I'll start by saying I loved the Great Britain test series' against Australia and New Zealand. I have Great Britain shirts, but no England Rugby League shirt. When I was getting into Rugby League around the turn of the millennium there was the awful World Cup for England, but then these great contests with Great Britain against the best in the world. Whilst I still attend England games now and want them to win, I miss the Lions fixtures. I won't let that stop me being objective though.
Richard De La Riviere's recent book 'Rugby League: A Critical History 1980-2013' (a highly recommended read) starts with a couple of chapters looking at the international game over the last 33 years.
Amongst all the things that need sorting out at the moment by the RFL, from the prominent placement in his book, it's pretty clear that this is one De La Riviere feels is important. It isn't something I've thought or commented a great deal on, but after reading his book I've been giving it more thought.
One thing that has kept coming up ever since the change came into effect after 2007, is that we should be going back to Great Britain. History, brand and fan support are often reasons given for doing this. De La Riviere makes a great point about the damage being done to the Celtic nations by all their qualified players preferring to target an England place as its the only way to consistently play against the Aussies and Kiwis.
Ironically, 'consistency' was the reason Richard Lewis felt the move to break up Great Britain was a good thing, saying "it has always been illogical that we play as Great Britain for three or four years, and when the World Cup comes along, suddenly we become England"
The decision was made before the 2013 World Cup to be held in the Northern Hemisphere had been finalised, but you have to think maximising chances of a home win whilst still developing a successful, viable tournament was a factor in the decision that was made back in 2005.
Great Britain went out on a high with a 3-0 series win against a (depleted) New Zealand side in their 2007 series. The England era started pretty woefully with the dismal 2008 World Cup. Although the side would have been broken up into England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland for that tournament anyway, it was a sign of things to come and despite a couple of wins on home soil against the Kiwis, results against the southern hemisphere sides have been largely disappointing - an aggregate of -98 in five games against Australia since 2009, with no wins.
The most reasonable explanation for breaking up the Lions brand and reverting to England Rugby League is that they wanted to build a 'club mentality' and develop a consistent group of players with an eye on giving it a strong push for the home World Cup. What happens if it doesn't work?
Well, I'll firstly suggest what good may have been done. Importantly, regular live BBC TV coverage has returned in the recent past after Sky monopolised the international coverage for the first decade or so of the Super League era. And, the BBC coverage is to continue through the next cycle of Four-Nations tournaments up to the 2017 World Cup. With such investment in the sport, you would hope BBC give the coverage a push year on year and greater national interest is generated.
Another commendable step has been the development of the Elite Training Squad concept. This has given the players more opportunity to meet up regularly and form some relationships that should prompt a more connected and cohesive unit on the field. The players certainly seem to enjoy it, although would probably be gagged from telling us if they felt it was a waste of time. Steve McNamara's recent trip to catch up with the NRL based players has been heavily criticised by fans, but I also think this is a good step to make sure there is some integration amongst the players who can't join up with the ETS on a regular basis.
Whilst those are positive recent developments, there are negatives to balance things out.
The loss to Ireland, Wales and Scotland of potential players, despite what Richard Lewis asserted in 2005, has been noted above and is better covered by De La Riviere's book. It certainly shouldn't be forgotten but isn't something I'm going to dwell on.
The other big negative point relates to the very defence of the switch made by Richard Lewis of 'consistency'. It also puts cracks in the ETS system. From 2008 to 2012, England have fielded 13 different starting half-back combinations in 24 internationals, and haven't played NRL winning stand-off Gareth Widdop in any of them. This isn't a new problem, GB had issues in consistently getting a play making partnership for years too, but is surely one the consistency and ETS system should have helped England solve. We're now going into the World Cup with the starting half-backs still an open question.
Although I've previously spoken up our chances of success, we'll still enter the 2013 World Cup as distant second/third favourites behind the Kangaroos. I wouldn't pick quite the same team I went for in November last year by the way, but that'll be for another time.
Surely though if England don't win the World Cup, or at the very least push Australia really close in the final, then the whole move from Great Britain has failed?
Maybe, maybe not...I'll make one final observation before leaving you to make your own conclusions.
Crowd figures are something De La Riviere also goes into
as an issue, and I will dwell on this a little. In all home non-World
Cup games (but including the world cup rated tests of the late 1980s),
during the GB era 1980 to 2007, gates averaged 21,473. In all England
home internationals since 2007 (excluding Exiles games) the average
drops to 19,144 - not bad considering a higher proportion of games
against Wales and France. Now, the high ticket end of season Australia
and New Zealand matches - GB 1980-2007, 25,764; England 2008-onwards
(2009 & 2011 series), 28,919 - better as England, surprisingly so. What about just in Super League era versus the big boys? GB
1996-2007, 25,004 compared to that England figure of 28,919. (There is
an average of 26,618 for GB 1980-1995 by the way, despite a number of
40,000+ crowds vs. Australia.)
Maybe the fans aren't as put off by the 'rebranding'. This possibly isn't the negative people have made out. From the criticisms I hear and read, I expected it to be. Crowds for the top international fixtures have remained fairly consistent between GB and England eras. It isn't a factor that should influence any future decisions either way, the fans still turn up.
Oh, and whatever you think about the name of our international side, I still recommend Richard De La Riviere's book.
No comments:
Post a Comment