Sport Today

by **John Drak** » Thu, 03 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Could international RL be getting its act sorted at last...? This all sounds
quite promising IMO (see story below)

I like the idea of the four home nations competing seperately instead of GB,
even if it reduces the chances (slim anyway!) of a home win. Also, possibly
staging one of the pools in France is a GREAT idea!

Not too sure about the links with Luyt in South Africa - he's always hated
RL in the past and isn't exactly free of the sins of apartheid - but so long
as the RL people don't compromise the integrity of the game to accomodate
him, it's got to be good for SARL that they will be hosting some high
profile RL in the future.

Also, looks like the Emerging nations will be involved again too :-)

John

HOME NATIONS SPLIT FOR WORLD CUP
By Ian Laybourn, PA Sport

The Rugby Football League have split up the Great Britain team for the 2000
World Cup in order to obtain Sports Council funding.

The RFL will enter teams representing England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales
for the 16-team tournament they will host in the Autumn of the Millennium.

National coach Andy Goodway admits the chances of a home success have been
markedly diminished by the decision - announced at the end of a two-day
meeting of the International Federation (RLIF) in Sydney - not to tackle the
might of Australia and New Zealand with a full Great Britain team.

Gary Connolly and Terry O'Connor, for example, have committed themselves to
Ireland and, with Dale Laughton opting for Scotland and Iestyn Harris and
Keiron Cunningham regulars for Wales, Goodway's squad for the recent Test
series with New Zealand will be decimated.

"It was tough enough before, now it's going to make it even harder," said
Goodway.

"But they've got to go with separate countries to get the funding for the
World Performance Programme and that's more important than my ego."

The League are bidding for 750,000 of Sports Council funding as part of the
World Class Performance Programme and any grant would be likely to be made
on condition that separate teams are involved.

The League are also conscious of the need to follow up pioneering work in
Dublin, Glasgow and South Wales as they seek to take the game to a greater
audience.

England and Wales took part in the 1995 World Cup when the Scots and Irish
competed in the second-tier Emerging Nations competition but, with the
addition of second-generation players of the calibre of Shaun Edwards and
Connolly, they are considered strong enough to hold their own on the big
stage.

Scotland and Ireland were only narrowly beaten by France in this year's
inaugural Tri-Nations competition while Wales were pipped 15-12 on their
return to the international stage by Emerging England.

Wales, who have enjoyed a chequered past, were the outstanding success in
the 1995 tournament, reaching the semi-finals, and coach Clive Griffiths
believes their inclusion in 2000 will give the game a much-needed boost in
the Valleys.

"I am absolutely delighted and I'd love to be involved again," said the
coach of London Welsh.

"After a series of blows, this is a tremendous fillip for the rugby league
supporters of Wales. They can get their scarves out again."

Russia are also promoted from the ranks of Emerging Nations to compete
alongside holders Australia, New Zealand, France, Papua New Guinea, Tonga,
Western Samoa, Fiji, Cook Islands, New Zealand Maoris and South Africa.

A 16th entrant is likely to be determined by a play-off involving such
minnows as Lebanon, Morocco, United States, Canada, Japan and Italy.

The draw is set to be made in February and talks are ongoing with the French
about staging one of the pools on the continent.

Meanwhile, Johannesburg's Ellis Park will be the venue for the World Nines
for the next three years, starting with the 1999 event on the weekend of
February 5-6.

Louis Luyt, the former president of the South African Rugby Union, is keen
to foster the spread of league in his country and, for their part, Britain
will play a Test match against New Zealand at Ellis Park on their way home
from the Tri-Nations Series in Australia on the weekend of November 12-13.

The RFL have received assurances about costs and any profits from the match
will go towards the development of the game in South Africa, where a major
push is to be made to spread the game in the High Schools.

South Africa will also stage the 1999 Student World Cup, which will be
grant-aided by the RLIF.

The World Nines will be open to the 10 member nations of the RLIF, with
Great Britain representing the RFL, although Goodway is unlikely to lead the
team.

"I think we should share the coaching out," he said. "The more international
experience we can give to our coaches the better."

John Kear (Sheffield), who was recently appointed as assistant Great Britain
coach, and Coach of the Year John Pendlebury (Halifax) are among the
favourites to take on the role performed in 1997 by Andy Gregory (Salford).

The decision to arrange the World Nines for the first weekend in February
could signal the end of attempts to stage a World Club Challenge between
Wigan and Brisbane.

The clubs have been unable to agree on a date - Wigan wanted to stage the
game at Bolton on February 6 - and talks have reached stalemate.

The British Amateur Rugby League Association have been granted affiliate
membership of the RLIF along with Japan.

RFL chief executive Neil Tunnicliffe, a member of the three-strong British
delegation, hailed the success of the Sydney summit.

"It was an extremely constructive meeting," he said. "The game has taken a
big stride towards re-establishing its global credibility."

by **julian critchle** » Fri, 04 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>Could international RL be getting its act sorted at last...? This all
sounds
>quite promising IMO (see story below)

>I like the idea of the four home nations competing seperately instead of

GB,

Me too. It may mean less chance of a GB victory, but firstly, I don't think
that's a foregone conclusion, and secondly, you don't hear the Twickers mob
moaning about that when it's equally clear that the Union World Cup winners
won't be coming from the British Isles. It's all about competition, and
having four groups of 4 teams will be far more satisfying than the odds and
sods approach of last time. My main concern is that I'm opposed to NZ Maoris
competing as a separate side. The idea of a team representing a racial
group, rather than the whole nation seems pretty divisive to me. Maybe
that's what encouraged Luyt to stick his oar in - the hope of a South
African Whites Only team. I'd rather have another smaller side like Italy
(drawn from Aussies with Italian backgrounds) or Canada in there.

by **David Odd** » Fri, 04 Dec 1998 04:00:00

On Wed, 2 Dec 1998 23:21:11 -0000, "John Drake"

Quote:

>Could international RL be getting its act sorted at last...? This all sounds
>quite promising IMO (see story below)

>I like the idea of the four home nations competing seperately instead of GB,
>even if it reduces the chances (slim anyway!) of a home win.

It does not just reduce them it, it wipes them out and will reduce
the tournament to a complete farce in the process.

We are going to have cricket scores against Scotland and Ireland and
not much different against a drastically weakened English side.

I feel sorry for Andy Goodway - he has no chance now to improve his
record as an international coach.

Quote:

> Also, possibly
>staging one of the pools in France is a GREAT idea!

No problem with that.

Quote:

>Also, looks like the Emerging nations will be involved again too :-)

Which is where Scotland and Ireland (and for that matter Wales) still
belong.

They are just not ready for the level of competition posed in the main
competition. Not only will they loose by cricket scores if they play
the likes of Australia but they will not fair much better against some
of the lesser teams in the main competition.

It is simply too early to include them at this level.

The emerging nations tournament was great last time and I would prefer
to see Scottish , Irish and Welsh sides in that competition with team
members who really are oft hat nationality rather than what they have
come up with.

