The League Media

[kandos]

The story explains that the articles of association of both the South African Olympic Committee and the South African sports ministry expressly prevent rugby league being directly recognised.

Bizarre that they have to go through SARU. It's blatant discrimination and can't believe that a legal challenge would not win. However, SA's have heard of League, but nobody knows anything about it. At least that was my perception when I was there.

 

[mxyzptlk]

NFL also has four downs an immensely successfully sport.

And NFL is basically 3+ hours of set pieces, which league has pretty much done away with. What's your point?

Bring back contested scrums and just do those in league, and maybe the NRL can reach the heights of the NFL. Hell, maybe you can limit your game to one tackle and then a set piece -- do that for six tackles at a time, and you could be even more successful.

 

[terry j]

There was a contest for the ball in league when they had unlimited though I am relatively young I believe it was because st George changed there tactics to take no risks to maintain possession and just try and grind wins out to keep the game entertaining league bought in limited tackles.

Same thing happened in basketball teams who were winning would just dribble around in circles forever. A shot clock is the se thing essentially as a tackle count it makes you do whatever u want to do in a set time without twirling around.

NFL also has four downs an immensely successfully sport.

Yes, seems I might be a bit older than you but certainly not old enough to remember st george in their 'heyday'. But I'd agree that back then there was certainly far more contest for the ball in league. That has taken such a nosedive since even when I played the game. At LEAST they had contested scrums back then.

BUT, most significantly, what was NOT contested was the play the ball. That is how st george managed to tweak the rules and play the way they did.

THAT is the element which led to the series of events. Firstly unlimited tackles, then introduce tackle count (think it was four when I played as a kid, is that correct? Was it ever four?) anyways, now six.

Then you gotta keep tweaking the rules in an attempt to keep it interesting. Why? Because without this contest which is at the heart of a game it becomes formulaic. You KNOW you got X tackles to come, and the other side is FORBIDDEN to take the ball off you. You're the fullback receiving a kick with opposition players charging at you, shit, just catch the ball, allow yourself to be tackled and wait. Does not matter how long, just sit on your arse and wait.

So, we then gotta make them stand ten metres back, to try and get some life into the old carcass. But then you gotta start introducing interchanges.

It just snowballs from removing the contest at the tackle. And when fifty years on you have NO contest at all, well.

You DID raise an interesting point tho. ALL teams play to win, and will always exploit the rules in any way they can to achieve that. A lot of the times those are negative exploitations. Just human nature.

I don't watch league anymore, but some basic reading tells me there is always constant talk of negative tactics employed in the game, that a lot of people dislike (whatever they are, a bit like st george exploiting the unlimited tackle rule). And it can take some time for people to realise what damage it does to the game. (maybe a similar one in rugby was how the scrums went to shit with the introduction of the hit. At the time it was a winning tactic allowed by the rules, after a few years everyone saw the damage it had done and are now trying to rectify it)

Anyway, the point is, that everyone plays to win within the rules of their game. And each game has to be understood within the context of itself.

One of your points seems to be the over emphasis on getting points thru penalties (unless it was not you but someone else, if so sorry).

There is no point 'judging' that from a league perspective within the context of a rugby game. Sure, you might prefer the league scoring system that very much deters the kicking of penalties, but again we can see an evolution of changes to the points system in league in an attempt to prevent ANY other form of point scoring other than tries. No field goals, no penalties, only tries.

Why? To try and improve the game, make it more interesting. Why? Because at the heart of league there is NO contest allowed. So it is only a succession of 'my turn your turn' so we GOTTA do something to try and get the game interesting.

Fully half the tries end up coming from a kick of some description onto the goal line. Sure, it is a try, but exactly the same sort as the one before, and the one before that.

The unintended consequence of changing the game. You can never predict where you will end up.

You don't like the (forget your terms) the forwards rumbling the ball up from rucks. You'd rather everyone be built like (whoever) from league, exact same body type across all positions. Which leads to the exact same type of attack. Coupled with the rules of the game which leads to the exact same type of scoring.

