Your interest for the WC...and your opinion

[dubby]

Hi guys,

so far I have been disappointed with the marketing/advertising of the RLWC. I know its still early, but I was hoping that the Int. RL board or ARL or whoever would be really agressive and positive in promoting this WC. Off memory, the RUWC in 2003 was marketed and promoted really well. Interest was high, even in games involving lesser nations played in outer regions like Adelaide and Hobart. The RLWC hasnt done this as well I think.

I for one am excited, I dont care about the heritage rule, I see this as a chance for international RL to grow, to have its moment in the sun. To give our players a stage to be seen at on what will hopefully be an exciting tournament played before good crowds.

This WC needs to be successful. We are under seige from RU and other codes for international respect, and we as RL fans need to have a healthy WC and interest from countries to play our game. While we know the international stage is not healthy yet, it can be. It will be if steps are taken to promote this event effectively.

What are your thoughts? What level of interest do you have? Who will you follow closely? What results do you expect and what do you hope for in terms of public interest and media coverage?

We all believe australia will win and win easily. I am hoping for the smaller nations to be competitive, entertaining and to capture the interest of the community. I would love to see any country apart from Australia to win it, just for the boost it would give our game.

Isnt that what its all about?

 

[westie]

To be honest, I no longer see Australia as favourites.

Two factors will be decisive I believe. The weather, which could well be a massive advantage to Australia. And the refereeing. If the ruck is quick, England will be at a massive advantage.

Our pack is rubbish and we simply can't afford injuries to the few big men we have. Crucially, the starting front rowers are really getting on, whilst England have two blokes just over 30 in the entire squad.

 

[madunit]

I agree a lot with westie, add to this the fact that Australia also has one of the oldest sides in the comp.

 

[westie]

Add to that, the three polynesian sides have players that are, on their day, the best in the NRL/SL. If the key players somehow manage to all turn up to the same game then Aus/Eng could be in big trouble.

And we all know how NZ have a strange ability to get better as proper tournaments go on. I.e. '05, '06 tri-nations.

 

[Calixte]

Anyone saying the trophy should just be given to Australia is wrong.

Simple as that.

Most know so little on the subject as to dismiss their rantings immediately...

 

[dubby]

I am not suggesting for a moment to "give it" to Australia. You cannot deny that our squad is the classiest of all; Lockyer and Thurston are the best in the world on their day, and NO other country has that sort of class.

the polynesian country's will be fast, big and skillful. History shows (with NZ) that they are confidence players, and cannot maintain intensity over 80 mins.

And remember our PM13 beat PNG by a large margin in PNG

NZ have no half

England will struggle in the heat

Ireland :?

Scotland :?

France will try hard and will compete with the Polys and GB teams

IMHO I cant see the Aussies being troubled at all. There is no shame in that, Australia has far more development and talent than any other country in the world.

I am genuinly excited about watching these other nations. The players will be proud to represent their homeland and heritage. There will be passion, pride, commitment and flair.

My initial point was to gauge your opinion in how it has been handled from a PR point of view, and your general thoughts.

 

[Glen from the Mount]

I predict that Australia will not dominate anywhere near as much as people and the bookies expect. They will drop an early game, either against NZ or England, but this will give them the kick up the arse they need to push past Tonga in the semi and NZ in the final.

 

[westie]

Marketing hasn't been too bad if you take into account they probably had next to no money at the beginning of all this.

They've planned well and have always built towards the event, not trying to compete with Origin or the NRL.

We just didn't have the money to make this a massive event, but they've had the right idea to use it as a stepping stone towards getting there.

 

[Calixte]

I am not suggesting for a moment to "give it" to Australia. You cannot deny that our squad is the classiest of all; Lockyer and Thurston are the best in the world on their day, and NO other country has that sort of class.

the polynesian country's will be fast, big and skillful. History shows (with NZ) that they are confidence players, and cannot maintain intensity over 80 mins.

And remember our PM13 beat PNG by a large margin in PNG

NZ have no half

England will struggle in the heat

Ireland :?

Scotland :?

France will try hard and will compete with the Polys and GB teams

IMHO I cant see the Aussies being troubled at all. There is no shame in that, Australia has far more development and talent than any other country in the world.

I am genuinly excited about watching these other nations. The players will be proud to represent their homeland and heritage. There will be passion, pride, commitment and flair.

My initial point was to gauge your opinion in how it has been handled from a PR point of view, and your general thoughts.

History means nothing for this tournament.

As history tells us... ;-)

But I doubt you want a debate on historical theory.

Anyone reading through the team lists knows the number of NRL and ESL players scattered therein is far, far higher than in the past.

I for one am prepared to give the tournament the respect it deserves and not prejudge the games. Others would be well minded to do so also...

 

[dubby]

I agree calixte.

Mate, I wish you were involved in the media. That sort of attitude is what this WC needs.

