State of Origin Concept

[Scrubber2050]

Of course all eligible test players should play. Otherwise a shambles and a nothing game. Put out the best each State has to offer.

We all love test matches but some are better than others. NZ, England, Wales etc are great. A game like this one has the potential (if done right) to out-value the lesser tests. - It has happened in League whereas a SOO weighs heavier than dare I say it most test matches, if not all.

Everyone wants the game to succeed and grow. Doing the same old shit isn't going to achieve that.

Try a new concept - keep it simple. If successful maybe grow the concept into some other States and even chuck in a Territory

 

[Slim 293]

Try a new concept

So, scratch that SOO idea then?

 

[Twoilms]

You might be able have all eligible test players available during relatively quiet test years, like the coming one. But imagine trying to squeeze in a full-availability game in last years season, with all the injuries and diluted performances we suffered.

It's a pointless concept without test players but we don't have the time nor should the players be expected handle yet another game in the name of revenue generation.

Shit we fucking sucked last season, can't we focus on being good in the games we play without making them play even more. Consistent, positive results will do more for ratings and revenue than a gimmick ever could.

How many minutes of rugby did Hooper play last season?

 

[amirite]

Failure to experiment and evolve the product is why Australian Rugby is struggling in ratings and financially.. this SOO might not be the long or even short term answer, but I'm grateful that they are at least finally trying to find ways to improve the product on offer.

Criticise away, but what alternative is there, because doing nothing certainly isn't the answer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I don't know if that's true mate, the current evolution of the Super product, of which Australia was a decision maker, is generally considered to be pretty poor.

I don't think a failure to evolve is the issue, as much as a failure in evolving.

 

[RugbyReg]

How many minutes of rugby did Hooper play last season?

would he make the NSW team ahead of Smith anyway???

 

[Scrubber2050]

So, scratch that SOO idea then?

No main game still between NSW and QLD

May chuck in a consolation SOO game between Brums, Rebels and Force if any of them could field 23 players from their State or Territory. I doubt that so may have to be a game of 5 aside

 

[Braveheart81]

Maybe the ARU should be celebrating the cultural diversity of the game here and make it a contest between a team of players born here vs those born overseas.

The number of players ineligible if the requirements were to be born here are somewhat staggering:

Kepu, Robertson, Moore, Mumm, Timani, Pocock, Cooper, Kerevi, Nabuli, Korczyk, Houston, Paia'aua, Hunt, Latu, Simone, Naiyaravoro, Skelton

Who else?

 

[Scrubber2050]

Maybe the ARU should be celebrating the cultural diversity of the game here and make it a contest between a team of players born here vs those born overseas.

The number of players ineligible if the requirements were to be born here are somewhat staggering:

Kepu, Robertson, Moore, Mumm, Timani, Pocock, Cooper, Kerevi, Nabuli, Korczyk, Houston, Paia'aua, Hunt, Latu, Simone, Naiyaravoro, Skelton

Who else?

BH thats fine but a SOO contest to work must be between NSW and QLD

Nobody would give a shit about an born overseas eligibility match.

Secret of success is to tap into the "dislike", "hatred" of the populations of those 2 States. NSW may not have the same feelings about people from QLD but the reverse remains a constant since Federation

 

[Twoilms]

Secret of success is to tap into the "dislike", "hatred" of the populations of those 2 States. NSW may not have the same feelings about people from QLD but the reverse remains a constant since Federation

I doubt those emotions are really elicited in the typical rugby demographic, ever. Even against teams like England etc.

 

[Braveheart81]

If you make the eligibility rules strict is it a good advertisement for the game if so many players can't be involved?

It would seem to me that the eligibility rules need to be somewhat relaxed from place of birth otherwise the talent diminishes too much.

Who plays THP for Qld?

Who plays 10 for Qld? Bryce Hegarty?

