That is why origin > tests

[Masoe_eats_babies]

One minute you're saying "look at football", the next minute you're slandering the average football fan when I inform you of football culture.

Eejits. That's what you are.

 

[ANTiLAG]

The test of quality is to ask about games that don't England yourself, and bar Kiwis everyone else in the world would rather see an Origin game than NZ vs somebody else :lol:

I have no idea what is going on in this sentence. Can someone translate it to English?

 

[Hutty1986]

That would be tri-nations winning NZ in 05 and 10 to go with the World cup.

NSW won origin when last?

2005 I believe, the same year that NZ won the TN, as you point out. We've probably still won more games than NZ has over Aus in that time.

And lol@bringing up the Rugby World Cup, if McCaw was actually policed at the breakdown France knock you off in the final and the world has another chuckle at the All Blicks choking.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

I have no idea what is going on in this sentence. Can someone translate it to English?

What I meant to say is that it'd be pointless to ask an English fan whether they value England Vs someone else over Origin, as it defeats the purpose of my point.

It would be like asking a Queenslander whether they value Origin over internationals.

To determine which is best you compare 2 games with non involvement for the fans.

Would English fans rather see an Origin or NZ vs Australia? Clearly they prefer Origin!

 

[ANTiLAG]

I absolutely think the Football World Cup is the pinnacle of the sport. Trying to divide my opinion from MEB's does not make my point less valid.

Until the RLWC can be more than the top 3-4 nations having a realistic chance at winning it, it boils down to nothing more than the annual 4 Nations tournament held less often.

Oh please. So many Soccer World Cups have merely been about who can get up and play to the pinnacle to upset Brazil.

 

[ANTiLAG]

So how a team is currently going is less important to how they went 4 years ago (will be 5 by the time the next one rolls around)?

My my, you really are desperate to hold onto absolutely anything no matter how irrelevant it is to current status arnt you.

Sad

Present form is important to determine the next winner. Cannot win the Major premiership if you don't make the finals. Does not change last season's premiers as still being the reigning champs.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

A northern hemisphere team has won one RWC. The rest to the Tri Nations, SA, AUS, NZ. Does not change that the RWC means more, is rarer, and more precious, includes everyone, and is thus the pinnacle, more than a mere tri nations. As George Gregan said "4 more years".

That would be a great point if we were talking about the Rugby Union. But we're not.....so it's not a good point at all.

Oh please. So many Soccer World Cups have merely been about who can get up and play to the pinnacle to upset Brazil.

Despite Brazil not getting near the final in the last two World Cups? Still miles more competitive than the RLWC - which is what we're talking about.

 

[ANTiLAG]

2005 I believe, the same year that NZ won the TN, as you point out. We've probably still won more games than NZ has over Aus in that time.

And lol@bringing up the Rugby World Cup, if McCaw was actually policed at the breakdown France knock you off in the final and the world has another chuckle at the All Blicks choking.

Oh please. As if George Smith wasn't a master of infringing too. It is the opensides job. To think otherwise is naive. Personally, I think Pocock is well on his way to usurping McCaw's title as best openside.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Would English fans rather see an Origin or NZ vs Australia? Clearly they prefer Origin!

Read some of the other threads. Poms on LU have brought up RLWC as the pinnacle and the very 2008 final as an example. You're deluded. I see noone agrees with you about the Soccer World Cup not being the pinnacle.

You should quit while you're behind.

Club derbies with an international assortment of players are merely that, its just Cronulla v St George or the ol' Norths v Manly.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Present form is important to determine the next winner. Cannot win the Major premiership if you don't make the finals. Does not change last season's premiers as still being the reigning champs.

Again, that would be a relevant point if the NRL premiership was only held every four years.....

 

[ANTiLAG]

Again, that would be a relevant point if the NRL premiership was only held every four years.....

No it is a relevant point, full stop. It is an analogy as to rankings. You brought rankings up. Deal with their significance. Rankings does not determine World Champions, only seeding.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

One minute you're saying "look at football", the next minute you're slandering the average football fan when I inform you of football culture.

Eejits. That's what you are.

Football culture does not = British yob. There's a reason it's called the World's Game.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

No it is a relevant point, full stop. It is an analogy as to ratings. You brought rankings up. Deal with their significance. Rankings does not determine World Champions, only seeding.

No I didn't. You're getting that confused with your own point that you're mixing up who you're arguing it with.

 

[ANTiLAG]

No I didn't. You're getting that confused with your own point that you're mixing up who you're arguing it with.

The point holds, year to year matches determine rankings which serve to determine seeding for the next world cup.

Tri Nations is best for the year. Not World Champions for the period.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

The point holds, year to year matches determine rankings which serve to determine seeding for the next world cup.

Tri Nations is best for the year. Not World Champions for the period.

And again, until the RLWC can be more than AUS,NZ or ENG having a realistic chance of winning it, it holds no more importance than a 4N tournament.

