Lions v Kiwis mid season test scrapped... [Archive]

Capital_Shark

10-12-06, 06:46 PM

Very disappointed that the NRL and the teams couldn't guarantee New Zealand that players would be available. Players should be made available under all circumstances, no matter what the NRL and the clubs think.

I wouldn't be too happy if my star playmaker getting the largest chunk of the teams salary cap had to trip off mid season. Even less if he suffered an injury that put my teams season down the drain.

Future Star

10-12-06, 06:51 PM

I wouldn't be too happy if my star playmaker getting the largest chunk of the teams salary cap had to trip off mid season. Even less if he suffered an injury that put my teams season down the drain.

I agree, what if Benji and his glass-shoulder act up again? the Tigers will almost have no hope, with Prince gone

Steelers

10-12-06, 07:00 PM

Future Star

10-12-06, 07:11 PM

No, no - Club games mean more to us when they dont involve australia ;) :emp:

Capital_Shark

10-12-06, 07:16 PM

OK, so a club game means more to you two than an International game. How's about we scrap the ANZAC tes then? And why not scrap the Tri-Nations? And the World Cup? We don't want our star players getting injured and not being able to play for our club....

Well we could totally overreact and throw the rep calendar in the bin or just keep the discussion to what my post was originally about..

Maybe a single club game doesn't mean more than an international fixture, but an NRL season does. What do they get for playing an international now? 12K or something? What does their club pay them to play NRL?

Like it or not the NRL is the grand stage of Rugby League. Its the elite competition, second to none. Without it, forget international games, forget professional rugby league of a marketable standard all together.

Steelers

10-12-06, 07:19 PM

No, no - Club games mean more to us when they dont involve australia ;) :emp:

And it is that egotistic attitude that has hampered the rise of International Rugby League

Capital_Shark

10-12-06, 07:20 PM

And it is that egotistic attitude that has hampered the rise of International Rugby League

I'll agree with that.

Steelers

10-12-06, 07:23 PM

Well we could totally overreact and throw the rep calendar in the bin or just keep the discussion to what my post was originally about..

Maybe a single club game doesn't mean more than an international fixture, but an NRL season does. What do they get for playing an international now? 12K or something? What does their club pay them to play NRL?

Like it or not the NRL is the grand stage of Rugby League. Its the elite competition, second to none. Without it, forget international games, forget professional rugby league of a marketable standard all together.

That post implies the exact same thing your previous post did. You are making club footy seem more important than international footy, and telling players that the money is more important than the pride of playing for their country. If we can't have a NZ vs GB game because of the fear that players are going to get injured and miss club games, then we shouldn't have an AUS vs NZ game either then...

Queenslander

10-12-06, 07:31 PM

The big point of difference between the Lions vs Kiwis match and the ANZAC test is the distance of travel for the teams.

Lions vs Kiwis: One team has to travel across the world, re-adjust to the new time zone and play a game and somehow get back and play 100% for their employer soon thereafter the game.

Whilst the ANZAC Test: The Kiwis only have a two-three hour flight which is usually apart of their routines as professional footballers in the NRL.

Personally I would like to see the French and GB play against each other. It is more viable for rugby league in the long run.

Future Star

10-12-06, 07:32 PM

geez - it was a joke!

Capital_Shark

10-12-06, 07:33 PM

That post implies the exact same thing your previous post did.

Well thats because my opinion hasn't changed..

You are making club footy seem more important than international footy, and telling players that the money is more important than the pride of playing for their country.

I never said money over pride, but if I were signing the cheques, I would certainly be looking at it from a monetairy point of view, rather than a patriotic one simply for the success of the club.

If we can't have a NZ vs GB game because of the fear that players are going to get injured and miss club games, then we shouldn't have an AUS vs NZ game either then...

I see your point entirely. Why is it that the NRL clubs don't mind their players playing in the ANZAC game, but refuse to let their players play NZ v GB? I'm guessing maybe the travel factor, or they have the same view as Future Star and don't give a toss unless it involves Australia.

Steelers

10-12-06, 07:38 PM

I never said money over pride, but if I were signing the cheques, I would certainly be looking at it from a monetairy point of view, rather than a patriotic one simply for the success of the club.

Well thats what you were implying, especially with this quote

"I wouldn't be too happy if my star playmaker getting the largest chunk of the teams salary cap had to trip off mid season. Even less if he suffered an injury that put my teams season down the drain."

I think the improvement of International Rugby League is worth the risk of one of my star players getting injured. International Rugby League should be a worthy pinnacle of our game, that should rival Rugby Union.

I see your point entirely. Why is it that the NRL clubs don't mind their players playing in the ANZAC game, but refuse to let their players play NZ v GB? I'm guessing maybe the travel factor, or they have the same view as Future Star and don't give a toss unless it involves Australia.

As Queenslander said before, it is partly because of the travel factor. But I also believe it is because Australia is not involved.

Future Star

10-12-06, 07:45 PM

oohh - CS vs Steelers, rap-battle of the year!

CS its yer turn, I will spin it.