For NSW you maybe have:

1. Paddy Ryan
2. Tatafu Polota-Nau
3. Tom Robertson
4. Dave McDuling
5. Kane Douglas
6. Jack Dempsey
7. Michael Hooper
8. George Smith
9. Nick Phipps
10. Bernard Foley
11. Reece Robinson
12. Reece Hodge
13. Israel Folau
14. Rob Horne
15. Andrew Kellaway
16. Damien Fitzpatrick
17. ?
18. Sam Talakai
19. ?
20. Jed Holloway
21. Jake Gordon
22. Andrew Deegan
23. Tom English

It just seems to me that a "true" State of Origin creates the moment where the more casual rugby fans discover that their favourite Queenslander or New South Welshman actually isn't.

Edit: I left off Tom Robertson before but just realised he was born in Wellington NSW, not Wellington NZ.

 

[TOCC]

I don't know if that's true mate, the current evolution of the Super product, of which Australia was a decision maker, is generally considered to be pretty poor.

I don't think a failure to evolve is the issue, as much as a failure in evolving.

Current format of Super Rugby isn't evolution, it's regression.. expanding on the old form of Super Rugby was the easy option, coming up with a bastardised conference format is again another example of them fearing to make dramatic change..

SANZAAR had a product and they tried to squeeze more out of it, they didn't make any great changes, in fact by trying to keep with the whole concept of each team playing each other once, they've created a ridiculous conference system which promotes confusion and lopsided draws.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Reg posted a Qld born team and it was awful.

Who you represented at open schoolboy level is the best of some bad options, and if you can't get the test players then don't bother

 

[RugbyReg]

Maybe the ARU should be celebrating the cultural diversity of the game here and make it a contest between a team of players born here vs those born overseas.

The number of players ineligible if the requirements were to be born here are somewhat staggering:

Kepu, Robertson, Moore, Mumm, Timani, Pocock, Cooper, Kerevi, Nabuli, Korczyk, Houston, Paia'aua, Hunt, Latu, Simone, Naiyaravoro, Skelton

Who else?

yep, that's my thoughts too. I think theyd get some Govt Fund around the multicultural aspects to it too.

The Home Grown Team could be:

15 Israel Falou, 14 Andrew Kellaway, 13 Reece Hodge, 12 Rob Horne, 11 Luke Morahan, 10 Bernard Foley, 9 Nicholas Phibbs, 8 Scott Higginbotham, 7 Michael Hooper, 6 Scott Fardy, 5 Adam Coleman, 4 Rory Arnold, 3 Sekope Kepu, 2 James Hanson, 1 Scott Sio

16 Tatafu Polota-Nau, 17 Tom Robertson, 18 James Slipper, 19 Kane Douglas, 20 Ben McCalman, 21 Nick Frisby, 22 Jono Lance, 23 Reese Robinson

and the "Home Now Team" could be:


15 Dane Haylett-Petty, 14 Henry Speight, 13 Tevita Kurindrani, 12 Samu Kerevi, 11 Sefanaia Naivalu, 10 Quade Cooper, 9 Nic Stirzaker, 8 Leroy Houston, 7 Chris Alcock, 6 Dean Mumm, 5 Lopeti Timani, 4 Will Skelton, 3 Sef Fa'agase, 2 Stephen Moore, 1 Pek Cowan


16 Tolu Latu, 17 Taniela Tupou, 18 Angus Ta’avao, 19 Ross Haylett-Petty, 20 Adam Korzyk, 21 Michael Ruru, 22 Karmichael Hunt, 23 Taquele Naiyaravoro

I could be wrong with a few of those but I think its a great showcase of the different cultures within the game which is a great 'selling point'.

 

[TOCC]

Yep looks like a decent spread of players, open to selection for everyone..

How would you market it? What allegiances does it draw on for fans to commit?

Another option may be a combined Pacific Islands team versus the rest? I think someone may have suggested that already.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[amirite]

Current format of Super Rugby isn't evolution, it's regression.. expanding on the old form of Super Rugby was the easy option, coming up with a bastardised conference format is again another example of them fearing to make dramatic change..

SANZAAR had a product and they tried to squeeze more out of it, they didn't make any great changes, in fact by trying to keep with the whole concept of each team playing each other once, they've created a ridiculous conference system which promotes confusion and lopsided draws.

I understand what you're saying, but that is opinion, not fact. You did originally say that there was a"failure to experiment and evolve" the Australian rugby product, which is CERTAINLY incorrect.

