might count them, but those teams were actually representing the national governing bodies of the sport in their countries. Plus, the whole recognition of Tests in RL is inconsistent so just because NZ count those games does not mean we have to. Keep the records as they are. Hopefully Lockyer will play five Tests this year and equal the record anyway. Then he'll have 55 Tests and 4 SL Tests to his name. That's still a good record and he'll still be a legend no matter what.

 

[RoboMuppet]

By Broncos fans.

Great post. :roll:

 

[Mr_Ugly]

The games that the super league guys played were against full strength English/NZ teams. Why didn't the ARL play any internationals? OH WAI.. cause they were all sh*t players with no opposition. That rest of the world game was a pretty big deal LOL nope. Somehow it is considered a big deal from those idiots at the ARL.
.

Yeah, you're right. Not like any of these blokes ever played rep footy before or after the Superleage war (that Andrew Johns bloke ... what a joke!):

Tim Brasher, Mark Coyne, Paul McGregor, Terry Hill, Robbie O'Davis, Brad Fittler, Geoff Toovey, Paul Harragon, Andrew Johns, Mark Carroll, Steve Menzies, Gary Larson, Billy Moore. Reserves: Matt Sing, John Simon, Nik Kosef, Dean Pay

It's certainly not like ARL players won the World Cup in '95 against full strength NZ and England sides. OH WAI...

 

[RL1908]

It's certainly not like ARL players won the World Cup in '95 against full strength NZ and England sides. OH WAI...

That's one of the bits that makes this issue not black and white - all the games the Kangaroos played at the 1995 World Cup were recognised as Tests by the ARL, but they were all against Super League teams/nations.

 

[Mr_Ugly]

That's one of the bits that makes this issue not black and white - all the games the Kangaroos played at the 1995 World Cup were recognised as Tests by the ARL, but they were all against Super League teams/nations.

The Poms and Kiwis in those games were playing for their respective countries' "legitmate" governing bodies, as were the Aussies who played in the '95 world cup and the '07 Rest of the World match. That much seems pretty straight forward to me.

 

[RL1908]

The Poms and Kiwis in those games were playing for their respective countries' "legitmate" governing bodies, as were the Aussies who played in the '95 world cup and the '07 Rest of the World match. That much seems pretty straight forward to me.

I'm not saying what the ARL should do re Lockyer & the '97 SL Tests, just pointing out that it isn't right to reach a decision/position based on saying the SL and ARL were operating in complete isolation.

The ARL Kangaroos and SL NZ organisations agreed and met in 1995 in a Test series.

"Legitimate" also depends upon whose shoes you stand in. The IRLF 1995-97 & every other RL nation recognised the Aust SL organisation as the official body for RL in Australia, not the ARL. As far as the IRLF was concerned, the rebel body in Aust 95-97 was the ARL. The teams the Kangaroos met in 1996-1997 had no legitimate body over them - they were teams organised by the ARL.

The IRLF, the RFL (hosts of the 95 WC) and the other countries agreed to allowing the ARL to enter a team at the 95 WC on behalf of Australia. ARL Kangaroos played SL teams in that WC.

Despite the media attention to this issue "robbing Lockyer", whether the ARL recognise the Aust SL team's games as Tests doesn't matter - they are already official Tests according to the IRLF and the other RL countries.

So if the ARL recognise the 4 SL Tests it gets absorbed into Lockyer's ARL Test tally.

If the ARL don't, then the 4 SL Tests still exist in Lockyer's international Test tally, and he equals Wiki.

 

[deluded pom?]

Correct me if I'm wrong but in 1995 countries had aligned themselves with SL but an actual SL comp hadn't actually started anywhere in the world. Some Aussie clubs had opted for the SL competition for 1997 but it was the ARL's decision NOT to select players who were aligned to SL for the 1995 WC. The players left out were still playing in an ARL comp in 1995 but the ARL chose not to select them for the Australian squad.

 

[RL1908]

Correct me if I'm wrong but in 1995 countries had aligned themselves with SL but an actual SL comp hadn't actually started anywhere in the world. Some Aussie clubs had opted for the SL competition for 1997 but it was the ARL's decision NOT to select players who were aligned to SL for the 1995 WC. The players left out were still playing in an ARL comp in 1995 but the ARL chose not to select them for the Australian squad.

Following a court action, the ARL was required to ensure that it considered all players for the Kangaroos for the 95 WC, no matter who they had signed for, however, none of the SL players were eventually selected. SL signed players had earlier been excluded from the 95 Origin & the Kangaroos against the SL Kiwis series.

Outside of the ARL, all the other existing RL national bodies signed to SL in April/May 1995 - at the same time, the "Super League Australia" body was established. The first English SL season commenced in early 1996, but the RFL signed to News Ltd in early April 1995 (roughly the same time as the NZRL).

