Why dont the NRL clubs....

[Charlie124]

Origin is and always will be the Number 1 spectacle of rugby league and rightfully so. Its the best of the best up against each other in a terrirorial match fueled by decades of mutual hatred. One-upsmanship in the highest order. Internationals are good to watch but 8 times out of 10 Australia is going to win and usually comfortably, all it is is an opportunity for NZ and GB to try to get one back, it just doesnt have the same passion about it that State of Origin has.

 

[Quidgybo]

Internationals are good to watch but 8 times out of 10 Australia is going to win and usually comfortably...

A kiwi fan could argue, with some justification, that if NZ had the freedom to pick a full strength squad from both northern and southern hemisphere competitions during mid season internationals, that figure would be closer to 6.5 out of 10. Under RLIF rules they are supposed to have that freedom but the respective prefessional comps run by the RFL and the NRL (half owned by the ARL), choose not to use their power over clubs to enforce that rule. As it stands now, the Kangaroos get a leg up in between one third and one quarter of their games against the Kiwis each year by playing an understrength side. Imagine if such a situation was replicated in Origin with one team (the one with a smaller pool of players to choose from) at only two thirds to one half strength for one out of the three games each season. What would that do to the reputation and interest in Origin as a concept? What does that do to Test football's reputation and interest as a concept? No matter how you look at it, such a situation can't help. Which is pretty much the point that our Kiwi friends have been complaining about throughout this thread. And quite rightly.

Leigh.

 

[ozbash]

A kiwi fan could argue, with some justification, that if NZ had the freedom to pick a full strength squad from both northern and southern hemisphere competitions during mid season internationals, that figure would be closer to 6.5 out of 10. Under RLIF rules they are supposed to have that freedom but the respective prefessional comps run by the RFL and the NRL (half owned by the ARL), choose not to use their power over clubs to enforce that rule. As it stands now, the Kangaroos get a leg up in between one third and one quarter of their games against the Kiwis each year by playing an understrength side. Imagine if such a situation was replicated in Origin with one team (the one with a smaller pool of players to choose from) at only two thirds to one half strength for one out of the three games each season. What would that do to the reputation and interest in Origin as a concept? What does that do to Test football's reputation and interest as a concept? No matter how you look at it, such a situation can't help. Which is pretty the point that our Kiwi friends have been complaining about throughout this thread. And quite rightly.

Leigh.

in a nutshell mate, well said.

 

[douglasallen91]

Perhaps a mind blank, but name me some instances when an NRL club stopped a player playing in a test match within Australia.

I know ESL clubs dont allow their kiwi players to travel down to Australia mid season (like the ANZAC test some 3 weeks back)

bulldogs last year said that the kiwis had to play sbw in the centres last anzac test or he wouldn't be available, and benji had to start on the bench or was unavailable (usure if their was a minutes cap as well)

 

[Shorty]

I think it's because a lot players would rather play Origin than Test Football,Karmichael for example.

When you look at it we have had people like Alan Langer,Wally Lewis and Andrew Johns called greats,where are the greats who are Kiwis or Poms?

Why aren't they acknowledged?

And you can blame the players etc but only to an extent when you look at the interest Origin gets compared to the Tri-Nations etc.

Australia just doesn't respect someone who doesn't play Origin unfortunately.

It's changing though and if the Kiwis stay competitive Test Football will increase in popularity.

 

[ozbash]

When you look at it we have had people like Alan Langer,Wally Lewis and Andrew Johns called greats,where are the greats who are Kiwis or Poms?

good point cowgirl.
if, as a lot of aussies say, SOO is the ultimate, then i guess your Langers,Meningas and Lewis's achieve 'greatness' by excelling in it.

Where as NZ, GB, PNG,France are not involved in origin, so that suggests to me, once again, that SOO is a back slapping exercise dreamed up by aussie .

I mean, its such a singularly unique event in side of australia that the reality is the rest of the world couldnt give a rats.
We (the rest of the world) see international test matches as the ultimate gauge of 'greatness', not some internal comp held in ignorance to the true plight of the international game..

 

[cumberlandsashes81]

When you look at it we have had people like Alan Langer,Wally Lewis and Andrew Johns called greats,where are the greats who are Kiwis or Poms?

good point cowgirl.
if, as a lot of aussies say, SOO is the ultimate, then i guess your Langers,Meningas and Lewis's achieve 'greatness' by excelling in it

You guess wrongly.

We (the rest of the world) see international test matches as the ultimate gauge of 'greatness', not some internal comp held in ignorance to the true plight of the international game..

What do you mean "held in ignorance"?

The players mentioned also proved themselves as greats in the Test arena. Personally, I don't think a player is "great" unless they have achieved everything in the game and that includes lifting a World Cup.