Don't forget the motive here is nothing to do with whether Scotland et
al are ready for this, it is simply to secure sports council funding,
i.e. it is down to money.

As this takes place at the same time as the RU world cup I can see the
journos having a field day when the mismatches result in the
inevitable thrashing being meated out.

If we can't afford to run the comp without compromising it like this
we should let a country who can stage it get on with it instead.

Dave

--

Wigan Warriors RLFC - 1998 Super League Champions
(Oh - and Grand Final winners as well)

Change "astalasvista" to "altavista" when replying via email and
replace ".jnk" with ".net"
.

by **John Drak** » Fri, 04 Dec 1998 04:00:00

My main concern is that I'm opposed to NZ Maoris

Quote:

>competing as a separate side. The idea of a team representing a racial
>group, rather than the whole nation seems pretty divisive to me.

I agree. RL has created a problem for itself there. Or rather the old SL
international board did, as they issued the original invitation to the
Maoris for the subsequently scrapped 1998 tournament, probably because they
were short of numbers. I think the new RLIB are trying to avoid causing
offence by backtracking on that decision, but it sets a dangerous precedent.

John

by **John Drak** » Fri, 04 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>>I like the idea of the four home nations competing seperately instead of
GB,
>>even if it reduces the chances (slim anyway!) of a home win.

>It does not just reduce them it, it wipes them out and will reduce
>the tournament to a complete farce in the process.

>We are going to have cricket scores against Scotland and Ireland and
>not much different against a drastically weakened English side.

It depends how the pools are organised, surely? If Scotland and/or Ireland
are in the same group as France, for example, it would only be a repeat of
this year's Tri nations which produced some highly competitive and evenly
balanced matches...

Granted, if they end up playing Australia, like South Africa did in '95,
then they will probably get battered. Even then, however, the Aus v SA game
in '95 did not produce any wildly negative headlines in the media (the
biggest cheer of the night coming, I seem to recall, when SA scored a try
against the World Champions, which was picked up by the watching hacks) and
it attracted a crowd of 9,000+ on a midweek in Gateshead.

As for England, if they get battered too, then it is only highlighting the
real weaknesses which exist in the game here. IMO, pretending those
weaknesses don't exist, or trying to hide them away by selecting players of
other nations in a GB team is more dangerous in the long term than any
beating a stand-alone national team might cop against the Aussies (1982 was
a *** for British RL, but it was a much needed one, and helped kick
the game out of its complacency).

It also depends on whether Australia are prepared to "play the game" too,
and release certain of their players to the south sea island teams, unlike
in 1995 when they retained the services of John Hopoate over the claims of
Tonga.

Quote:

>I feel sorry for Andy Goodway - he has no chance now to improve his
>record as an international coach.

It's arguable whether he would have improved his record anyway, and his
personal coaching record ought to be of no consequence when it comes to
organising a World Cup IMO.

Quote:

>> Also, possibly
>>staging one of the pools in France is a GREAT idea!

>No problem with that.

>>Also, looks like the Emerging nations will be involved again too :-)

>Which is where Scotland and Ireland (and for that matter Wales) still
>belong.

>They are just not ready for the level of competition posed in the main
>competition. Not only will they loose by cricket scores if they play
>the likes of Australia but they will not fair much better against some
>of the lesser teams in the main competition.

I think the latter point is very arguable. The same was said of Tonga and
Fiji in '95, but the former's games against NZ and PNG were absolute
classics which I felt privileged to have seen, and the latter's game against
South Africa at Cougar park was another wonderful day for RL.

Quote:

>It is simply too early to include them at this level.

As I said before, it depends how the pools are structured. With an ounce of
consideration of the respective playing strengths of each nation by the
organisers, the 2000 World Cup could eclipse the undoubted success of the
1995 tournament and leave the public wanting more, not laughing about the
odd mis-match.

Quote:

>The emerging nations tournament was great last time and I would prefer
>to see Scottish , Irish and Welsh sides in that competition with team
>members who really are oft hat nationality rather than what they have
>come up with.

But if you insist on that qualification for the home nations, you could end
up decimating the rest of the Emerging Nations if, in the interests of
racial strictness, you insist that they have to follow a similar selection
policy. RL isn't alone in having a somewhat relaxed interpretation of who
qualifies for its international teams. If it were, then Graham Hick, for
example, would never have played cricket for England, and Greg Rusedski
would not be the Great British tennis hope :-)

Quote:

>Don't forget the motive here is nothing to do with whether Scotland et
>al are ready for this, it is simply to secure sports council funding,
>i.e. it is down to money.

So what if the motives are somewhat murky? Hardly unusual in professional
sport these days...However, I think ensuring our game qualifies for the same
kind of handouts from the public purse as other sports is perfectly
laudable, to be honest, and long overdue. The end result will be that RL
gains more investment, and the people of the four home nations will take
more of an interest in the RL World Cup than they would if it was just a GB
amalgam. Wales went barmy for RL in '95, the Welsh RL team won BBC Wales
Team of the Year, and S4C showed their group games live. Contrast that with
GB's stunning victory against the Aussies at Wembley one year earlier,
starring Jonathan Davies no less, which was shown live on the BBC in
England, but *not* shown in Wales or Scotland until after the event...

The home nations playing seperately will command far greater passionate
support than GB ever seems to manage - at the Watford Test v NZ, the fans
were shouting "England, England" not "GB, GB". The public has spoken ;-)

Quote:

>As this takes place at the same time as the RU world cup I can see the
>journos having a field day when the mismatches result in the
>inevitable thrashing being meated out.

The RU World Cup (in 1999, not 2000) will have similar problems if they pit
the All Blacks, or Australia or South Africa against the smaller nations.
Seeding is everything. That's the area RL has to get things right,
regardless of which countries are actually entered at the end of the day. If
RL plays safe, and fields a reduced number of technically "stronger" teams,
like GB instead of the home nations, it will attract derision from its
enemies anyway, claiming it isn't a real international sport, regardless of
how good and competitive the games are.

Quote:

>If we can't afford to run the comp without compromising it like this
>we should let a country who can stage it get on with it instead.

If it turns out half as good as the '95 World Cup it'll be fantastic. I'm
glad it's in Britain (and hopefully shared with France too) and I can't wait
for it to start :-)

John

by **Andrew May** » Sat, 05 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>If it turns out half as good as the '95 World Cup it'll be fantastic. I'm
>glad it's in Britain (and hopefully shared with France too) and I can't
wait
>for it to start :-)

Here here!

I'd have liked to have seen an emerging nations tournament run in parallel
like last time, however. And let everyone play who wants to play. They are
talking about a play off between the likes of Japan, USA, Italy, Morocco,
etc, for the final place, aren't they? Why not just let then play in some
tournament anyway? Money I suppose.

But the rah rahs don't seems concerned about that. Everyone seems involved
in their world cup qualifiers, even if the teams are plucked from bars in
India, Korea and Outer Mongolia. They let everyone take part, and nothing
generates interest more than international competition. What an incentive to
stick with the game in fringe countries - representing your country in a
global competition.