You know ice cream might be great to eat, but when it is your sole diet after a while it might not taste as sweet or pleasurable as it once did.

 

[mxyzptlk]

The play the ball was different as well. You had to touch the ball with your foot, but the opposition could kick at the play the ball therefore disrupting possession. In addition with a 3 yard rule, the opposition moved forward so that everyone was basically on top of each other.

I'd love to see the opposition be able to strike at the ball with the foot during the play the ball -- anything to create a contest there.

 

[papabear]

putting re-unification aside, I would actively support league bringing back the stripping rule. IMO this would make teams either shut up shop, and therefore have to be very very good defensively to eek out wins, or it makes teams play faster and encourages sides to shift the ball. Because if defensive sides can pick which player is hitting the line all the time they will always get enough players in the tackle to be a chance of stealing the ball.

Again with union, regardless of re-unification I would like to see them change the scoring system. Encourage sides to score tries and move the ball in space as opposed to leaving it with the massive of bodies trying to pull a penalty.

Re foot striking in league, whilst I like the romance and the idea. I think should it come into effect it will slow the game dramatically as play the balls will slow right down to make sure the body is in the right spot to stop the striking.

 

[mxyzptlk]

I usually just ignore your trolling posts, but I'm feeling surly today.

contested scrums are a laugh.

Died in the wool rugby fans like them because its now a point of difference to every other game.

And died in the wool rugby fans like them because they understand them and see them for the technical contest they are, not the lean-in grab-ass of league. Even my wife -- American, never played rugby -- gets that.

If you want big fat blokes missing more tackles just restrict the amount of substitutes more, the heavier the load the more energy used in carrying it, simple physics really.

Have you watched union? Do you have any idea how much work those "big fat blokes" actually put in? Have you seen front row forwards like Dane Coles or Sean Cronin stepping midfield centers to break past the gainline? They're not all tighthead props, and even they have a purpose beyond being fat and boring you. And have you watched league in the past three or four years? Big forwards with *gasp* bellies miss tackles all the time because they decided to wrestle instead of tackle. (More on this below.)

- 1 - points system, it is an absolute laughing stock, when you have teams always electing for the penalty or taking a field goal for shits and giggles you know you have troubles.

Because that's why they take penalties, for shits and giggles. Had Samoa bothered with a few more shits and giggles against the Kiwis, they might have won a Test match in the Four Nations.

- 2 - Line outs, the organised nature of them is a joke, I don't mind allowing quick line outs to stay. However, if the defensive side gets there in time to stop the fast line out, the team with the ball should have the option to elect to take a tap. Obviously the defence can get set which they wouldn't do in a quick line out scenario.

Line outs are set pieces, and set pieces are organized -- that's why they're set. It creates a contest for the ball, not the hand-it-over style league goes for. It's also the most ready way to set up the maul, but you probably hate that as well because you don't get it.

- 3 - 13 phases of pick runs. It happens all the time. St George mastered it back in the day. its sad that died in the wool rugby fans don't recognise how boring a 5'5 round and 5'3 tall guy running two feet low to the ground before falling over just to keep his side in possession hoping they will get a penalty or the other side will contract ebola or they will hold there 3-0 lead for the next 60 minutes is entertaining for anyone else watching or on the field. Quite frankly you need a tackle count, just like basketball needs a shot clock.

Seriously, you sound like you only watch local games of overweight children playing this game. If multiple phases are boring to you, then you have an attention problem. I watch a lot of Irish rugby, and Leinster and Munster have both posted brilliant European wins stringing upwards of 30 phases together, and when they're pounding at the try line, that's tense. If they had to just hand the ball over after six phases and neither the offense or defense was put under any real threat, the game would deflate and lose much of its drama. And because they can't just back away and wait for everyone to get set again -- and there isn't the same kind of interchange as in league -- their fitness and conditioning really comes into play. But if all you see are squat fat dudes doing those phases, have your eyes checked. And your attitude.