In 1995 mid-season (against NZ) and the Oct/Nov WC, all the teams the ARL Kangaroos played were SL (News Ltd) aligned national teams.

Had they chosen to, the RLIF could have refused to allow the Kangaroos to represent Aust at the 95 WC - in other words, they could have let the SL Aust organisation select an Aust team from the SL-signed players in Australia.

It was only because of the initial Federal Court judgement that the 96 Aust SL competition did not proceed - that decision was overturned on appeal and the comp kicked off in 97.

 

[Mr_Ugly]

I'm not saying what the ARL should do re Lockyer & the '97 SL Tests, just pointing out that it isn't right to reach a decision/position based on saying the SL and ARL were operating in complete isolation.

The ARL Kangaroos and SL NZ organisations agreed and met in 1995 in a Test series.

"Legitimate" also depends upon whose shoes you stand in. The IRLF 1995-97 & every other RL nation recognised the Aust SL organisation as the official body for RL in Australia, not the ARL. As far as the IRLF was concerned, the rebel body in Aust 95-97 was the ARL. The teams the Kangaroos met in 1996-1997 had no legitimate body over them - they were teams organised by the ARL.

The IRLF, the RFL (hosts of the 95 WC) and the other countries agreed to allowing the ARL to enter a team at the 95 WC on behalf of Australia. ARL Kangaroos played SL teams in that WC.

Despite the media attention to this issue "robbing Lockyer", whether the ARL recognise the Aust SL team's games as Tests doesn't matter - they are already official Tests according to the IRLF and the other RL countries.

So if the ARL recognise the 4 SL Tests it gets absorbed into Lockyer's ARL Test tally.

If the ARL don't, then the 4 SL Tests still exist in Lockyer's international Test tally, and he equals Wiki.

I can see your point re: what the International Federation records vs what Australia records as a test. That said, the push is for a re-writing of history from an Australian point of view (to have the Aussie record say he played more tests for Australia than he did).

 

[RL1908]

I can see your point re: what the International Federation records vs what Australia records as a test. That said, the push is for a re-writing of history from an Australian point of view (to have the Aussie record say he played more tests for Australia than he did).

No one is trying to re-write history. I think the debate in the media was some merely pushing for the ARL to acknowledge that the Aust SL team's were Tests and Lockyer will therefore equal Wiki.

As I wrote above, I think that what the ARL decides doesn't matter anyway - those games were Tests recognised by the RLIF, by the RLIF-recognised Aust RL body at that time (ie Super League), and by the other RL nations. The Aust SL organisation 1995-97 wasn't a rebel organisation in the eyes of the RLIF and the RL world.

In the case of Lockyer & Wiki, the record in question is a international record, not a ARL record.

Lockyer has played 50 Tests under ARL + 4 Tests under SL Aust = 54.

 

[hutch]

No one is trying to re-write history. I think the debate in the media was some merely pushing for the ARL to acknowledge that the Aust SL team's were Tests and Lockyer will therefore equal Wiki.

As I wrote above, I think that what the ARL decides doesn't matter anyway - those games were Tests recognised by the RLIF, by the RLIF-recognised Aust RL body at that time (ie Super League), and by the other RL nations. The Aust SL organisation 1995-97 wasn't a rebel organisation in the eyes of the RLIF and the RL world.

In the case of Lockyer & Wiki, the record in question is a international record, not a ARL record.

Lockyer has played 50 Tests under ARL + 4 Tests under SL Aust = 54.

which is another reason we need an international body to be above and completely independent of the arl. the arl should look after rugby league matters within australia. the international body should look after 'test' matches and international games, expansion and international tournaments. i dont really know what the answer is regarding lockyer, but i wouldnt trust the arl's motives on the issue.

 

[aarondoyle]

He played the games, they should be recognised.

 

[Mr_Ugly]

No one is trying to re-write history. I think the debate in the media was some merely pushing for the ARL to acknowledge that the Aust SL team's were Tests and Lockyer will therefore equal Wiki.

As I wrote above, I think that what the ARL decides doesn't matter anyway - those games were Tests recognised by the RLIF, by the RLIF-recognised Aust RL body at that time (ie Super League), and by the other RL nations. The Aust SL organisation 1995-97 wasn't a rebel organisation in the eyes of the RLIF and the RL world.

In the case of Lockyer & Wiki, the record in question is a international record, not a ARL record.

Lockyer has played 50 Tests under ARL + 4 Tests under SL Aust = 54.

If they are recorded as tests for Australia, then to my mind, that would be re-writing history, because he didn't represent the Australian governing body. It's certainly re-writing the record books over a decade after the events.

What if the Wallabies playing the Lions (RL) or Kiwis under league rules. The RLIF might sanction the game, and could even consider it a test, but I wouldn't expect the body governing RL in Australia to consider the players as genuine Autralian RL test players.