Nines Must Stay On League Calendar (2017)

For the past few seasons now, the NRL has kicked off the year with the highly entertaining Auckland Nines competition. It’s a great concept that draws in plenty of fans, particularly new ones. But like any good new idea, it has its detractors.

People like Phil Gould, and club bosses at Penrith and Wests Tigers have publicly come out saying it’s a pointless contest that runs the risk of injuring players for no reason.

And while they do make a fleetingly valid point, they don’t realise the stupidity of their remarks.

If they are concerned about players getting injured, then why even play the game? You don’t win any prizes for winning any games during the year except the Grand Final. They may as well apply the same logic to Round 1 of the premiership, given you win no prizes for winning there – especially when of the 19 premiers since 1998, nine lost their Round 1 clash.

If clubs start sooking about players getting injured in a promotional tournament, then it’s no wonder we have a situation where the international game has become laughable. Sure, no one wants their players to get injured, but it’s a body contact sport and casualties are inevitable.

A player who gets injured at the Nines is justification for these types to cancel the competition, but someone like Roger Tuivasa-Scheck, who gets a season ending injury in Round 7, is labelled as unfortunate. Give me a break.

This attitude is deplorable and is holding our game back. Gould and his likeminded contemporaries are the anchor that prevents this game from growing and expanding its horizons, drawing in new crowds, spreading the game to new regions.

All of this improves the game financially and improves the quantity and quality of players at the disposal of NRL clubs. But instead, the NRL clubs want to run the game in whatever manner suits their immediate interests.

This short-sighted approach has lead us down this path where we no longer have Kangaroo Tours or three-match Test series against other nations. Hell, Australia doesn’t even play Tests against sides other than England and New Zealand unless it’s a one off in the Four Nations or the World Cup.

How are emerging nations expected to get better and grow if the developed sides don’t care about their development?

We have masses of Tongan, Fijian, Samoan, Maori and even Papua New Guinean players taking the game up and making a name for themselves in the NRL. Yet still our national side won’t play them in one-off Tests at the very least, because they are supposedly pointless and players could get injured. 

Australia still has yet to play a game against Tonga or the Cook Islands.

The argument that the season is too long and players might get injured is pathetic, but also damaging to the game. The premiership season today is only two games more than back in 1990. That year also had a three-match State of Origin series, a City v Country game, one-off Tests against France and New Zealand, and the Sevens tournament and knockout Challenge Cup in regional Australia at the start of the season. The code’s elite also managed an 18-game Kangaroo tour at the end of the year to England and France.

And the two teams in the pre-season Cup final of that competition ended up facing each other in the grand final at the end of the year.

Even comparing the number of games played by the Australian Test captains in 1990 and 2016, Mal Meninga played five games more than Cameron Smith in 2016. Both players reached the grand final for their respective sides, with Smith playing 26 club games and Meninga 24. Smith played in all three State of Origin matches while Meninga only played in two games. Meninga played seven Tests while Smith played six. The difference came in that Meninga also appeared in seven other games on the 1990 Kangaroo Tour. Meninga also appeared in games during the Challenge Cup competition, including the final.

The fact is, players can play in a Nines competition, and Kangaroo Tours, and an extra one-off Test and play in the City v Country game (when the best sides were chosen, not the Mickey Mouse selections nowadays). Players in the UK Super League play more club games in a season than our rep players play in a year if they remain fully fit, never miss a game and reach the grand final.

The season isn’t too long, the players do not play too many games and a concept like that Nines should not be retained, but expanded. Incorporate the All Stars and Indigenous sides into it. Even throw in the Super League sides and some emerging nations.

This game was built on its ability to self-promote and to take the game to new horizons without fear. The Nines is the rekindling of that ideology and it is brilliant. It should be nurtured and expanded for the better of the game.

Not shut down and derided by closed-minded, agenda-driven pessimists.

****This article appeared on Commentary Box Sports website on  February 7, 2017****

Country Cousins Dudded By NRL's Skewed Priorities (2016)

On Monday the NRL announced that the annual City v Country match will not be continuing after the 2017 fixture takes place in Mudgee.

It’s been stated that the game is to be replaced by sending NRL games to the bush every year instead.

While on the surface it sounds like a fair trade-off, it still isn’t a good decision in my view. To a lot of people in the bush, it’d be akin to killing State of Origin back in 1987 and taking the odd Sydney club game to Queensland instead. A lot of bush players want to represent the area they came from, and some cherish that jumper as much as any other.

Sydney has been keen to kill the game off for decades, usually for the same ignorant reasons: it’s an exhibition; Country always loses (in past years); It’s not an Origin selection trial anymore; it only attracts small crowds; blah blah blah.