But your earlier point of the Aussies playing ball is absolutely spot on. GB
and NZ are going to be really ***ed in the tournament through splitting
their resources. The Aussies should have to give up plays who qualify for
the various south sea islands. Hope they can see further than picking up the
trophy. Mind you, they'll still be far stronger anyway.... How many in the
current Kangaroo set up who qualify for other countries?

Quote:

>John

Cheers,

Andrew.

by **Matthew O'Neil** » Sat, 05 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> I'd have liked to have seen an emerging nations tournament run in parallel
> like last time, however. And let everyone play who wants to play. They are
> talking about a play off between the likes of Japan, USA, Italy, Morocco,
> etc, for the final place, aren't they? Why not just let then play in some
> tournament anyway? Money I suppose.

Some maybe worried that the scores be too big. Maybe help from the refs, the
scores could be more even. In 1990, the Aussies beat a French local side 12-2 or
something very close. Yet the Tests were one sided.

Quote:

> But the rah rahs don't seems concerned about that. Everyone seems involved
> in their world cup qualifiers, even if the teams are plucked from bars in
> India, Korea and Outer Mongolia. They let everyone take part, and nothing
> generates interest more than international competition. What an incentive to
> stick with the game in fringe countries - representing your country in a
> global competition.

They just want to pluck any country and claim it as part of there 120 countries
that play the game. Why not we do what they do.

Quote:

> But your earlier point of the Aussies playing ball is absolutely spot on. GB
> and NZ are going to be really ***ed in the tournament through splitting
> their resources. The Aussies should have to give up plays who qualify for
> the various south sea islands. Hope they can see further than picking up the
> trophy. Mind you, they'll still be far stronger anyway.... How many in the
> current Kangaroo set up who qualify for other countries?

They all will choose Australia first regardless.

I'm disapointed two NZ sides are in it though. I didn't think NZ Maoris was a
country, how can we class that as a Test match.

At least Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England are countries.

Kind Regards,

Matthew O'Neill,
King Street Computers.
URL - http://SportToday.org/

Rugby League - http://SportToday.org/
Canterbury - http://SportToday.org/

by **stev** » Sat, 05 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>It depends how the pools are organised, surely? If Scotland and/or Ireland
>are in the same group as France, for example, it would only be a repeat of
>this year's Tri nations which produced some highly competitive and evenly
>balanced matches...

Seeding is the only way.

Quote:

>Granted, if they end up playing Australia, like South Africa did in '95,
>then they will probably get battered. Even then, however, the Aus v SA game
>in '95 did not produce any wildly negative headlines in the media (the
>biggest cheer of the night coming, I seem to recall, when SA scored a try
>against the World Champions, which was picked up by the watching hacks) and
>it attracted a crowd of 9,000+ on a midweek in Gateshead.

>It's arguable whether he would have improved his record anyway, and his
>personal coaching record ought to be of no consequence when it comes to
>organising a World Cup IMO.

Let him improve his coaching record then return to the international
arena

Quote:

>But if you insist on that qualification for the home nations, you could end
>up decimating the rest of the Emerging Nations if, in the interests of
>racial strictness, you insist that they have to follow a similar selection
>policy. RL isn't alone in having a somewhat relaxed interpretation of who
>qualifies for its international teams. If it were, then Graham Hick, for
>example, would never have played cricket for England, and Greg Rusedski
>would not be the Great British tennis hope :-)

Hick had to play a fair old while in England before qualifying on the
residency rule. Rusdeski has an English Mom so has a parental
qualification

Quote:

>>Don't forget the motive here is nothing to do with whether Scotland et
>>al are ready for this, it is simply to secure sports council funding,
>>i.e. it is down to money.

>So what if the motives are somewhat murky? Hardly unusual in professional
>sport these days...However, I think ensuring our game qualifies for the same
>kind of handouts from the public purse as other sports is perfectly
>laudable, to be honest, and long overdue. The end result will be that RL
>gains more investment, and the people of the four home nations will take
>more of an interest in the RL World Cup than they would if it was just a GB
>amalgam. Wales went barmy for RL in '95, the Welsh RL team won BBC Wales
>Team of the Year, and S4C showed their group games live. Contrast that with
>GB's stunning victory against the Aussies at Wembley one year earlier,
>starring Jonathan Davies no less, which was shown live on the BBC in
>England, but *not* shown in Wales or Scotland until after the event...

>The home nations playing seperately will command far greater passionate
>support than GB ever seems to manage - at the Watford Test v NZ, the fans
>were shouting "England, England" not "GB, GB". The public has spoken ;-)

>>As this takes place at the same time as the RU world cup I can see the
>>journos having a field day when the mismatches result in the
>>inevitable thrashing being meated out.

>The RU World Cup (in 1999, not 2000) will have similar problems if they pit
>the All Blacks, or Australia or South Africa against the smaller nations.
>Seeding is everything. That's the area RL has to get things right,
>regardless of which countries are actually entered at the end of the day. If
>RL plays safe, and fields a reduced number of technically "stronger" teams,
>like GB instead of the home nations, it will attract derision from its
>enemies anyway, claiming it isn't a real international sport, regardless of
>how good and competitive the games are.

>>If we can't afford to run the comp without compromising it like this
>>we should let a country who can stage it get on with it instead.

>If it turns out half as good as the '95 World Cup it'll be fantastic. I'm
>glad it's in Britain (and hopefully shared with France too) and I can't wait
>for it to start :-)

>John

--
steve

by **David Odd** » Sat, 05 Dec 1998 04:00:00

On Thu, 3 Dec 1998 20:27:42 -0000, "John Drake"

Quote:

>>We are going to have cricket scores against Scotland and Ireland and
>>not much different against a drastically weakened English side.

>It depends how the pools are organised, surely? If Scotland and/or Ireland
>are in the same group as France, for example, it would only be a repeat of
>this year's Tri nations which produced some highly competitive and evenly
>balanced matches...

Well unless they "fix" it to be like that there will be a problem, but
if they do it will not alter the fact we now know who the finalists
will be - Australia and NZ.

Quote:

>Granted, if they end up playing Australia, like South Africa did in '95,
>then they will probably get battered. Even then, however, the Aus v SA game
>in '95 did not produce any wildly negative headlines in the media (the
>biggest cheer of the night coming, I seem to recall, when SA scored a try
>against the World Champions, which was picked up by the watching hacks) and
>it attracted a crowd of 9,000+ on a midweek in Gateshead.

Oh Great from going from the expectation of an even competition we are
reduced to hoping for a try.

Quote:

>As for England, if they get battered too, then it is only highlighting the
>real weaknesses which exist in the game here. IMO, pretending those
>weaknesses don't exist,

Everyone knows what the weaknesses are already. No one is trying to
hide them and another 1982 repeat is not required to let everyone
involved know this is the case.

