Bobby DIGital
Coach
- Messages
- 13,052
Even Mal at that point said "Origin is dead" if I remember correctly
He even said that the concept was dated in his autobiography (1995).
Even Mal at that point said "Origin is dead" if I remember correctly
Origin was so popular through the late 80's and 90's due to it being so close and no side winning more than 3 series in a row. It dropped off a bit in popularity when NSW dominated during the early 2000's (couldn't fill stadiums) even though they also never got more than 3 in a row they were still very dominant.
Even Mal at that point said "Origin is dead" if I remember correctly
Origin is far from dead, but in a 2 horse race you need it to remain close for interest to be sustained long term as one side if continuing to lose can see ppl switch off
Australia hasn't beaten NZ in a meaningful game of Union in over a decade and a half, and they still charge $200+ for a ticket.
Australia hasn't beaten NZ in a meaningful game of Union in over a decade and a half, and they still charge $200+ for a ticket.
I fail to see how ratings or crowd attendances indicates that origin is at its best.
House rules is killing it with the ratings as a tv show, doesn't mean it isn't overhyped, over exposed horseshit though.
Im not questioning the conclusion, just the argument.
Who said it was "at it's best??"
Its geniused to think they are going to reduce it's scope or cut it back because of success of those figures.
What sensible administrator would do that? If anything there would be a strong argument to reduce the scope of the NRL and increase that of Origin.