- 4 - Play the ball. This one is going to frustrate some certain union people the most, as there is a whole host of union players, who have the speed of a fat mountain, the hands of a fat mountain, the movement of a fat mountain, and the brain cell count of fat mountain, who actually like watching fat mountains on tv.

I am sorry but having a fat mountain clear out the ruck or help you push forward in a maul is both boring for the viewer and wastes roster spots on teams on fat mountains who need to learn how to actually catch run and pass which is what the game is all about.

And this is where you're clearly just not in the same world as everyone else. You sound like someone with body dysmorphia, except for rugby union players. It's a contest for the ball, not a "turn." There's a lot that can happen at the ruck, and again, it doesn't take that much effort to actually see what's going on (counter-rucking, taking the space, jackalling the ball, cleaning out, etc.). There are 15 players on the field, and none of them are just fat, slow mountains, and even the two who are "fat" are meant to be heavier -- they do the same thing in gridiron with their line. And they put in more work than league forwards who are interchanged after 15-20 minutes. Plus you're assuming that just because someone's heavy they can't be athletic, and if being short and heavy was enough to put you out of the running for being a pro athlete, then Paul Galen wouldn't have a career. And I'll never understand how league fans find that so difficult to understand. Again, my wife, who's American and has never played the game, gets it, but league fans can't?

The scrum half actually has a larger role; his service can be disrupted by the defense because the defense can actually play defense in the rugby ruck, and that makes speed of service paramount. There isn't that same threat in league; a play the ball is generally about 5 seconds (we went over that a while back on another thread), uniformly throughout a game, except at the end when the winning team just decides to shut down (there ought to be a "use it" call). So while the league play the ball is a stop in action and everyone -- including the crowd -- waits while the defense stops actually playing defense and backs up while the dummy half decides who to pass to, the rugby ruck is an actual contest where the scrum half is under pressure and the rest of the offense has to pick lines against the force of oncoming traffic. But somehow that to you is boring, while waiting for everyone to reset every 11 seconds is non-stop thrills.

But at least the rugby ruck is a real contest. The abject wrestling that goes on in greco-roman rugby is an insult to wrestling and rugby. More often than not, tacklers are going for the grapple instead of the tackle, and that's also how ball-carriers most often break tackles in league -- because the tackler tries to go up top and wrap the arms, instead of just making a hit. That grapple almost never works unless you get two tacklers in, and then it's just a sloooooow topple-over until the ball carrier humps the ground for a few seconds, and then they get up and shove each other. It's slow, repetitive and dull. It's also pretty pointless, since the aim is to hopefully strip the ball as well as slow the ruck, but the grappling almost never results in a turn-over.

No one one wants to watch 60 minutes of three guys hugging until they fall on the ground and one guy humps the grass, and then they shove each other. That's choreography, not a contest. At least in a maul there's some progression and an outcome. (Super League haven't brought in the grappling to the same degree, and even though it's not as competitive a competition as the NRL, you get more wide-open play there.)

What's more embarrassing is these guys know how to tackle, but they're so conditioned to the wrestle that it's automatic. This happens with Manu Vatuvei a lot -- guys try to grapple him down instead of just making the hit, and he rolls by or over them. But even the ball-carriers seem conditioned for it, like they have Stockholm syndrome. One of the frustrating things about the Four Nations was that more often than not, if the ball carrier had the options of cutting right into space, left into space, or up into contact against two defenders, they went into contact. It's almost like they don't want to run. This has been a criticism of league-trained Owen Farrell for Saracens/England -- too often he's looking for contact instead of space, and they're leaving better options unexplored.

But at least your imaginary 5'3 fat blokes will have a go and run. One of those 5'3 fat props from Ireland made a brilliant break against Georgia this past weekend, except Dave Kilcoyne's 6'1 and 118 kgs -- about the same size as NRL prop Josh Papalii -- and ran for 40 meters before being tackled, goose-stepping and weaving through midfield traffic, and instead of wrestling with the tackler he knocked him on his ass. Man, was that dull fun.

