State of Origin Concept

[Micheal]

SOO is too NSW/QLD centric given how the ARU wants to push the game across the nation.

How about foundational states (in terms of Rugby Union playing) (NSW,QLD) vs. the rest (WA,ACT,VIC)?

You could do it on the basis of their first Super game or where they are currently playing.

Once you play for a team you're bound to it for life.

The only problem is that ACT has a good rugby history but NSW/QLD/ACT would be too strong.

Obviously a pretty flawed idea but I dont think we should just copy league and hope it works. We need to think outside of the box.

If you do it sans Wallabies and based upon where everyone is currently playing you'd have:

WALLABIES:

1. Kepu
2. Moore
3. Sio
4. Coleman
5. Arnold
6. McMahon
7. Hooper
8. Timani
9. Phipps
10. Foley
11. Naivalu
12. Hodge
13. Kerevi
14. DHP
15. Folau

16. Slipper
17. TPN
18. Alaalaatoa
19. Simmons
20. Higgenbotham
21. Frisby
22. Cooper
23. Kuridrani

Foundational States (NSW/QLD):

1. Robertson
2. Latu / Ready
3. Tupou / Ryan
4. Skelton
5. Douglas
6. Dempsey
7. Smith
8. Holloway
9. Gordon
10. McIntyre / Deegan / Mason / Horwitz
11. Robinson
12. Hunt
13. Simone
14. Perese / Kellaway
15. Hegarty

Newcomers (WA/VIC/ACT):

1. Alexander
2. Hansen
3. Cowan
4. Neville / RHP / Staniforth
5. Carter
6. Fardy
7. Reid / Fainga'a / Hodgson
8. McCalman
9. Powel / Meehan / Stirzacker
10. Lance
11. Speight
12. Meekes / Inman / Peni / Rona
13. English / Meekes / Inman / Peni / Rona
14. Koroibete
15. Morahan

There are probably far better teams that can be chosen than the ones listed but whatever you get the idea.

Play it in the June break when we're in SA / Argentina and make it a 3 game series. Sell cheap tix and try to get people in anyway possible. Make sure it sells out and make it as festive as possible (could perhaps play it at smaller grounds - North Sydney, Brookvale in Sydney and similar grounds elsewhere). Also rile the teams up in the weeks leading up to it and hope some SOO hatred emerges. A fight or two would be great for marketing (Mothers across the nation "think about the children!")

I know I'd go.

Thoughts?

 

[CNorth]

Whist I like what your trying to achieve. The whole premis is for revenue. If that's the case you have to go tribal otherwise won't rate. Hence afl orgin died vic vs the rest etc.

Who on that list is not from NSW or Qld or played grade or colts there.

 

[Micheal]

Whist I like what your trying to achieve. The whole premis is for revenue. If that's the case you have to go tribal otherwise won't rate. Hence afl orgin died vic vs the rest etc.

Who on that list is not from NSW or Qld or played grade or colts there.

Thats true but goodluck trying to field a team of WA/VIC/ACT born and bred players.

Whilst they weren't born in the states they current play, players like those below certainly identify with the states in which they forged their careers:

McCalman, Hodgson, Carter, Fardy, Cowan, Meekes, Koroibete and probably Lance, Morahan, English, Inman etc.

They'd probably love to stick it to the states where they grew up because they were never selected there.

Tribalism is also built over time, its not inherent to a person.

E.g. Thurston played for NSW as a youngster but QLD in origin. Theres many cases of this.

 

[stoff]

You would also struggle to say Victoria wasn't a foundation state, albeit the sport didn't take as strongly. We


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[liquor box]

I think if you want to replicate the popularity of League Origin (wont be done) you need to look at a battle that the general public might like to get behind, not just Union fans.

Would GPS v Public schools work?

Are there enough of each system to provide enough star to the game.

It could be the silvertails v fibros, union style.

This would have more mass appeal, if the public system won it would do wonders for the game for non union fans.

It also allows all states to have an interest, not just NSW and QLD

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Thats true but goodluck trying to field a team of WA/VIC/ACT born and bred players.

Whilst they weren't born in the states they current play, players like those below certainly identify with the states in which they forged their careers:

McCalman, Hodgson, Carter, Fardy, Cowan, Meekes, Koroibete and probably Lance, Morahan, English, Inman etc.

They'd probably love to stick it to the states where they grew up because they were never selected there.

Tribalism is also built over time, its not inherent to a person.

E.g. Thurston played for NSW as a youngster but QLD in origin. Theres many cases of this.

I dunno, you'd probably need to ask the players. Would they identify as being from VIC/WA/ACT? Kind of dilutes the concept of 'origin'.

WRT to RL state of origin (which it borrowed from Australian rules), I always find it amusing that the state with the largest playing pool complains when players with dual eligibility (a loophole that was allegedly closed) choose the smaller state, when they also took players who originated from the smaller state (Ken Nagas is an example that springs to mind).