No one stops to think of the impact that one game can have in these small area and the impact it will have when this contest is removed. Country people will turn up to watch their side take on the city slickers. While many may still turn up to watch two NRL sides play, the passion behind such games won’t be the same.

That’s not a criticism of the country people. It’s a commentary about how people want to see THEIR team play.

There’s no reason why the City v Country game cannot be retained and made into a more important fixture on the calendar, while also having NRL games played in the bush.

If I had my way, I’d have City v Country be more than a just a NSW game – make it a national game played in a different state every year.

Country players from around the nation would go up against players hailing from the city. Essentially make it capital cities versus the rest of Australia.

The NRL’s statement announcing this decision contained comments which only made the decision more perplexing – this excerpt from the official NRL release, in particular:

NSWRL CEO Dave Trodden echoed the sentiments of the CRL, saying that NSW city players had enjoyed playing in matches against the country teams.

“The Country v City clash is one of the most exciting days on the rugby league calendar for the host country town,” Mr Trodden said.

“This match will be a great opportunity for fans in the country to see some of the state’s best players in action as we say farewell to this special event.”

If it’s a special event, why kill it?

The fact that it is one of the most exciting days for the host town shows the value and importance of it to the people in the bush, so why kill it?

If the players enjoy the entire experience, why kill it?

No mention was made as to why it wouldn’t continue, though. Only talk about how there will be a big condescending celebration, akin to dancing on the grave of bush footy.

With our national side showing little interest in playing any other nations than England and New Zealand, Test matches are fast becoming more of a pointless exercise than City v Country, which actually has some benefit as it could very easily be used to help promote and strengthen the growth of the game nationally.

Now we will be left with the Country Rugby League constantly begging for one or two NRL games every year to try and fill the void of a game that was so incessantly disrespected by Sydney that it will soon no longer exist, but a game which meant a huge amount to those in rural NSW.

 ****This article appeared on Commentary Box Sports website on  November 23, 2016****

Four Nations Masks Stagnant International Game (2016)

International Rugby League at the moment is somewhat farcical. We have a system presently that’s anti-growth and exclusive, where the best teams in the world spend most of their time playing each other.

Since 2001, New Zealand has played 77 Tests – 39 of them against Australia, 10 against England and 13 against Great Britain. Just 15 of those Tests have been played against other Test sides.

It’s a similar trend for Australia, when you look at their record from 2005 until now. They’ve played 56 Tests in that time, 32 of which have been against New Zealand alone, while eight more have been against England and four against Great Britain. They’ve played just 12 times against other nations.

In the past, the onus was on the British, Australian and New Zealand sides to spread the game around their own country and the world – take it to new areas. This saw the game spread like wildfire through France in the mid 1930s.

The game was being proposed to be taken to the USA as far back as 1910 when NSWRL Secretary Edward Larkin first proposed the idea. By the 1960s the game had been played at the highest level in South Africa, international matches had been played in Italy by Australia, and an exhibition game between Australia and New Zealand had been played Stateside.

Tour games even went to new horizons. Every nation was working towards building and expanding the game and, sure, in some cases it didn’t work as well as in others, but the effort was being made.

Today, though, it seems that International football has become a do-or-die system, where nations that can afford to help and promote the game in emerging nations simply don’t bother. Presently we are in the middle of a Four Nations competition which, if we’re honest, is a glorified tri-series that offers a condescending moment in the sun for one nation, while they get beaten comprehensively by the three main sides.

More needs to be done by the three superpowers to promote the game – and it shouldn’t be too hard a task.

Australia, New Zealand and England seemingly have no interest in returning to the tours of the past, which were magnificent for promoting the game in new regions and were the highlight of most representative stars’ careers, instead opting for the simpler and more boring Four Nations, where we see the same three sides playing all the time.

Why not have two separate Four Nations competitions: one for Pacific teams and one for European Teams?

This would at least get more nations involved on the big stage on a more regular basis which could only be a good thing for the game. And let every nation have first choice over which players they will select, leave the rest for the three major nations to choose from. It will bring Australia, New Zealand and England back to the field a little and improve all the other nations significantly.

Samoa, Fiji and Tonga have made giant strides in recent years, yet Samoa – so impressive in the 2014 Four Nations – have not been grant a Test against one of the ‘Big Three’ in the two years since, while Fiji and Tonga will have had no internationals against the heavyweights between the 2013 and ’17 World Cups.

If something different doesn’t happen soon, then people will grow tired of watching Australia and New Zealand play each other all the time. And once the major sides stop getting interest at the international level, we then have a major issue that will impact all nations that may not be easy to reverse.

****This article appeared on Commentary Box Sports website on  November 11, 2016****