The fact is you can't say something is a regression, and not an evolution or an experiment, just because you don't like the outcomes. It's an evolution and iteration of the product, just not a positive one. This is not outcomesor opinion based.

The fact is the rugby championship, the way Australia runs their test calendar, and the way Australia runs their 3rd tier, has all changed in the last decade. The product is evolving and being experimented with plenty.

 

[Jagman]

Just going to put this out there as I think it might work.

Have the NSW vs Qld game this year. Next year, during the June test series have a 3 team, 3 match comp including combined states.

Hear me out. It would play to NRL SOOs weakness in that it can't expand and be more nationally inclusive. It would be the point of difference that legitimised the event rather than just being a copycat and it would keep representative pride that no prob vs poss could.

I counted that in current squads, just including the officially contracted players there are 37 players who could quite legitimately represent WA, VIC, TAS, or the brumbies catchment area.

Of the 37 DHP and Coleman would be lost to the Wallabies. From the same selection criteria NSW and QLD have about 50 contracted players available to them but when you take away Wallabies that reduces significantly. If you then made an exception for combined states to have the odd international who plays in one of the corresponding Super Rugby teams then things start to even up.

Remembering this wouldnt happen until 2018 (youngsters would be more experienced), a CS side for example could look like,
LHP: Smith (an international exception due to poor choices), (Ah Nau, Sione).
Hkr: Saia Fainga'a, (Scoble, Siliva, Leafa, Abel, Uelese, McInerny)
THP: Ainsley (Makin, Lomax)
locks: RHP and Staniforth (admittedly very short here)
6: Leota
7: Colby Fainga'a (Hardwick, Koteka)
8: Higginbotham (born in WA so why not?) Valetini
9: Powell (Louwrens, Lonergan, Fa'alava'au)
10: Lance
12: Godwin (Burton)
13: Rona (Fainga'a, Tuipulotu)
Wing: Peni, Coleman, (Lacey)
FB: Jooste, (Ngamanu)

The strength is that this is a rep side that could compete. All that's left for the ARU is to rig it so CS wins the first series or two to legitimize it. Give them 2 home games in Canberra and Perth and make something up to get them better second rowers and wingers. Your never going to create a product like the SOO but you could focus on the other states and make them feel like they're contributing significantly (which they are).

Sent from my FairPhone

 

[TOCC]

I understand what you're saying, but that is opinion, not fact. You did originally say that there was a"failure to experiment and evolve" the Australian rugby product, which is CERTAINLY incorrect.

The fact is you can't say something is a regression, and not an evolution or an experiment, just because you don't like the outcomes. It's an evolution and iteration of the product, just not a positive one. This is not outcomesor opinion based.

The fact is the rugby championship, the way Australia runs their test calendar, and the way Australia runs their 3rd tier, has all changed in the last decade. The product is evolving and being experimented with plenty.

If you want to call what has happened to Super Rugby an 'evolution' then fill your boots, personally I think its a mutation. End state is that the competition today is a lesser product then that from >2005. And that's because the powers at be were afraid to make the hard decisions or be truly innovative in their approach to expansion, every time they took the easy option.

 

[amirite]

If you want to call what has happened to Super Rugby an 'evolution' then fill your boots, personally I think its a mutation. End state is that the competition today is a lesser product then that from >2005. And that's because the powers at be were afraid to make the hard decisions or be truly innovative in their approach to expansion, every time they took the easy option.

I think the different terminology is semantics, all I'm getting at is the issue isn't stagnation in the model like you said, there has been plenty of change (or as you said, "experimenting").

I actually think the model they arrived at in 2009ish of the three 5 team conferences was a good one.

 

[Mr Wobbly]

If you want to call what has happened to Super Rugby an 'evolution' then fill your boots, personally I think its a mutation. End state is that the competition today is a lesser product then that from >2005. And that's because the powers at be were afraid to make the hard decisions or be truly innovative in their approach to expansion, every time they took the easy option.

Evolution occurs because of mutations

 

[amirite]

Evolution occurs because of mutations

#science