Quote:

> or trying to hide them away by selecting players of
>other nations in a GB team

Giver over John. Other nations indeed. The teams with players from
"other nations" in them will be Scotland, Ireland and Wales.

Quote:

> is more dangerous in the long term than any
>beating a stand-alone national team might cop against the Aussies (1982 was
>a *** for British RL, but it was a much needed one, and helped kick
>the game out of its complacency).

Which we don't need again. We know the score.

Quote:

>It also depends on whether Australia are prepared to "play the game" too,
>and release certain of their players to the south sea island teams, unlike
>in 1995 when they retained the services of John Hopoate over the claims of
>Tonga.

It won't make much difference if do they play the game IMO. They have
the strength in depth to afford to do this. Britain does not.

Quote:

>>I feel sorry for Andy Goodway - he has no chance now to improve his
>>record as an international coach.

>It's arguable whether he would have improved his record anyway, and his
>personal coaching record ought to be of no consequence when it comes to
>organising a World Cup IMO.

I never meant to imply it should be. I make a simple comment on his
situation that is all (perhaps off topic).

He must feel it is a thankless task. He had no preparation time v NZ.
The clubs want to play 30 games next season so his players will be
knackered and now they take half his squad away.

I don't think he ought to be GB coach but I have sympathy with the
situation he finds himself in.

Quote:

>>> Also, possibly
>>>staging one of the pools in France is a GREAT idea!

>>No problem with that.

>>>Also, looks like the Emerging nations will be involved again too :-)

>>Which is where Scotland and Ireland (and for that matter Wales) still
>>belong.

>>They are just not ready for the level of competition posed in the main
>>competition. Not only will they loose by cricket scores if they play
>>the likes of Australia but they will not fair much better against some
>>of the lesser teams in the main competition.

>I think the latter point is very arguable.

Maybe but what about the former?

They belong in the emerging nations competition.

Quote:

>>It is simply too early to include them at this level.

>As I said before, it depends how the pools are structured. With an ounce of
>consideration of the respective playing strengths of each nation by the
>organisers, the 2000 World Cup could eclipse the undoubted success of the
>1995 tournament and leave the public wanting more, not laughing about the
>odd mis-match.

England in the emerging nations tournament then?

Last time they had it right. There were two worthwhile competitions
going. Now they have IMO devalued both.

We know who the finalists will be in the main comp and the emerging
nations comp has lost three teams.

Quote:

>>The emerging nations tournament was great last time and I would prefer
>>to see Scottish , Irish and Welsh sides in that competition with team
>>members who really are oft hat nationality rather than what they have
>>come up with.

>But if you insist on that qualification for the home nations, you could end
>up decimating the rest of the Emerging Nations if, in the interests of
>racial strictness, you insist that they have to follow a similar selection
>policy.

And why not? You go on about us kidding ourselves by including
players in the England squad of "another nationality" and then reckon
we need to bolster the emerging nations with players who are patently
not Irish or whatever.

It is the emerging nations who are being given a false strength, not
England.

Who is kidding who?

Quote:

> RL isn't alone in having a somewhat relaxed interpretation of who
>qualifies for its international teams.

That does not make it the correct thing to do.

Quote:

> If it were, then Graham Hick, for
>example, would never have played cricket for England, and Greg Rusedski
>would not be the Great British tennis hope :-)

I rest my case on the nationality point.

Quote:

>>Don't forget the motive here is nothing to do with whether Scotland et
>>al are ready for this, it is simply to secure sports council funding,
>>i.e. it is down to money.

>So what if the motives are somewhat murky? Hardly unusual in professional
>sport these days...However, I think ensuring our game qualifies for the same
>kind of handouts from the public purse as other sports is perfectly
>laudable, to be honest, and long overdue.

In order to secure this funding they have ruined the competition.

It is only worth perusing the cash to fund the tournament if the
tournament has some credibility.

In order to secure the funding they have had to go so far in making up
"false" British teams they have solved one problem and created
another.

Quote:

> The end result will be that RL
>gains more investment, and the people of the four home nations will take
>more of an interest in the RL World Cup than they would if it was just a GB
>amalgam.

I don't see why they have to play the home nations in the main
competition to secure this interest.

The emerging nations was successful and a final between (potentially,
but by no means certain) Scotland and Ireland or say Scotland and
Tonga would meet all the criteria for increasing the public awareness.

Playing these teams in the main competitions risks turning the public
off very quickly as they watch "their" sides be made to look like the
amateurs they are.

Have we learned nothing from the mismatches in the WCC? It seems not.
It seems we want more of the same.

Quote:

> Wales went barmy for RL in '95, the Welsh RL team won BBC Wales
>Team of the Year, and S4C showed their group games live. Contrast that with
>GB's stunning victory against the Aussies at Wembley one year earlier,
>starring Jonathan Davies no less, which was shown live on the BBC in
>England, but *not* shown in Wales or Scotland until after the event...

I hardly think TV apathy is a reason to***up the competition.

Anyway circumstances are different now. The BBC is taking far more
interest in RL (probably due to the fact they have hardly any other
sports left) so they may well cover the emerging nations very well.

IMO this part of issue will be more influenced by the fact the home
nations are involved in the RU world cup (the TV may go for that) and
who do you think the Welsh public will be following this time?

The Welsh RU side in the RU world cup or the RL side?

Quote:

>The home nations playing seperately will command far greater passionate
>support than GB ever seems to manage - at the Watford Test v NZ, the fans
>were shouting "England, England" not "GB, GB". The public has spoken ;-)

Exactly, they recognise an English team when they see it. Not a
Welsh, Scots or Irish player on the park.

Quote:

>>As this takes place at the same time as the RU world cup I can see the
>>journos having a field day when the mismatches result in the
>>inevitable thrashing being meated out.

>The RU World Cup (in 1999, not 2000) will have similar problems if they pit
>the All Blacks, or Australia or South Africa against the smaller nations.

Which does not mean it is not a problem, but I thought in RU they were
going through qualifying just now (and getting cricket scores in the
process) such that the minnows of RU will not being the finals anyway.

Quote:

>Seeding is everything. That's the area RL has to get things right,
>regardless of which countries are actually entered at the end of the day. If
>RL plays safe, and fields a reduced number of technically "stronger" teams,
>like GB instead of the home nations, it will attract derision from its
>enemies anyway, claiming it isn't a real international sport, regardless of
>how good and competitive the games are.

GB in RL is an accepted international entity and you know it.

However I am not suggesting we play GB. England is fine and obviously
it has to be England in the competition if the other home nations are
in it as well.

My point is in order to provide the other home nations with a team not
wholly made up of amateurs you have to emasculate England to do it.

If they played in the emerging nations comp you would not need to do
that.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>>If we can't afford to run the comp without compromising it like this
>>we should let a country who can stage it get on with it instead.

>If it turns out half as good as the '95 World Cup it'll be fantastic. I'm
>glad it's in Britain (and hopefully shared with France too) and I can't wait
>for

...

read more »

by **Mike Freedma** » Sun, 06 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>But your earlier point of the Aussies playing ball is absolutely spot on. GB
>and NZ are going to be really ***ed in the tournament through splitting
>their resources.

I wouldn't worry about the Kiwis. In the past, New Zealand has always had first
choice of players, with NZ Maori taking the rest. It would come as no surprise
to find the same happens for the 2000 World Cup. Given that NZ is probably
Australia's only credible opposition for the series, with the UK splitting their
team into 4, it is extremely unlikely that the NZRL would agree to weaken their
national team in this manner. The NZ Maoris will take the same role they always
have - as a development team with the brief of improving the state of rugby
league among Maori New Zealanders.

by **John Drak** » Sun, 06 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>>It depends how the pools are organised, surely? If Scotland and/or Ireland
>>are in the same group as France, for example, it would only be a repeat of
>>this year's Tri nations which produced some highly competitive and evenly
>>balanced matches...

>Well unless they "fix" it to be like that there will be a problem, but
>if they do it will not alter the fact we now know who the finalists
>will be - Australia and NZ.

Seeding...fixing...depends on your level of cynicism I suppose ;-)

I don't blame you for being cynical, by the way, and would not be at all
surprised to see the RL schedule Scotland v Australia as the opening game -
in Cardiff :-o

As for the potential finalists, whichever way you cut the "British" cloth,
Australia and NZ are the two strongest national teams in World RL, and must
be favourites to contest the final.

(IMO, leaving Andy Goodway in charge of a GB or "undiluted" England entry
would have the same effect of weakening the homegrown challenge as splitting
into four home nations...)

Quote:

>>Granted, if they end up playing Australia, like South Africa did in '95,
>>then they will probably get battered. Even then, however, the Aus v SA
game
>>in '95 did not produce any wildly negative headlines in the media (the
>>biggest cheer of the night coming, I seem to recall, when SA scored a try
>>against the World Champions, which was picked up by the watching hacks)
and
>>it attracted a crowd of 9,000+ on a midweek in Gateshead.

>Oh Great from going from the expectation of an even competition we are
>reduced to hoping for a try.

Not at all. I hope that an intelligent use of seeding in the tournament
pools will eliminate the possibility of the likes of SA meeting Australia in
2000, but my point was that even when such mis-matches do occur, past
history shows that their impact is not always exclusively negative.

I don't share your pessimism that England will be so pathetically weakened
by the loss of players to the other three home nations that they will become
hopelessly uncompetitive. Neither do I think they would win the World Cup
even if they could have first pick of the cream of British talent.

Quote:

>>As for England, if they get battered too, then it is only highlighting the
>>real weaknesses which exist in the game here. IMO, pretending those
>>weaknesses don't exist,

>Everyone knows what the weaknesses are already. No one is trying to
>hide them and another 1982 repeat is not required to let everyone
>involved know this is the case.

>> or trying to hide them away by selecting players of
>>other nations in a GB team

>Giver over John. Other nations indeed. The teams with players from
>"other nations" in them will be Scotland, Ireland and Wales.

Maybe, but I honestly don't care. If Shaun Edwards wants to play for
Ireland, Oldham born Iestyn Harris for Wales etc, good luck to them. It's
their choice, after all. The more international teams RL can muster, the
better IMO.

Quote:

>>It also depends on whether Australia are prepared to "play the game" too,
>>and release certain of their players to the south sea island teams, unlike
>>in 1995 when they retained the services of John Hopoate over the claims of
>>Tonga.

>It won't make much difference if do they play the game IMO. They have
>the strength in depth to afford to do this. Britain does not.

It would make a difference to the smaller nations, even if it made no
difference to Australia's chances of winning the tournament. To me, the
World Cup really isn't about who wins it, but about who takes part in it.
The 1995 Final was a dog of a game, arguably the worst of the entire
competition even though it involved the two "best" teams. The abiding
memories for me, ones I genuinely treasure, were created by the likes of
Tonga, Fiji, PNG, Wales, Western Samoa...none of whom ever had a realistic
chance of winning outright, but that wasn't why they were there.

Quote:

>>>They are just not ready for the level of competition posed in the main
>>>competition. Not only will they loose by cricket scores if they play
>>>the likes of Australia but they will not fair much better against some
>>>of the lesser teams in the main competition.

>>I think the latter point is very arguable.

>Maybe but what about the former?

I don't argue that Australia v Scotland/Ireland/Wales would probably end in
a cricket score. My anticipation is that those games won't take place, if it
is properly seeded. If they do happen, then I think the organisers will have
made a mistake, undoubtedly, and of course, I wouldn't put it past them :-(

Quote:

>>As I said before, it depends how the pools are structured. With an ounce
of
>>consideration of the respective playing strengths of each nation by the
>>organisers, the 2000 World Cup could eclipse the undoubted success of the
>>1995 tournament and leave the public wanting more, not laughing about the
>>odd mis-match.

>England in the emerging nations tournament then?

Apart from Australia and New Zealand, who even a full strength England side
aren't guaranteed to beat, I can't forsee a situation in which an England
side would be so bereft of talent that it could not compete effectively
against all the remaining RL playing nations. If that turns out not to be
the case, then English/British RL has one hell of a problem which ought to
be more of a concern than who does or doesn't compete in a World Cup.

Quote:

>Last time they had it right. There were two worthwhile competitions
>going. Now they have IMO devalued both.

The Emerging Nations had effectively been forgotten about completely, thanks
to the ineptitude of the old SL International Board, and the original plans
for the next World Cup were depressingly unadventurous (GB back, no Wales -
'95 semi finalists). 1995 showed what can be achieved when RL dares to dare.
I remember people complaining back then that the "British" challenge would
be weakened by having England and Wales compete seperately, but it was, IMO,
a masterstroke and a massive step forward for RL (subsequently frittered
away, of course, but such is life in this wonderful sport of ours).

Quote:

>We know who the finalists will be in the main comp and the emerging
>nations comp has lost three teams.

Predicting the finalists isn't the point IMO. It's never been that hard to
predict the finalists of an RL World Cup! And a repeat of the Emerging
nations comp was never on the cards. At least now, some of those nations
will have some part to play. Nothing in RL is ever perfect, but the revised
plans are, IMO, the least worst of all the options being considered by the
IB.

Quote:

>>>The emerging nations tournament was great last time and I would prefer
>>>to see Scottish , Irish and Welsh sides in that competition with team
>>>members who really are oft hat nationality rather than what they have
>>>come up with.

>>But if you insist on that qualification for the home nations, you could
end
>>up decimating the rest of the Emerging Nations if, in the interests of
>>racial strictness, you insist that they have to follow a similar selection
>>policy.

>And why not? You go on about us kidding ourselves by including
>players in the England squad of "another nationality" and then reckon
>we need to bolster the emerging nations with players who are patently
>not Irish or whatever.

I don't have a hang up about it. If the players concerned are happy to play
for Ireland, Scotland and Wales, because their granny went on a bus trip
there once upon a time, good for them. No one's twisting their arms. I
thought it was great that Tuigamala made such a fuss about playing for
Western Samoa in '95, even though he could've played for NZ and stood a
better chance of a winners medal. And I didn't mind when Tulsen Tollett
played for Great Britain on the '96 tour of NZ ;-)

Quote:

>> RL isn't alone in having a somewhat relaxed interpretation of who
>>qualifies for its international teams.

>That does not make it the correct thing to do.

Well, all I can say is it doesn't bother me personally. So long as a player
plays with a bit (no, a lot) of pride in the shirt, that's good enough for
me. I don't insist that Bradford Bulls field 100% born and bred Bradfordians
either - good job too given the way things are going at Odsal, cobber ;-)

Quote:

>> If it were, then Graham Hick, for
>>example, would never have played cricket for England, and Greg Rusedski
>>would not be the Great British tennis hope :-)

>I rest my case on the nationality point.

As I said, it's a hang up I don't share. I know if, for example, Rusedski
wins Wimbledon, it reflects no credit whatsoever on the state of British
Tennis, but it will put a smile on most people's faces and probably
encourage loads of people to start playing tennis. Is that a bad thing?
Martina Navratilova wasn't "Born in the USA" but she still became an
American sporting legend. Hypocritical? Opportunistic? Maybe, maybe not, but
people were admiring her abilities as a sportswoman, not her birth
certificate.

That's enough tennis for rsrl :-)

Quote:

>I think ensuring our game qualifies for the
same
>>kind of handouts from the public purse as other sports is perfectly
>>laudable, to be honest, and long overdue.

>In order to secure this funding they have ruined the competition.

Sorry, I don't share that view. We can't possibly know how the competition
will pan out until we know:
a) how the pools will be organised, and
b) exactly which players will be playing for which teams.

How many "first choice" potential England selections are likely to end up
playing for the other home nations, anyway...? Are alarm bells being rung
for no apparent reason...?

Quote:

>It is only worth perusing the cash to fund the tournament if the
>tournament has some credibility.

>In order to secure the funding they have had to go so far in making up
>"false" British teams they have solved one problem and created
>another.

They haven't made up "false" British teams, though. They all played a part
in ...

read more »

by **Richard Edli** » Mon, 07 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> I'm disapointed two NZ sides are in it though. I didn't think NZ Maoris was a
> country, how can we class that as a Test match.

Don't ask me ... I'm not a great fan of the concept :-)

Quote:

> At least Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England are countries.

Well, Ireland is! BTW where do N.Irish players go?

Richard.

by **Richard Edli** » Mon, 07 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> You are now saying the games would be of sufficiently high standard to
> generate public interest (and I agree), so why not incorporate them into the
> main event, instead of relegating them to a sideshow? So long as you keep
> them apart from Aus/NZ (easily done), those teams would then have a much
> higher profile, which ought to be the primary aim of the World Cup. And why
> relegate Tonga to the status of also-rans, when they were an outstanding
> success in the main tournament in '95? (they played NZ off the pitch at
> Warrington and only lost in the dying moments of the game).

As a Kiwi, it's the scariest game of RL I've ever seen :-)
Damn, the Tongans played well !!!

After '95, I'm looking forward to seeing both the Tongans and the
Samoans play in the next World Cup.

Richard.

by **d..** » Tue, 15 Dec 1998 04:00:00

On Sat, 5 Dec 1998 01:20:29 -0000, "John Drake"

Great post John!! Few bits I especially agree with :

Quote:

>Seeding...fixing...depends on your level of cynicism I suppose ;-)

True, why not treat it as some kind of "handicap" event. Other sports
do the same. A World Cup should be about bringing as much of the
"world" into the event. Test series can be used to more accurately
measure the comparative strengths of nations. The World Cup should
have more of an "intenational celebration of the game" flavour.

If this means using national heritage rather than the nation of
residence as a "distribution of wealth" device, then so what?

Quote:

>As for the potential finalists, whichever way you cut the "British" cloth,
>Australia and NZ are the two strongest national teams in World RL, and must
>be favourites to contest the final.

Probably.

Quote:

>(IMO, leaving Andy Goodway in charge of a GB or "undiluted" England entry
>would have the same effect of weakening the homegrown challenge as splitting
>into four home nations...)

Yeah, I don't think Great Britain have done much for themselves as an
international force. If they're not prepared to try a little harder
and pick a real coach instead of an "old boy" with very little
demonstrated talent for the job, then they're not even helping
themselves. He'd get away with being so rude and smug to the media if
he was actually getting results. But, when you're battling for
recognition in your own country, a coach being so off-hand and
arrogant with the media, and losing winnable series as well, is a
liability you don't need.
Maybe one of the emerging nations will have the sense to appoint
someone who shows ability as a coach, rather than an ex-player who's
still good mates with the blokes making the appointment.

Quote:

>I don't share your pessimism that England will be so pathetically weakened
>by the loss of players to the other three home nations that they will become
>hopelessly uncompetitive. Neither do I think they would win the World Cup
>even if they could have first pick of the cream of British talent.

It might open the door for a few new faces at rep level, who could
then be called into the Great Britain side for Tests against Australia
and New Zealand.

Quote:

>>>As for England, if they get battered too, then it is only highlighting the
>>>real weaknesses which exist in the game here. IMO, pretending those
>>>weaknesses don't exist,
>>Everyone knows what the weaknesses are already. No one is trying to
>>hide them and another 1982 repeat is not required to let everyone
>>involved know this is the case.

After the World Club Challenge and the recent loss to the Kiwis, I
don't think there's a lot to lose, sadly.

Quote:

>Maybe, but I honestly don't care. If Shaun Edwards wants to play for
>Ireland, Oldham born Iestyn Harris for Wales etc, good luck to them. It's
>their choice, after all. The more international teams RL can muster, the
>better IMO.
>To me, the
>World Cup really isn't about who wins it, but about who takes part in it.

Yep. Why not think of it as a talent showcase instead, featuring the
best players from countries who have links with rugby league. Someone
like Adrian Lam has done more for rugby league by leading PNG in
international matches than he could ever do for the game, and himself,
by playing for Queensland, Australia or Sydney City.
For PNG locals who get to play alongside someone like Lam it's a huge
experience, gives the game glamour in an outpost that otherwise gets
little - that's their victory in world cup. As is rewarding some of
their best with an opportunity on the world stage alongside someone
who indentifies with PNG, regardless of what his passport or birth
certificate says.

Quote:

>I don't argue that Australia v Scotland/Ireland/Wales would probably end in
>a cricket score. My anticipation is that those games won't take place, if it
>is properly seeded. If they do happen, then I think the organisers will have
>made a mistake, undoubtedly, and of course, I wouldn't put it past them :-(

Uh-huh.

Quote:

>Predicting the finalists isn't the point IMO. It's never been that hard to
>predict the finalists of an RL World Cup! And a repeat of the Emerging
>nations comp was never on the cards. At least now, some of those nations
>will have some part to play. Nothing in RL is ever perfect, but the revised
>plans are, IMO, the least worst of all the options being considered by the
>IB.

>>>>The emerging nations tournament was great last time and I would prefer
>>>>to see Scottish , Irish and Welsh sides in that competition with team
>>>>members who really are oft hat nationality rather than what they have
>>>>come up with.
>>And why not? You go on about us kidding ourselves by including
>>players in the England squad of "another nationality" and then reckon
>>we need to bolster the emerging nations with players who are patently
>>not Irish or whatever.
>I don't have a hang up about it. If the players concerned are happy to play
>for Ireland, Scotland and Wales, because their granny went on a bus trip
>there once upon a time, good for them. No one's twisting their arms. I
>thought it was great that Tuigamala made such a fuss about playing for
>Western Samoa in '95, even though he could've played for NZ and stood a
>better chance of a winners medal. And I didn't mind when Tulsen Tollett
>played for Great Britain on the '96 tour of NZ ;-)

Exactly.

Quote:

>>> RL isn't alone in having a somewhat relaxed interpretation of who
>>>qualifies for its international teams.

>>That does not make it the correct thing to do.

>Well, all I can say is it doesn't bother me personally. So long as a player
>plays with a bit (no, a lot) of pride in the shirt, that's good enough for
>me. I don't insist that Bradford Bulls field 100% born and bred Bradfordians
>either - good job too given the way things are going at Odsal, cobber ;-)

Perfectly put. Even ***y Yorkshire Cricket got over that, and
they're the ultra-conservatives in an even more conversative sporting
code than rugby league.

Quote:

>>> If it were, then Graham Hick, for
>>>example, would never have played cricket for England, and Greg Rusedski
>>>would not be the Great British tennis hope :-)

>>I rest my case on the nationality point.

>As I said, it's a hang up I don't share. I know if, for example, Rusedski
>wins Wimbledon, it reflects no credit whatsoever on the state of British
>Tennis, but it will put a smile on most people's faces and probably
>encourage loads of people to start playing tennis. Is that a bad thing?
>Martina Navratilova wasn't "Born in the USA" but she still became an
>American sporting legend. Hypocritical? Opportunistic? Maybe, maybe not, but
>people were admiring her abilities as a sportswoman, not her birth
>certificate.

Hit the nail on the head there. We're looking for obstacles to put in
our own paths.

Quote:

>>I think ensuring our game qualifies for the
>same
>>>kind of handouts from the public purse as other sports is perfectly
>>>laudable, to be honest, and long overdue.

Yes. when the goals posts move, you have to adjust the match plan.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>>> Wales went barmy for RL in '95, the Welsh RL team won BBC Wales
>>>Team of the Year, and S4C showed their group games live. Contrast that
>with
>>>GB's stunning victory against the Aussies at Wembley one year earlier,
>>>starring Jonathan Davies no less, which was shown live on the BBC in
>>>England, but *not* shown in Wales or Scotland until after the event...

>>I hardly think TV apathy is a reason to***up the competition.

>TV companies show what they think their viewers want to see, because they
>want big audiences. BBC Wales and BBC Scotland did not think their viewers
>would be interested in watching Great Britain play RL in the 1994 Test
>Series, but 1 year later BBC Wales was falling over itself to get a slice of
>our international action because it featured "Wales" - even though Kelvin
>Skerrett was as Welsh then as Shaun Edwards is Irish now ;-)

>>Anyway circumstances are different now. The BBC is taking far more
>>interest in RL (probably due to the fact they have hardly any other
>>sports left) so they may well cover the emerging nations very well.

>So we are reduced to picking up the crumbs, now that the "bigger" sports
>have deserted to richer pastures? Blimey, Dave, I'm glad you're not in
>charge of promoting the game cos you certainly know how to talk it down :-(

>RL as BBC schedule-filler. Is that all it's good for?

>>IMO this part of issue will be more influenced by the fact the home
>>nations are involved in the RU world cup (the TV may go for that) and
>>who do you think the Welsh public will be following this time?

>>The Welsh RU side in the RU world cup or the RL side?

>Huh? The RU World Cup will have been history for 12 months before the RL
>World Cup kicks off. It's in 1999, not 2000 so there won't be a clash or
>competition for public loyalty.

>>>The home nations playing seperately will command far greater passionate
>>>support than GB ever seems to manage - at the Watford Test v NZ, the fans
>>>were shouting "England, England" not "GB, GB". The public has spoken ;-)

>>Exactly, they recognise an English team when they see it. Not a
>>Welsh, Scots or Irish player on the park.

>GB fans in my earshot have always ended up shouting "England, England" - it
>trips off the tongue so much easier than "Great Britain, Great Britain".
>Even when Jonathan Davies was playing. And he definitely was Welsh :-)

>>>Seeding is everything. That's the area RL has to get things right,
>>>regardless of which countries are actually entered at the end of the day.
>If
>>>RL plays safe, and fields a reduced number of technically "stronger"
>teams,
>>>like GB instead of the home nations, it will attract derision from its
>>>enemies anyway, claiming it isn't a real international sport, regardless
>of
>>>how good and competitive the games are.

...

read more »

by **David Odd** » Tue, 15 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>>(IMO, leaving Andy Goodway in charge of a GB or "undiluted" England entry
>>would have the same effect of weakening the homegrown challenge as splitting
>>into four home nations...)
>Yeah, I don't think Great Britain have done much for themselves as an
>international force. If they're not prepared to try a little harder
>and pick a real coach instead of an "old boy" with very little
>demonstrated talent for the job, then they're not even helping
>themselves. He'd get away with being so rude and smug to the media if
>he was actually getting results. But, when you're battling for
>recognition in your own country, a coach being so off-hand and
>arrogant with the media, and losing winnable series as well, is a
>liability you don't need.
>Maybe one of the emerging nations will have the sense to appoint
>someone who shows ability as a coach, rather than an ex-player who's
>still good mates with the blokes making the appointment.

I don't see what Goodway's ability or attitude has to do with the
decision to split the nations in this way. I only mentioned in
passing that despite his poor record he has hardly had it easy over
recent internationals and now he has had half his first choice squad
taken away.

Quote:

>>I don't share your pessimism that England will be so pathetically weakened
>>by the loss of players to the other three home nations that they will become
>>hopelessly uncompetitive. Neither do I think they would win the World Cup
>>even if they could have first pick of the cream of British talent.

>It might open the door for a few new faces at rep level, who could
>then be called into the Great Britain side for Tests against Australia
>and New Zealand.

I think given the likelihood that we could probably not field a full
strength GB side at the end of a season (injuries always take a toll ,
look at recent series) we are in serious danger of loosing all
credibility.

I don't have a problem with England as opposed to GB being in the
world cup.

I do have a problem with diluting England to put nations who are
clearly not ready for it into the main event as opposed to emerging
nations.

Scotland , Wales and Ireland have NO professional RL. Virtually NO
professional RL players playing in England (I mean genuine Scots or
whatever).