 

[ANTiLAG]

And again, until the RLWC can be more than AUS,NZ or ENG having a realistic chance of winning it, it holds no more importance than a 4N tournament.

No because a 4N is almost yearly. They are more common, and thus less prestigious. They are more like, origin, but better than origin, as England and NZ make it an international comp of more of the best players in the world.

Again, analogy to Union, what is more important to McCaw and Gregan, their WC success or their Tri Nations success?

 

[Frank_Grimes]

No because a 4N is almost yearly. They are more common, and thus less prestigious. They are more like, origin, but better than origin, as England and NZ make it an international comp of more of the best players in the world.

Again, analogy to Union, what is more important to McCaw and Gregan, or the respective fans, their WC success or their Tri Nations success?

We all understand that 4N is yearly. We also all understand that the competition in the WC boils down to AUS, ENG or NZ. That puts it on par competition-wise with the 4N.

LOL, you're just ignoring my point about the lesser importance due to lack of competition and continuing to throw in irrelevant comparisons to Rugby Union, while sticking to a simple mindset that one thing means more than another only because it happens less. You can't compare international league to international union as quite simply, one is bigger and has more competition than the other.

When Argentina or Scotland are actually considered a dangerous team by some of the top league nations, your comparison might hold some water.

 

[ANTiLAG]

We all understand that 4N is yearly. We also all understand that the competition in the WC boils down to AUS, ENG or NZ. That puts it on par competition-wise with the 4N.

LOL, you're just ignoring my point about the lesser importance due to lack of competition and continuing to throw in irrelevant comparisons to Rugby Union, while sticking to a simple mindset that one thing means more than another only because it happens less. You can't compare international league to international union as quite simply, one is bigger and has more competition than the other.

When Argentina or Scotland are actually considered a dangerous team by some of the top league nations, your comparison might hold some water.

That is like saying the annual track meets are on par with the Olympics. They're not.

Oh Puhlease. Scotland's best finish is fourth and that was far far far long ago in 1991. They were never going to threaten the ABs or Australia in that tournament. NZ thrashed them the year before. You want to go that far back, why not include when France nearly took the RLWC final from you guys, well before I was born.

That tournament was only ever going to Aus or NZ.

Argentina could potentially develop as a powerhouse as they come into the 4N with the real strength of rugby: the Southern Hemisphere. That is exciting for Union people. To say the 4N is the pinnacle over the RWC is still wrong. It is yearly. It is the goal for that year. It is not the elusive crown that is the pinnacle of the sport.

To say origin is the pinnacle over the RLWC is like saying the Commonwealth Games is the pinnacle over the Olympics.

To say the League 4N means as much as the World Cup denies the fact the World Cup is a 5 yearly event at best, not annual. It is more elusive. It is more prestigious.

It just smacks of arrogance and is clearly wrong.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

That is like saying the annual track meets are on par with the Olympics. They're not.

Oh Puhlease. Scotland's best finish is fourth and that was far far far long ago in 1991. They were never going to threaten the ABs or Australia in that tournament. NZ thrashed them the year before. You want to that far back, why not include when France nearly took the RLWC final from you guys, well before we were born.

That tournament was only ever going to Aus or NZ.

Argentina could potentially develop as a powerhouse as they come into the 4N with the real strength of rugby: the Southern Hemisphere. That is exciting for Union people.

To say origin is the pinnacle over the RLWC is like saying the Commonwealth Games is the pinnacle over the Olympics.

It just smacks of arrogance and is clearly wrong.

:lol:

You're getting that desperate that you've got to compare the Olympics to the RLWC? What's next? A "you mad bro" statement with a picture of Benji holding the RLWC? Oh wait....you've already done that.

Stop trying to draw comparisons between the league international game and other events. In reality, winning the RLWC comes down to beating AUS, ENG or NZ. Winning the 4N comes down to beating AUS, ENG or NZ. The only difference is the time between, and the fact that you get to play a myriad of warm-up matches thumping minnows in the WC.

Stick your head in the sand all you want, but the cold hard truth will still be there waiting for you.

 

[ANTiLAG]

:lol:

You're getting that desperate that you've got to compare the Olympics to the RLWC?

Every nation has an opportunity to compete, they are 4 and 5 years apart respectively, there is a lot to compare.

What's next? A "you mad bro" statement with a picture of Benji holding the RLWC? Oh wait....you've already done that.

Aye.

Stop trying to draw comparisons between the league international game and other events. In reality, winning the RLWC comes down to beating AUS, ENG or NZ. Winning the 4N comes down to beating AUS, ENG or NZ. The only difference is the time between, and the fact that you get to play a myriad of warm-up matches thumping minnows in the WC.

No, the other difference is that there are many more 4N events than WC events. Thus they are less prestigious and more common.

Stick your head in the sand all you want, but the cold hard truth will still be there waiting for you.

My head is not in the sand. Yours is in claiming an annual local derby in one country is the pinnacle when, as you admit, Eng and NZ, and all other nations, are not there.