As for Thurston, he actually played for Qld U/19s before being picked up by the Bulldogs (after only St George showed interest) and playing for NSW residents (as the name suggests, this does not follow Origin selection rules). He was born in Brisbane and raised in Toowoomba and Brisbane. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure he was never eligible to play for NSW under orign rules.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Any SOO concept could only work in it's purist form, and following the selection criteria of the Mungoes.

Tough titties - 2 States - QLD and NSW. Its not about the concept of inclusiveness of bringing Victorians, West Australians , Poly lads or anyone else. It's just a game between 2 States. Get over it you Brumby blokes. People are trying to make it too complicated.

It's about trying to bring about more passion and supporters into the game, nothing more nothing less.

If the Brumbies want to have a SOO or should I say a Territory/State of Origin with the West or Victoria who am I to criticise.

 

[Braveheart81]

Any SOO concept could only work in it's purist form, and following the selection criteria of the Mungoes.

That you pretty much play for whichever team you want?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Any SOO concept could only work in it's purist form, and following the selection criteria of the Mungoes.

.

What is the selection criteria these days?

 

[Slim 293]

I believe it's the state where you're charged with your first offence.........

 

[Brumby Runner]

Any SOO concept could only work in it's purist form, and following the selection criteria of the Mungoes.

Tough titties - 2 States - QLD and NSW. Its not about the concept of inclusiveness of bringing Victorians, West Australians , Poly lads or anyone else. It's just a game between 2 States. Get over it you Brumby blokes. People are trying to make it too complicated.

It's about trying to bring about more passion and supporters into the game, nothing more nothing less.

If the Brumbies want to have a SOO or should I say a Territory/State of Origin with the West or Victoria who am I to criticise.

Scrubber - what is your issue with Brumbies' fans? I've checked a fair bit back and can't find a post from any Brumbies' fans criticising the concept because it leaves Brumbies out. In fact, as many of the Brumbies players are either NSW or Qld origin, I'd guess there would be a fair bit of representation in any SOO side. Most criticism of the concept has been aimed at the notion itself, and that it is a copy of League, and as far as I can see, that criticism is shared across all provinces, though not so much from Reds fans.

 

[Scrubber2050]

^^^^^
Apologies to you BR re Brum comment.

Slim's comment seems to have been deleted

 

[Slim 293]

I don't think any of my comments have been deleted..........

But yes, this is a rubbish idea on so many levels........ many of which p.Tah addressed quite well over the previous couple of pages.

 

[TOCC]

Subjective


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[p.Tah]

Nathan Grey, Gibson, Cheika and Larkham have all come out and said they don't rate the concept.
Stiles and McGahan support it.
Not sure about Wessels

 

[Scrubber2050]

Nathan Grey, Gibson, Cheika and Larkham have all come out and said they don't rate the concept.
Stiles and McGahan support it.
Not sure about Wessels

Gibson is a kiwi so his opinion doesn't really count.

Understand why Cheika Larkham and Grey don't want it and why Stiles (a passionate bloke) does.

It'll probably never get off the ground and mainly due to "politically correct" agendas of some.

NOTE: Gentlemen and Ladies - the world is bearing ever so gently to the "right" Political expediency is on the nose.

 

[Braveheart81]

Gibson is a kiwi so his opinion doesn't really count.

Understand why Cheika Larkham and Grey don't want it and why Stiles (a passionate bloke) does.

It'll probably never get off the ground and mainly due to "politically correct" agendas of some.

NOTE: Gentlemen and Ladies - the world is bearing ever so gently to the "right" Political expediency is on the nose.

The Waratahs CEO is a Kiwi as well and he likes the idea so does that not count either? Surely the opinion of anyone within a position of influence in Australian rugby matters.

I don't think politically correct has anything to do with it getting off the ground. It will come down to whether test players can be involved and if they can't, someone will look at it and decide that the potential teams are nowhere near good enough to be a showcase event.

What's the point of it if the teams are substantially inferior to the Reds and the Tahs which without the test players will absolutely be the case.

Take the Reds team announced for the trial against the Rebels which is close to a full strength side. 9 of the 15 starting players wouldn't be eligible for a NSW vs Qld State of Origin match.

 

[TOCC]

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

 

[Braveheart81]

It seems to me that the potential starting point should be working out when you can squeeze in this game or games in the calendar and then work out what playing group is available and then try to fashion the best product around that.

I agree that some experimentation is required but it has be a compelling product.

It won't generate revenue if, to rugby fans, the squads more resemble a trial Super Rugby game than a blockbuster event.

 

[RugbyReg]

It seems to me that the potential starting point should be working out when you can squeeze in this game or games in the calendar and then work out what playing group is available and then try to fashion the best product around that.

The current proposal seems to be Thursday 29 June.

Australia play Italy in Brisbane on Saturday arvo 24 June.

Next Super Rugby game is 7 July (Reds v Brumbies in Briso; Force v Rebels in Perth; Tahs v Jaguares in Sydney).

It's actually not a bad date and makes sense to have it in Brisbane. Perhaps the first one in Brisbane is not a bad idea (crowd will only be 10-12,000) and then next year it can go to the SCG or something.

RUPA will obviously demand a healthy cut for their players (won't make much from ticket sales). It will be just about the one off broadcast appeal.