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.
Showing posts with label world cup. Show all posts
Showing posts with label world cup. Show all posts
Saturday, 20 July 2013
Friday, 12 April 2013
Is it time for pre-qualifying?
This debate raised its head again in England because we actually beat a team we're expected to by an distance we're supposed to be beating them by, and everyone asked if we should even be playing them in the first place. But it's not a new debate, and it's not just England that have asked the question.
Now I'm asking the question should there be pre-qualification in Europe for international football tournaments? And, the other question that would need some serious consideration if the first one was answered 'yes', how would this be organised?
A quick Google search will give you an array of pieces that try to answer the first question. Most of them flap around with some sentiment towards the spirit of the underdog before dismissing the 'minnows' as a waste of time for the larger nations with no-one really benefiting from one sided scorelines. I would argue these games bestow no real benefit to the top nations, or even the middle-tier nations, but it's hard to say they are of no benefit to the lesser nations - those shop owners and insurance salesmen that put on their national colours with pride and try valiantly in vain against some of the best players in the world. For the blokes playing it must be great. For the fans, they get to see the top players in their country. For the national bodies, they get to fund the running of their national team for another campaign. For hoteliers, restaurateurs, bar owners, taxi drivers, these games are a massive boost.
Now, getting rid of these teams, by and large, from the main qualification process will only be of benefit to the better footballing countries. It cuts down the amount of predictable and dull games they have to play to get to a World Cup or Euros. It means they can fill the gaps now arising in the international calendar with more lucrative friendly games against each other or the powerhouses of South America.
In European club competition we also see various levels of qualification criteria and pre-qualification, designed to get the biggest teams more often than not playing in the important stages of tournaments. It begs the question why a different attitude is taken to national competition?
Well one clear answer is numbers. There are far more poor quality clubs than countries, relatively speaking. However, one startling fact going against the numbers argument is that only UEFA and CONMEBOL (South America) don't have any pre-qualifying for World Cup tournaments - the South American confederation only has 10 teams mind, UEFA has 53, the joint highest. The others all whittle things down before qualification proper gets under way.
The general consensus is pre-qualification would be the way to go. The problem people who get to this conclusion, however they have got there, all stumble upon is how to arrange this. I have an idea...
The World Cup
For the World Cup, teams are generally seeded by world rankings, rightly or wrongly. I don't see any reason to move away from that. Generally 13 European countries get to the finals. An decent group size would be 5 nations per group, spread across 9 groups, means 45 of the 53 still get to the qualification proper.
The top 4 seeds in each group will be drawn from seeded groups of 9, making up 36 of the qualification competitors. The final pot would could from a pre-qualifying playoff round. Of the 17 remaining nations, the best would be straight in, the others would play each over two-legs in an open draw to gain one of the remaining 8 spots. The 8 teams that miss out can do what they will for two years - play a tournament amongst themselves, try and draw some lucrative friendly form bigger nations etc. Group winners and best runner up go to the dance, along with 4 winners of runners up playoffs.
That could work. Fewer games in qualification generally. The really poor teams that never look like improving won't be wasting anyone's time. As things stand, Northern Ireland would be pre-qualifying and Scotland are on the brink.
The Euros
Oh, darn it, here's where UEFA mess it up. For some reason they now want 24 nations making up the finals for this tournament. That's nearly half the members of the confederation. When you think of it that way, what's the point of pre-qualifying?
A better way to go would be to not make the best 8 teams have to qualify at all (how you decide best 8 would be up for debate - world rankings aren't really used for this tournament, maybe go with the quarter finalists last time around auto qualify). Really, reducing qualifying stages is for their benefit anyway so that they play less games against poorer teams. We know they are highly likely to get into a 24 team competition anyway, the outcome is known in advance, another reason people argue for pre-qualifying.
Then the remaining 45 battle it out in 9 groups of 5. Here, the minnows play the 2nd tier countries, giving them a chance to play against some bigger countries - for example, Croatia, Netherlands and Russia would be in the pot based on not being Euro 2012 quarter finalists. The holder and host should auto-qualify too, so if the host isn't in the 8 previous quarter finalists, it just reduces the amount of teams in the qualification stage by one.
These are my poorly conceived ideas if UEFA decide to cut down the amount of frankly boring international qualification games. Anyone do any better?
Now I'm asking the question should there be pre-qualification in Europe for international football tournaments? And, the other question that would need some serious consideration if the first one was answered 'yes', how would this be organised?
A quick Google search will give you an array of pieces that try to answer the first question. Most of them flap around with some sentiment towards the spirit of the underdog before dismissing the 'minnows' as a waste of time for the larger nations with no-one really benefiting from one sided scorelines. I would argue these games bestow no real benefit to the top nations, or even the middle-tier nations, but it's hard to say they are of no benefit to the lesser nations - those shop owners and insurance salesmen that put on their national colours with pride and try valiantly in vain against some of the best players in the world. For the blokes playing it must be great. For the fans, they get to see the top players in their country. For the national bodies, they get to fund the running of their national team for another campaign. For hoteliers, restaurateurs, bar owners, taxi drivers, these games are a massive boost.
Now, getting rid of these teams, by and large, from the main qualification process will only be of benefit to the better footballing countries. It cuts down the amount of predictable and dull games they have to play to get to a World Cup or Euros. It means they can fill the gaps now arising in the international calendar with more lucrative friendly games against each other or the powerhouses of South America.
In European club competition we also see various levels of qualification criteria and pre-qualification, designed to get the biggest teams more often than not playing in the important stages of tournaments. It begs the question why a different attitude is taken to national competition?
Well one clear answer is numbers. There are far more poor quality clubs than countries, relatively speaking. However, one startling fact going against the numbers argument is that only UEFA and CONMEBOL (South America) don't have any pre-qualifying for World Cup tournaments - the South American confederation only has 10 teams mind, UEFA has 53, the joint highest. The others all whittle things down before qualification proper gets under way.
The general consensus is pre-qualification would be the way to go. The problem people who get to this conclusion, however they have got there, all stumble upon is how to arrange this. I have an idea...
The World Cup
For the World Cup, teams are generally seeded by world rankings, rightly or wrongly. I don't see any reason to move away from that. Generally 13 European countries get to the finals. An decent group size would be 5 nations per group, spread across 9 groups, means 45 of the 53 still get to the qualification proper.
The top 4 seeds in each group will be drawn from seeded groups of 9, making up 36 of the qualification competitors. The final pot would could from a pre-qualifying playoff round. Of the 17 remaining nations, the best would be straight in, the others would play each over two-legs in an open draw to gain one of the remaining 8 spots. The 8 teams that miss out can do what they will for two years - play a tournament amongst themselves, try and draw some lucrative friendly form bigger nations etc. