Hi,
I am quite interested in gaging some opinions and schools of thought on why GB/England cannot compete against Australia. In the past 40 years, England/GB have beaten Australia less than 5/6 times, making a mockery out of the international game. But how can there be such a gap in quality between two of the biggest RL countries in the world?
Yes, the NRL is five times bigger than SL but over the years, man for man the gaps between the two teams hasn't always been one sided. In football there really isn't a comprehensive comparison. Brazil (Greatest footballing nation on earth) would lose to their far more inferior rivals Peru than Australia do to Great Britain, even though GB and Aus there is a less of a gap in terms of quality in comparison to my Peru vs Brazil example.
So ultimately, why is it that the sport of rugby league has one dominate international team. Even in Basketball where the US usually dominate, they still loose tournaments to inferior nations, but GB can't beat Australia.
WHY?
A tricky question thats for sure.
Having lived and worked in Oz and now having family there I would make a few point, though they don't answer your question. They may point in a particular direction.
Even in primary school pupils are required to do physical activity for an hour a day, usually on playground equipment which schools have. This produces physically co-ordinated kids. Many of our youngsters can't skip as kids in my youth could.
Even teenagers and over who are engaged in amateur sport take it very seriously. The worst thing for them is a good coach refusing to take them on board. A colleague in his early 20's was State Freestyle champion. He left after hours parties etc at 9.30 to be in bed by 10.00. He was engaged and his fiancee was very supportive and even ribbing by his workmates wouldn't shake him. His title meant that much to him.
Another 20 yr old colleague played for a uni hockey team, his coach would keep them practising moves up til 11.00 at night til they got the moves right. A loss meant that fitness training was doubled reps!
As I say, it doesn't give an answer to your question but it shows a different attitude to 'sport'.
So ultimately, why is it that the sport of rugby league has one dominate international team. Even in Basketball where the US usually dominate, they still lose tournaments to inferior nations, but GB can’t beat Australia. WHY?
Standard of competition would be one. Fitness, game smarts & high level intensity all being the norm and bare minimum over there, whereas over here it's only a couple of times a season.
Add in that we're always trying to copy styles, so always a way behind & when we do catch up it has already moved on.
We have a small amount of money over here compared to the NRL, but instead of investing it in youth, facilities etc. they will spend an insane amount on some over the hill journeyman.
Going gets tough, give a penalty away. etc. etc.
Many, many reasons. Clubs selfish attitudes, and short sightedness being right up there though!
It is true that Australia are a very sports-orientated culture and they most certainly thrive in all sports they participate in, truly rounded. But that is the same for Union yet, England RFU compete and in many cases beat the Aussies frequently and the RL equivalent do not.
My hypothesis is that the State of Orgin is part of the reasoning, it was mainly introduced in the early 80's, the same time as when Aus started to dominate GB in every test and tournament. In my opinion, Aus players playing the Orgin games give's them the edge as if they can perform in those three games then it give's them great experience, musscle memory and skills to perform in test matches at international level, whereas GB simply do not have the same anything similar as Orgin.
It is noticeable that some UK exports fit the Aussie game. Williams is a case in point. The difference, maybe, is that he now has players around him who are switched on to his game and he is allowed to play. Thinking back to Ricky Stewart's era and I bet he is loving every minute of it, like watching himself play!
Just watched the Storm game. No let up, every set is a scoring opportunity, no time to sit back and relax.
Our SL has dropped in tempo dye to Covid, but has it dropped overall? Do players get too safe and can have poor games more often? You certainly feel that the sense of urgency isn't there ran.
Wonder what Pryce thinks is the difference? Or is that what frustrates Powell?
I think you may all valid and important points Torn but I think they're points that are related to short-term to medium-term defeats? When you're haven't won a game of significance after 40 years then do you start to question the mental side?
For instance, if Italy played Republic of Ireland in football 20 time's, I'd bet Ireland would win more games than GB would if the same applied to GB vs Aus, even though the gaps of resources and quality are greater in the football example than they're with GB vs Aus. Another example, NZ are a miniature Cricket nation compared to England yet they will still beat England more times than GB rugby beat Australia.
I can accept Aus dominating most tournaments and tests but I find it inexplicable that GB can't win one significant game in 40 years. It isn't like it is amateurs vs professionals. GB have had some world class players and have produced some great teams.