We all know you're a league fan. It's not that you don't appreciate rugby for what it is, no matter what you say. It's that what you actually say about rugby betrays a lack of any familiarity with what the sport is. The problem with your arguments is we all -- including you -- know that rugby isn't solely comprised of diminutive competitive eaters who trudge up the field like they're going to the buffet for seconds. So when you go there, your arguments just lose credibility. At the same time, we all -- including you -- know there's no real competition for possession in league short of the second or two before they all hug each other and hump the grass. That competition for possession is a cornerstone of rugby and is the major point of difference; even the set pieces you despise all actually create a real competition for possession (when's the last time a league scrum was won against the head, or a league throw-in was actually competed for?). And we all -- including you -- know that the ridiculous grappling in league that's only there to slow down the ruck is a drag on the game, and it guarantees you only need to look up at the television whenever the announcer screams about something -- and even then they'll replay it six times, so no worries about missing anything.

Some of us watch both codes and do actually appreciate them for what they are; league is a simplified version of rugby that eliminated most of the competition for possession and the chance to build up phases. That doesn't make it bad, but for a lot of us, it makes it less interesting than the oh-so-complicated rugby. But don't come here and piss on our legs and tell us it's raining. If your arguments about rugby had any real semblance to what we watch week-in and week-out, we might pay some attention to you had to say.

*drops mic*

 

[Muglair]

As an aside I think the four tackle rule came in in 1968.

I wonder whether increasing regulation of the tackle will force reduced numbers in the tackle. The dangerous tackles as far as I can see usually come from the destabilisation caused by the second and third tacklers.

League will really be opened up if tacklers are reduced in number to two or one which would also enable stripping to be reintroduced.

 

[Antony]

Do we have a scarf award for post of the year?

 

[terry j]

mxypltizic (sorry!) I recall quite recently there was a huge outcry when a team dared push in the scrum. It was hilarious reading the comments (warriors??)

You hit so many bloody nails on the head it was not funny. The thing is, it's human nature. If you are anti rugby, then it stands to reason that 'you hate it because of so many scrum re-sets' (say, insert any of the many more available).

So WHAT then do you see if you watch a game of rugby? You will latch on to ANY reset of the scrum in the game. In all honesty, there is not a awful lot of them, some games more than others of course (and conditions plus atrocious fields nowadays contribute) but ANY reset will be grabbed. Ignore that there are probably only a few, ONE is enough once you have the mindset.

The look on the faces of the crowd when wales (was it?) earned the penalty try after a few scrums. They were enthralled by what was a gripping contest (as was I btw). But once you decide a contested scrum should not be played there is a world of drama gone missing.

It's not as if every bloody try is scored from scrums for fucks sake. We all welcome the different ways to score, to play as the game unfolds. To narrow it down to a very few limited ways to score points to me is bewildering, and THEN to think it is more interesting? The mind boggles.

In many ways I blame the pathetic refs in league. (It was when I played, dunno if the rules of the game are the same?) AFAIR the rule is 'the player must release the tackled player immediately'. As I say, unless the wording has changed.

Well fucking speed the fucking game up then by demanding the player get off the guy immediately!

Shit, it ain't rocket surgery.

Nahh, the ref lets them lay all over the player for many seconds. Imagine the abuse, from the players on the field, the ref would get if they penalised them?

They are weak pussies. Call the player by first names, 'Hi bob, how's the missus and kids?' type of crap. ANY and all players can not only talk to the ref, but talk back.

absolute shite.

Imagine a rugby ref letting that crap happen? Not a chance in hell.

 

[terry j]

just back to the hypocrisy of setting a maximum number of tackles, ie do it like league.

Why use the word hypocrisy? A number of reasons, firstly that the proponents do not use a 'level playing field' and secondly do not use it fairly.