The decision has everything to do with money and little to do with
organising a promotional event.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>>>>As for England, if they get battered too, then it is only highlighting the
>>>>real weaknesses which exist in the game here. IMO, pretending those
>>>>weaknesses don't exist,
>>>Everyone knows what the weaknesses are already. No one is trying to
>>>hide them and another 1982 repeat is not required to let everyone
>>>involved know this is the case.
>After the World Club Challenge and the recent loss to the Kiwis, I
>don't think there's a lot to lose, sadly.

>>Maybe, but I honestly don't care. If Shaun Edwards wants to play for
>>Ireland, Oldham born Iestyn Harris for Wales etc, good luck to them. It's
>>their choice, after all. The more international teams RL can muster, the
>>better IMO.

>>To me, the
>>World Cup really isn't about who wins it, but about who takes part in it.

In the days gone by of jolly old amateurism such an attitude was
probably prevalent but I am afraid we are in the era of professional
sport.

Winning and money are everything.

Quote:

>Yep. Why not think of it as a talent showcase instead, featuring the
>best players from countries who have links with rugby league.

Because it is the world cup, which I assume, is supposed to be the
biggest international prize in the sport.

I doubt if it will be marketed (if it is at all) as anything else.

Quote:

> Someone
>like Adrian Lam has done more for rugby league by leading PNG in
>international matches than he could ever do for the game, and himself,
>by playing for Queensland, Australia or Sydney City.
>For PNG locals who get to play alongside someone like Lam it's a huge
>experience, gives the game glamour in an outpost that otherwise gets
>little - that's their victory in world cup. As is rewarding some of
>their best with an opportunity on the world stage alongside someone
>who indentifies with PNG, regardless of what his passport or birth
>certificate says.

I know little about Lam's background but I doubt it compares to the
English players who are supposedly Scottish.

Quote:

>>I don't argue that Australia v Scotland/Ireland/Wales would probably end in
>>a cricket score. My anticipation is that those games won't take place, if it
>>is properly seeded. If they do happen, then I think the organisers will have
>>made a mistake, undoubtedly, and of course, I wouldn't put it past them :-(
>Uh-huh.

Well there is going to be a draw for the WC at the world nines in SA.
Does not sound like a ceded draw to me.

Quote:

>>Predicting the finalists isn't the point IMO. It's never been that hard to
>>predict the finalists of an RL World Cup! And a repeat of the Emerging
>>nations comp was never on the cards.

Why not? There is one is there not?

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> At least now, some of those nations
>>will have some part to play. Nothing in RL is ever perfect, but the revised
>>plans are, IMO, the least worst of all the options being considered by the
>>IB.

>>>>>The emerging nations tournament was great last time and I would prefer
>>>>>to see Scottish , Irish and Welsh sides in that competition with team
>>>>>members who really are oft hat nationality rather than what they have
>>>>>come up with.

>>>And why not? You go on about us kidding ourselves by including
>>>players in the England squad of "another nationality" and then reckon
>>>we need to bolster the emerging nations with players who are patently
>>>not Irish or whatever.
>>I don't have a hang up about it. If the players concerned are happy to play
>>for Ireland, Scotland and Wales, because their granny went on a bus trip
>>there once upon a time, good for them. No one's twisting their arms. I
>>thought it was great that Tuigamala made such a fuss about playing for
>>Western Samoa in '95, even though he could've played for NZ and stood a
>>better chance of a winners medal. And I didn't mind when Tulsen Tollett
>>played for Great Britain on the '96 tour of NZ ;-)
>Exactly.

I think the whole mechanism for selection is crazy. You are either
English, Aussie or whatever and that is it.

I have friends who have a young son born in St. Albans. Mum is Welsh,
Dad is Scottish. Theoretically he can play for three nations!

Mad.

Quote:

>>>> RL isn't alone in having a somewhat relaxed interpretation of who
>>>>qualifies for its international teams.

>>>That does not make it the correct thing to do.

>>Well, all I can say is it doesn't bother me personally. So long as a player
>>plays with a bit (no, a lot) of pride in the shirt, that's good enough for
>>me. I don't insist that Bradford Bulls field 100% born and bred Bradfordians
>>either - good job too given the way things are going at Odsal, cobber ;-)
>Perfectly put. Even ***y Yorkshire Cricket got over that, and
>they're the ultra-conservatives in an even more conversative sporting
>code than rugby league.

Playing for a club and country are hardly the same thing. My wife is
from Yorkshire, does not follow Cricket but was disappointed when
Yorkshire ended the rule.

I guess it was quaint and was costing them wins but if all teams
adopted the same rule, then why would it be a problem?

If all international sides played only true nationals then I don't see
the problem either.

RL came up with the ideal solution and invented the emerging nations
tournament.

In order to secure a bit of funding they now ruin that and***up
the main competition as well.

Quote:

>>>> If it were, then Graham Hick, for
>>>>example, would never have played cricket for England, and Greg Rusedski
>>>>would not be the Great British tennis hope :-)

>>>I rest my case on the nationality point.

>>As I said, it's a hang up I don't share. I know if, for example, Rusedski
>>wins Wimbledon, it reflects no credit whatsoever on the state of British
>>Tennis, but it will put a smile on most people's faces and probably
>>encourage loads of people to start playing tennis. Is that a bad thing?
>>Martina Navratilova wasn't "Born in the USA" but she still became an
>>American sporting legend. Hypocritical? Opportunistic? Maybe, maybe not, but
>>people were admiring her abilities as a sportswoman, not her birth
>>certificate.

She also became an American citizen. Rather different than players
who's nationality is English playing for a.n.other.

Quote:

>Hit the nail on the head there. We're looking for obstacles to put in
>our own paths.

>>>I think ensuring our game qualifies for the
>>same
>>>>kind of handouts from the public purse as other sports is perfectly
>>>>laudable, to be honest, and long overdue.
>Yes. when the goals posts move, you have to adjust the match plan.

You have to keep things in perspective. Going for funds is one thing.

Emasculating the tournament to do it is another.

Quote:

>BTW Dave, I'm not siding against you as a payback or anything :-).
>I am worried you're starting to sound more conservative each week!!!!

Oh dear. It must be the stress of Christmas shopping.

Dave

Quote:

>DebS

--

Wigan Warriors RLFC - 1998 Super League Champions
(Oh - and Grand Final winners as well)

Change "astalasvista" to "altavista" when replying via email and
replace ".jnk" with ".net"
.

Sport Today

International RL - Some Good News...?

International RL - Some Good News...?

International RL - Some Good News...?

International RL - Some Good News...?

International RL - Some Good News...?

International RL - Some Good News...?

International RL - Some Good News...?

International RL - Some Good News...?

International RL - Some Good News...?

International RL - Some Good News...?

International RL - Some Good News...?

International RL - Some Good News...?

International RL - Some Good News...?

International RL - Some Good News...?

International RL - Some Good News...?

International RL - Some Good News...?