The fact that so many people see Origin as the ultimate is more a reflection of the lack of consistent competetiveness in the International arena - not because of us "ignorant" Australians. Lose the bitterness.

 

[ozbash]

I don't think a player is "great" unless they have achieved everything in the game and that includes lifting a World Cup.

pretty narrow way of looking at it. they can still be a great player tho choose not to go further.

The fact that so many people see Origin as the ultimate is more a reflection of the lack of consistent competetiveness in the International arena - not because of us "ignorant" Australians. Lose the bitterness.

no, i'd say its more aussies lack of support of the international game which promotes SOO to its internal ultimateness within aussie.

lose the arrogance.

 

[PepsiCo]

Origin is the pinicle of Australian Rugby League for the sole reason that no other rep comp comes close to it in the level of intensity. At present all international rugby league games are a joke. The ANZAC test is a joke and always will be a joke until New Zealand rugby league grow some balls. If u want a mid-season test, take a week break in the NRL and ESL and let New Zealand fly there players from England and put on a true International Test Match. The end of seaon Tri-Nations will never be truely competitive if played every season, after every player has played 26+ matches in the year there are too burnt out and all come up with the smallest of injuries so that they can continue to play in future years.
I hate Union but at present there system is the ultimate for promoting internation games. Play a reduced local comp, few weeks break and then put on massive international games. Rugby league at present r trying to do too much.

 

[ShadesOfTheSun]

I mean, its such a singularly unique event in side of australia that the reality is the rest of the world couldnt give a rats.
We (the rest of the world) see international test matches as the ultimate gauge of 'greatness', not some internal comp held in ignorance to the true plight of the international game..

It's not ignorance - it's apathy. The fact is that the majority of spectators - whether in Australia, New Zealand, or elsewhere - are attracted to the drama and spectacle of particular events, rather than having any lasting attachment to the sport itself. State of Origin almost always provides drama, atmosphere and intensity, whereas international rugby league usually does not. Hence, SOO is always going to rank ahead of the international game in Australia until the international game is able to provide a spectacle and a contest that is as consistently unpredictable and even.

International test matches are the ultimate gauge of greatness? Why should the average spectator think this is the case, when such matches are usually one-sided, and appear to be won without the Australian team playing to their potential? Why should the fringe supporter or the patriot who feels that it is his duty to cheer for Australia in any sporting event bother tuning into the match, let alone turning up at the stadium, when the outcome appears a foregone conclusion?

Why should the ARL even bother with the international game, when all the money is in the local one?

 

[PepsiCo]

Anyone who solely believes that international test matchs are the only way to prove brilliance are clearly living in a hole. Yes for some sports it is the mark of brilliance if you can excell on an international level but there are many others where national comps or internal rep games are the pinicle. A clear example is NFL in the US, AFL here. Just because a game is not international doesnt mean players cannot dominate and become legends of the game.

 

[meltiger]

Ozbash .... :lol:


Tony if you refuse to understand the history behind why SOO means so much, to one state in particular, then why bother sl.agging us off. At least post viable arguments when sledging Australian's rather than ignorant rubbish.

 

[ozbash]

Ozbash .... :lol:


Tony if you refuse to understand the history behind why SOO means so much, to one state in particular, then why bother sl.agging us off. At least post viable arguments when sledging Australian's rather than ignorant rubbish.

pffft, what would a victorian know...

Anyone who solely believes that international test matchs are the only way to prove brilliance are clearly living in a hole.

perhaps to countries who prefer the external international test series is the hieght of excellence for players.

A clear example is NFL in the US, AFL here.

bullsh*t, run some names of the above past me and apart from 1 aussie rules player (whose name escapes me) i wouldnt know who or what sport you are talking about.

run the names of some aussie/english/yugoslavian:roll: rugby/cricket/league players past me and we're talking.

the fact that aussie puts more emphasis on origin points to the fact that eventually the game will consume itself and nobody outside of the joint will know who you are raving on about ..

 

[PepsiCo]

bullsh*t, run some names of the above past me and apart from 1 aussie rules player (whose name escapes me) i wouldnt know who or what sport you are talking about.

run the names of some aussie/english/yugoslavian:roll: rugby/cricket/league players past me and we're talking.

that just shows u dont follow the sports. just because u dont know names of great sporting players from sports u dont follow doesnt mean they arent great. they are plenty of great international sports stars i havent heard of. that doesnt mean i dismiss them as not worthy, it just means i dont have an interest in their chosen sport

 

[The Electric Horseman]

Being born and breed outside of Australia, Internationals have always been my highlight of the year.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

tbh I thought the 2005 and 2006 tri-nations had plenty of high quality, intense action. The final last year was every bit as good as any Origin, and the players on show were of an equal or higher standard.

I'm not interested in dragging Origin down, because I think (regardless of effort or lack thereof by the administration) the image of international league has actually made positive strides forward since the introduction of the tri-nations.