Ever watched a game of league when a team gets a second set of six? Listen to the commentators, they wet themselves about 'oh wow, what tough excellent defence'. Seriously, they commentate so excitedly it sounds like they have their hands on each others hard-ons.

IF someone were serious about limiting phases to a set number of tackles (to 'improve' the game) then why the hypocrisy when there is a second set of six in league? IF they were serious then there would be a change in league that does NOT allow a second set of six ever.

In any case, how often is there more than seven phases in rugby? Ok, they usually use 'seven' rather than six, but let's at least call them similar.

Obviously it varies from game to game, but maybe fifteen at the most per match?? I'd be willing to wager (how do I word this?) that the most often number of phases would be around the 'four' or so mark. Bad wording, but I think you get the point.

Yet most times in league I would bet is the 'five' or 'six'. In other words the hypocrisy shows up clearly. 'Ooh, rugby should stop the unlimited tackles as it is bad for the game' yet the average would be four or so.

The criticism does not even apply in practice, and what is worse on average (I'd guess) that league averages a HIGHER number of tackles 'per set of play'.

Heck, maybe I have those figures wrong, but I shake my head at how excited the commentators get with a second set of six, but then can turn it around when convenient simply to have a go at rugby.

Hypocrites.

 

[mxyzptlk]

mxypltizic (sorry!) I recall quite recently there was a huge outcry when a team dared push in the scrum. It was hilarious reading the comments (warriors??)

Yep, that was the Warriors. It was funny to watch, because Parramatta was so unset and unready -- they just looked shocked by what happened. I heard a lot of talk by league pundits afterwards, and it didn't seem like anyone was clear if there was a law against contested scrums, or if it was just a gentleman's agreement. They seemed split on whether it was a good thing or not. It was good for the Warriors.

I know your question was rhetorical, but I'm probably not a good person to ask what I'm looking for when it comes to scrums. I'm coming at the games from a different angle than most, because where I grew up in the States we didn't have rugby. I didn't pick it up until I lived in Ireland for a few years, worked with a couple guys who played, saw the early days of BOD on the international scene, and sunk pints with some Kiwi rugby players on St. Patrick's Day. (Plus my grandpa had the same name as a certain famous bald Irish hooker, and his family came from the same southern Irish province.) That was just a few years after the game went professional, and I've been watching ever since, but never had the opportunity to play.

However, I did wrestle competitively for 15 years (collegiate, freestyle), and I think that provides me with a certain perspective when it comes to scrums. To me, it essentially looks like a tie-up to a set-up (wrestling terms), except each wrestler is comprised of 8 guys working as one. It's strange how much positioning that goes on in the scrum is similar to what you'd do in wrestling, except where it's, say, the loosehead prop doing the positioning, it'd be my left arm or where I put my knee or hip. The way Argentina drops so flat and low and then pops under the opposition scrum as a unit is a lot like a move I'd do from underhooks -- it's all in making the other guy react, and then popping under with your hips in. If you don't get the position right, you'll end up falling over the side or getting pushed back. From that perspective, when I see a penalty in a scrum, to me it's similar to scoring on your opponent -- except you're getting a free kick instead of points for a takedown or a throw.

I can't say for certain, but I assume a lot of fans who've played the game are looking for similar sorts of things in the scrum. When we watched Australia play France last week, I paused the game when they showed the overhead shot of one scrum getting set: The French props all had their hips aligned and tight to each other, while the Aussie props were both at a bit of an angle to the hooker, their hips turned just a few inches out. To me, that looked a bit like when you'd have your opponent off-balance and can take that space. I paused the game there and told my wife to pay attention, because the French props were going to drive through the hooker and split the props, and that's exactly what they did.

I'm not sure what the official league rule on tackles is, but the ref will always yell "held," and that's when the tackle has been declared. (Actually that looks like it's section 11.6 of the laws.) Don't know when "held" was introduced, but I wouldn't be surprised if it came along with the increased grappling.