Nah - seriously, Im agreeing with Steelers, i think the NRL is being a bit bias-meany-doo-doo to the Kiwis and the Lions..

Go_The_Doggies

10-12-06, 07:56 PM

I agree with steelers in the fact that International games are more important then club footy. Theres nothing more in the world I would love to see is a fully fit Kiwis side, but thats never going to happen because clubs wont release players.

I bet the only reason Roy Asotasi was allowed by the Bulldogs to play in this years Tri Nations because he is no longer a Bulldog *cries* .. and he is now a Rabbitoh *cries some more* .. but saying that I only want the likes of SBW and Benji playing for us if they are 100% fit. But I bet you 100% if the Bulldogs made the final SBW would have been playing..hes fit enough for them, but not for his country, same as Matty Utai..

And i'm friggin sick of it!!!

**EDIT** i forgot to add this:

Yet the Bulldogs and other teams release any players for Australia!!

It should be Country over Club!! not club over country!

Capital_Shark

10-12-06, 07:58 PM

Well thats what you were implying, especially with this quote

"I wouldn't be too happy if my star playmaker getting the largest chunk of the teams salary cap had to trip off mid season. Even less if he suffered an injury that put my teams season down the drain."

I think the improvement of International Rugby League is worth the risk of one of my star players getting injured. International Rugby League should be a worthy pinnacle of our game, that should rival Rugby Union.

As Queenslander said before, it is partly because of the travel factor. But I also believe it is because Australia is not involved.

Whatever may have been implied aside, all I said was I wouldn't be too happy. Anyone who smiles when learning of their teams chances in the season being drummed on head is reacting the wrong way.

Of course I want to see international leauge prosper. I can see where the clubs are coming from, is all. I think it would be better if GB played France, wait and have GB v NZ after the season. The ANZAC test probably has a bit more history behind it, given the ANZAC part. And like QLD'er said, its only a routine flight for the Kiwis anyhow. And thats not for the whole team either as all the NZ team wouldn't be flying from NZ as they're based in Australia.

Steelers

10-12-06, 08:07 PM

Whatever may have been implied aside, all I said was I wouldn't be too happy. Anyone who smiles when learning of their teams chances in the season being drummed on head is reacting the wrong way.

Of course I want to see international leauge prosper. I can see where the clubs are coming from, is all. I think it would be better if GB played France, wait and have GB v NZ after the season. The ANZAC test probably has a bit more history behind it, given the ANZAC part. And like QLD'er said, its only a routine flight for the Kiwis anyhow. And thats not for the whole team either as all the NZ team wouldn't be flying from NZ as they're based in Australia.

Alrighty then, I can deal witht that :p It's just that the way you were talking before, it seemed like you were being very selfish towards your club and because of that, didn't want to give up your players for Intl. RL. I would still prefer to see a GB vs NZ game though. Australia have SOO in the middle of the season, NZ and GB have no mid-season rep games, and they deserve at least 1, if not more. GB vs France will still leave NZ stranded without a rep game while Australia, GB and France are strutting their stuff on the representative stage (be it SOO or International).

Steelers

10-12-06, 08:08 PM

It should be Country over Club!! not club over country!

Exactly! :p

Go_The_Doggies

10-12-06, 08:08 PM

I liked the thought of the GB vs NZ game, because it gives all the English Super League guys a go, and I don't get to see them very often. ALthough I did fall asleep after about 15 mins in the game earlier in the year, but ffs I was sick..and tired..and it was like 7am :p

Go_The_Doggies

10-12-06, 08:09 PM

Exactly! :p
I'm glad I have some support!! :lol!:

DIEHARD

11-12-06, 07:31 PM

One thing that really worries me is the fact that we got a fantastic sponsor in the form of XXXX involved in rugby league, at an international level. Now we go and cancel the fixture after just ONE year.

That's is pathetic, surely the administrators could have forseen these problems and gave it a little thought before going ahead.

Now we have a bluechip sponsor likely thinking we are a bunch of clowns, that international rugby league is a joke and there is no international government or cohesion for the code.

The RFL must get in quickly and sell the idea of XXXX supporting a France v Great Britain Test before too much damage is done to our reputation and before we lose them to rugby league in the UK.

1. Save the international fixture.
2. Save the sponsorship.

Sad...

Future Star

12-12-06, 07:32 AM

Alrighty then, I can deal witht that :p It's just that the way you were talking before, it seemed like you were being very selfish towards your club and because of that, didn't want to give up your players for Intl. RL. I would still prefer to see a GB vs NZ game though. Australia have SOO in the middle of the season, NZ and GB have no mid-season rep games, and they deserve at least 1, if not more. GB vs France will still leave NZ stranded without a rep game while Australia, GB and France are strutting their stuff on the representative stage (be it SOO or International).

I agree, but don't Great Britain have County of Origin??

DIEHARD

12-12-06, 02:25 PM

I agree, but don't Great Britain have County of Origin??

Used to, it was scrapped. There was never any heart in it anyway and the fixture merely nurished the cliche that rugby league is a game restricted to two northern counties.

Internationals are the only answer for representative options at that level. Either Britain v France or England v Wales and other home nations.