I would love to see all nations be competitive at a high level. I'd love to see a PNG vs France final. I'd love to see the games have crowds at 20k+

I'd love to see this WC be a success and springboard the international game into bigger and better things!

 

[hybrid_tiger]

Australia will win because of the class of their halves.

Simple as that.

 

[Calixte]

To state the obvious I disagree.

 

[hybrid_tiger]

When it comes to the crunch, the halves will win you matches.

 

[westie]

Thurston has turned on the winning play in the '06 3N and '08 SOO.

Problem is, if our pack gets turned over for 80 mins he'll be as effective as he was in the NRL this year. Or as a better example, the Saints/Storm halves in the grand final when better packs and kicking games halted superior attacking flair.

 

[adamkungl]

To be honest, I no longer see Australia as favourites.

Two factors will be decisive I believe. The weather, which could well be a massive advantage to Australia. And the refereeing. If the ruck is quick, England will be at a massive advantage.

Our pack is rubbish and we simply can't afford injuries to the few big men we have. Crucially, the starting front rowers are really getting on, whilst England have two blokes just over 30 in the entire squad.

Imo this is the best rep pack (either Aus, NSW, or QLD) i've seen picked in a long while. Rubbish selections were kept to a minimum imo, until Tupou got in anyway

 

[Calixte]

By way of one example only, this tournament will be the first we see of Burrow and Pryce as England's halves...

Big, big difference in my view.

 

[westie]

I think we will be monstered in the forwards. Less so than if they'd picked Burgess and Fielden. But we'll be very lucky if we can wrestle and bitch our way through against the superior pommy pack and Burrow's long kicking game.

 

[bender]

I think that the WC will be a hell of a lot closer than people think and i dont think that the big 3 are quite as set in stone as everyone thinks. I see the chances/form of each nation as follows:

1. Australia- Obvious favourites. This is the best Australian side i have seen for some time, with Folau, Hodges, Tate, Inglis, Lockyer all in awesome form. They could blow everyone away, and will make the semis. Saying that, to win the world cup, they will still have to beat either England or New Zealand, or maybe both in a sudden death competition. Australia is rarely able to beat these sides any more than 3 or 4 times in a row when they play these sorts of tournaments, so there is every chance that they will not win the world cup. They are a 50/50 call at best.

2. England. They are actually building better than ever before. They seem to be in form and actually selecting the right players and younger players too, for the first time in ages. I think they are the second best side and would not surprise to see them win the world cup.

3. New Zealand - They look badly out of form. They are the third best side and chance, but they will need to rediscover the old kiwi tradition of playing out of their skin in a black jumper. I havent seen them do this in ages.

4. PNG - The sacrificial lambs are actually a far better chance than everyone thinks. They beat the very strong PMXIII last year and proved it was no fluke by giving them a hell of a scare this year before losing it in the last 10 minutes. They have some good extra players coming into the side since then. With England possibly struggling in the heat, they could easily beat them. The kiwis will have nightmares about 1996 where PNG got within 2 points of them. Australia should beat them, but if they are complacent like they were last time they played the US, or a couple of years ago when the french got within 2 points in a test match, they could lose the game. I think at least 2 of the 3 big guns will get complacent and will end up in a game with 1-6 points the difference, or at least get a massive fright at 3/4 time. They should have massive crowd support as the underdogs and if they can jag a win they will virtually singlehandedly make the World cup a success.

5 Tonga - A very strong team (with a very vibrant domestic setup). I think they fancy their chances of going all they way and they easily could, particularly if the Aussies end up in 2v3 semi and dont win. They will gain satisfaction from their last World cup game against NZ in 1996 which ended in a draw. This seems a much stronger side than that one. Saying that both Ireland and Samoa will be tough games I think they might be looking too far ahead and may not make it past the sudden death semi final.

6. Samoa - They will be keen, and dont seem to be as strong as most people thought, but they are still a good team. If they get over Tonga which shouldnt be a far off 50% call you would have to rate their chances to go through Major Semifinal. They look a fair bit stronger than the side from the 2000 WC that pushed Australia very hard for the first 60 minutes of the game. There is no reason why they couldnt win their 2 games against the big 3 but i dont think they are as likely as Tonga.

7 Ireland. They have a good solid side but look to have lost too much depth. Brett White was an absolutely massive blow. They have a tough draw against Wales and Tonga, but will take a lot of heart from the history which suggests that the best british teams are stronger than the pacific teams. In 2000, they got closer to England than Samoa did to australia and in 96 and 2000 the starstudded samoan sides were beaten by the Welsh. Ireland dont seem as strong as the old welsh sides but then again history suggests they are at about the welsh level, so they arent in as bad a position as people think.

 

[Calixte]

Some well made points bender...

 

[marv]

for once i pretty much agree with you bender.