Actually, you may have a point with the refs, and it may be more of an Aussie/NRL thing. I don't watch much Super League, at least not as much as I watch NRL. But the play the ball seems a lot faster in Super League, and there appears to be a lot less grappling -- maybe just a bit more than in union. Phil Bentham from England reffed the Australia - New Zealand and New Zealand - England games in the Four Nations, and those games had significantly fewer penalties and flowed more than the others. I've heard some commentators talking about that, asking if Bentham reffed in more of a Test match mode and the others reffed in more of an NRL mode. But maybe Bentham was reffing in more of a Super League mode, I don't know. If all of the Super League teams were more competitive, that'd could easily be as good or better than the NRL games, at least in terms of pace and tempo.

NRL refs do seem pretty chummy with the players, more so than in rugby, but so does Steve Walsh. He's not as familiar on the field with the players as many NRL refs, but I hope he's the limit. I can't get enough of Nigel Owens being a wise-ass, though. A few weeks ago, after a crooked line out throw, he told the hooker "I'm straighter than that throw." Last week Owen Farrell tried to steal a few meters on a penalty kick by moving the ball up, and Owens caught him doing it; he said something like "I told you not to do that last year, did you forget?"

Fun rugby story from Ireland: When Wales came to Dublin for the Six Nations, they won, and the city centre was flooded with Welsh fans. I was in a fish and chip shop when a herd of them came in, and they started ordering in Welsh. The teenagers behind the counter looked like they'd had had enough after the second order, and some of the people in the back of the line started complaining. That's when an old Irish woman in the middle of the line yelled over all of them "Come now, aren't we all Celts here?" They kept ordering in Welsh. I don't know if they actually got what they ordered.

 

[papabear]

my quoting function doesn't work on this computer so to respond to your little state of the nation effort up there with any sort of clarity is difficult. It probably would be difficult to get any sort of clarity from me regardless .

mxy - I played a fair bit of rugby back in the day and I was a huge matt dunning fan. He is big and fat but also played a bit of footy and had an inability to count.

I appreciate rugby for the bits worth appreciating, blokes like quade cooper and kurtley beale do some really quality stuff. Just like any sporting contests League NBA or whatever there a bad bits and there are good bits.

That said scrums are for the most part boring, so are mauls and so are rucks. I understand why teams are doing what they are doing, the same reason I understand why league players are doing hugsies these days instead of smashing eachother, it doesn't meant I enjoy them.

Watching scrums whether they reset or not is boring.
Same with the wrestle in league.
Same with most rucks and mauls.

What is exciting in either game is watching the attack trying to find a way through the defence whether that's through numbers, power, trickery or skill.

Honestly, Free throws in the bball are necessary but again boring.

That said as an absolute rugby nut I respect your right to love every little bit of rugby including the scrum resets or a ruck with the ball sitting at the locks feet for 20 seconds. You love the game and good on you. The good news for you is rugby won't change, even though Australia makes some good rule proposals from time to time the IRB has their head further up their own arse then FIFA does.

As for terry js point about limiting the current number of tackles in rugby, I think whilst rucks or mauls remain its pretty pointless exercise for the reasons mentioned in your own post re the amount of times it would actually be used in a game.

 

[mxyzptlk]

I think I appreciate rugby for the bits worth appreciating because I keep repeating that, blokes like quade cooper and kurtley beale do some really quality stuff. Just like any sporting contests League NBA or whatever there a bad bits and there are good bits.

That said scrums are for the most part boring to me, so are mauls and so are rucks because I don't know or don't care what goes on in them. I think I understand why teams are doing what they are doing, the same reason I think I understand why league players are doing hugsies these days instead of smashing each other, it doesn't meant I enjoy them. But I'm not quite right on that, because scrums and mauls and rucks aren't used to slow play, they're actual contests for possession so there's still something going on in them. And no one humps the grass.