Re the State of Origin logic. We used to have Lancs v Yorks and used it as 'test' to guide the international squad selection.
The last time that it was used Yorkshire won comprehensively against a Lancs side with a heavy Wigan bias (iirc). Danny Orr, then a youngster, murdered the Lancs side. The international squad was subsequently selected with a heavy Wigan presence, but no Danny Orr as I recall.
There were no subsequent Lancs v Yorks 'test' games.
Others may well recall the situation better than I can, but it gives you a clue!
Re the State of Origin logic. We used to have Lancs v Yorks and used it as ‘test’ to guide the international squad selection. The last time that it was used Yorkshire won comprehensively against a Lancs side with a heavy Wigan bias (iirc). Danny Orr, then a youngster, murdered the Lancs side. The international squad was subsequently selected with a heavy Wigan presence, but no Danny Orr as I recall. There were no subsequent Lancs v Yorks ‘test’ games. Others may well recall the situation better than I can, but it gives you a clue!
I can understand why Lancashire vs Yorks game's were fazed out, as it only really has appeals in two counties and I think club rivalries are bigger than county rivalries. However, I cannot fathom why they'd didn't carry on with the Exile games? England was getting a comprehensive test only bettered by playing Aus or NZ and the dynamic was interesting.
What was the reason? People may say it didn't really take off in terms of crowds etc but for any concept to be successful it take's time for people to fall in love with it, if it carried on for 10 year's every season maybe 2 team test then I am sure general interest levels would continue to grow.
Instead, England play France and win by 60 points every year.
Re the State of Origin logic. We used to have Lancs v Yorks and used it as ‘test’ to guide the international squad selection. The last time that it was used Yorkshire won comprehensively against a Lancs side with a heavy Wigan bias (iirc). Danny Orr, then a youngster, murdered the Lancs side. The international squad was subsequently selected with a heavy Wigan presence, but no Danny Orr as I recall. There were no subsequent Lancs v Yorks ‘test’ games. Others may well recall the situation better than I can, but it gives you a clue!
I went to every Yorks v Lancs game when they were given a re-birth, and similarly attended all the Exiles' matches, and not one got above three quarter pace in my opinion! The "hate" there is in Origin football, wasn't there at all, and until we've summat even approaching what Blues v Maroons offers, I'm afraid we'll continue to struggle when the Convicts are our opponents!
I watched the four NRL play offs over the weekend, plus the two semis over here, and we are currently not on the same planet! OK, you could argue that the conditions were vastly different, but the quality Down Under is off the scale from what SL has to offer!
Take full back for instance. Prob our only "established" number one is plying his trade across La Manche, and he's not exactly in the first throes of youth either is he? They've got the likes of Ponga, Papenhuyzen, Klokstad, Tedesco, and Turbo Tommy, who'll all be battling for the same green and gold shirt!
My World Cup tickets are booked (going to twenty six matches in the men's comp) and hope, as ever, springs eternal, but words like "breath" "holding" "not" and "my" spring to mind, about us even reaching the final!
Spelly.
Perhaps we should forget about chasing the Aussie game and concentrate on building the best and strongest British teams. If this means cutting back on overpaid on overpaid Aussies, we may well even expand the British game!
Your summing up is about right Spelly! The 'Other Nationalities' games were always sell outs iirc though they were more like Barbarians games in RU.
It looks more like a lack of will to really give it 'everything'.
I think you may all valid and important points Torn but I think they’re points that are related to short-term to medium-term defeats? When you’re haven’t won a game of significance after 40 years then do you start to question the mental side? For instance, if Italy played Republic of Ireland in football 20 time’s, I’d bet Ireland would win more games than GB would if the same applied to GB vs Aus, even though the gaps of resources and quality are greater in the football example than they’re with GB vs Aus. Another example, NZ are a miniature Cricket nation compared to England yet they will still beat England more times than GB rugby beat Australia. I can accept Aus dominating most tournaments and tests but I find it inexplicable that GB can’t win one significant game in 40 years. It isn’t like it is amateurs vs professionals. GB have had some world class players and have produced some great teams.
Because they have suitable games to improve, and when their players play in a different league to the national team it's at a higher level. English players flourishing in NRL as they have to work hard and give it 100% in Oz or you're out.