Watching scrums whether they reset or not is boring to me.
Same with the wrestle in league to me (and you).
Same with most rucks and mauls to me.

What is exciting in either game is watching the attack trying to find a way through the defence whether that's through numbers, power, trickery or skill.

Honestly, Free throws in the bball are necessary but again boring to me.

That said as an absolute rugby nut I respect your right to love every little bit of rugby including the scrum resets or a ruck with the ball sitting at the locks feet for 20 seconds, which only really happens in my own mind because the ref will call "use it" after 5 seconds and award a penalty if it isn't used. You love the game and good on you. The good news for you is rugby won't change, even though Australia makes some good rule proposals from time to time the IRB has their head further up their own arse then FIFA does. Except when the IRB do change the laws, like introducing new scrum laws that reduced collapses and brought back hooking, making scrums a lot more technical and less like an NFL hit, or when they introduced the "use it" law that insures the ball doesn't sit at the back of the ruck like I imagine it does.

As for terry js point about limiting the current number of tackles in rugby, I think whilst rucks or mauls remain its pretty pointless exercise for the reasons mentioned in your own post re the amount of times it would actually be used in a game.

Fixed that for you.

 

[papabear]

I don't think you need to reduce the numbers in tackles in league for stripping to be introduced, if you run one man into 3/4 you deserve to be a chance of losing the ball.

Also if you are one man who has drawn three to four defenders pass the bloody ball to where the space is.

 

[papabear]

mxy obviously when I making an opinion I am speaking for myself and not the human race.

But I appreciate you amending the post the black and red give it a nice look, very rocknroll.

 

[Crashy]

Isn’t this a post about the mungo media?
Interesting article in today’s SMH by some bloke I’ve never heard of saying the the AFL and NRL are insignificant sports and are destroying our international success.

 

[mxyzptlk]

mxy obviously when I making an opinion I am speaking for myself and not the human race.

But I appreciate you amending the post the black and red give it a nice look, very rocknroll.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Isn’t this a post about the mungo media?
Interesting article in today’s SMH by some bloke I’ve never heard of saying the the AFL and NRL are insignificant sports and are destroying our international success.

Link?

 

[Crashy]

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/austr...-the-international-level-20141119-11ovwe.html

 

[mxyzptlk]

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/austr...-the-international-level-20141119-11ovwe.html

Hm. It may be a bit premature to pronounce international Aussie sport dead after three coinciding losses (although the Socceroos seem to be on life support). The Wallabies lost to a firing France, but they also beat up on Wales again, and despite off-field shenanigans, they're not playing too badly. The league thing baffles me a bit, because most of the talk going into the Four Nations was how the NRL could barely get out of bed for it -- the players were begging off, scheduling surgeries, too old and tired, etc., and because of that the competition was being rubbished in some corners before it even began (and even then, it was still a competitive tournament).

League doesn't seem to want to be too international, and at least in Australia doesn't seem too interested in competitions that aren't up to the same standard as the NRL. Which means they'll only ever really care about the NRL. That doesn't seem new. Cricket is international, but still pretty limited to former British colony countries. If league could host international tournaments with teams from half as many countries as play cricket -- and not have those teams stocked by Aussies with grannies from the other countries -- then it might approach something more like a real international standard. But I don't see Pakistan or the West Indies taking up footy. South Africa doesn't even really do it.

Rugby will be doing alright by Cheika and will make a small minority in Australia happy as long as they play well, but only a small minority will be following Wallaby exploits (unless Beale gets up to something).

I really don't know what to say about AFL. It's pro and such an institution that it probably won't ever roll back to make room for other sports. If it loses some audience and player base, AFL probably has the most resources among spots in Australia to rebuild that base. Maybe as the population grows, more people will filter into other sports, but that's probably about as likely as the USA becoming a force in cricket because of immigration (not happening). Maybe it's just one of those things athletes will have to decide -- stay parochial or go global. How many AFL stars have global recognition?