You don't in England as the standard, and probably a lot more importantly the intensity just isn't there, whereas in Oz it is every game (And is just the norm!). The players in SL when in a tough spot often cop out and just give a penalty away. I don't think it's the players as much as the league which harms international chances. Imagine an NRL team signing a Jon Wilkin or other "old head" in their twilight years on mega bucks. We do exactly that, but in reverse!
Put another way if you dropped each SL club into the NRL and predicted where they would finish it would be right near the bottom I suspect. Would be just like international games, in that they (A top SL) would be a match for a number of teams for an hour and lose out in the final 20, due to the above reasons. On the flip side even the worst Aussie teams would be at/near the very top of Super League. If you merged the 2 leagues into 1 then the top dozen would likely all be Oz clubs as sad as it is.
You're right TS, I have always said it that the RFL should stop trying to compete with the NRL and instead focus on building a sustainable league format that can dominate the heartlands.
You’re right TS, I have always said it that the RFL should stop trying to compete with the NRL and instead focus on building a sustainable league format that can dominate the heartlands.
I can understand your reasoning mate, but...……………...
If we don't aspire to be better, are we admitting defeat before a ball is kicked in anger?
I realise that we've not got the better of 'em over here since '59, and that's before I was watching the game! We won the World Cup via the back door in '72, and triumphed Down Under in '74, but since then, not a lot!
It seems like I'm contradicting myself I know, but I still live for the day when we can send the Kangaroos home with their tails between their legs!
I don't think SL will ever reach the level of the NRL, so I'm prob in dreamland by hoping we can one day pull it off at international level, in a tour / Tri-Nations / World Cup, but there's no charge for dreaming!
I mention again that (in my opinion) Origin is one of the main reasons we come up short, coz three times a year, NSW and QLD raise the level even higher than the "normal" league games. We have nowt like that.
Also repeating myself, hope springs eternal (easy when you're a Swinton fan) So, roll on the World Cup!
Spelly.
You’re right TS, I have always said it that the RFL should stop trying to compete with the NRL and instead focus on building a sustainable league format that can dominate the heartlands.
I can understand your reasoning mate, but………………… If we don’t aspire to be better, are we admitting defeat before a ball is kicked in anger? I realise that we’ve not got the better of ’em over here since ’59, and that’s before I was watching the game! We won the World Cup via the back door in ’72, and triumphed Down Under in ’74, but since then, not a lot! It seems like I’m contradicting myself I know, but I still live for the day when we can send the Kangaroos home with their tails between their legs! I don’t think SL will ever reach the level of the NRL, so I’m prob in dreamland by hoping we can one day pull it off at international level, in a tour / Tri-Nations / World Cup, but there’s no charge for dreaming! I mention again that (in my opinion) Origin is one of the main reasons we come up short, coz three times a year, NSW and QLD raise the level even higher than the “normal” league games. We have nowt like that. Also repeating myself, hope springs eternal (easy when you’re a Swinton fan) So, roll on the World Cup! Spelly.
Totally disagree Spelly. We need to identify and develop the strengths of British game and beat the Aussies at our gane. If we continually just try copy the Aussie game, the chances are we will always be a step (or two) behind.
Anyway, why are we so focused on the Aussies and importing expensive players - with few exceptions - who have played their best years in NRL. The game should look to bringing through the best British prospects to develop in the British game, perhaps with a centrally funded international elite squad to help clubs retain these players in the UK club game.
Until RFL/SL decide the future of the game - is it the NA expansion or is there to be a vision to develop and promote the game in Britain/Europe, based on two competitive leagues and avoiding the current wide disparity in the funding of the game between the SL and lower levels. It will need some clubs to face up to financial reality. If they are not able to effectively promote and develop their club at local level through increased support and sponsorship, then they need to seriously consider whether the club will ever be sustainable.
It is about time the RFL/SL put forward a definite long term vision for the game. Long suffering fans of the local community clubs, who will have no place in a small elite international league, can then decide whether it is a game worth supporting. Sadly, at the moment, I cannot see any future for RL in the UK and, if by the remote possibility the NA expansion takes off, it will quickly be taken over by the North American teams and UK will become the back water of the game.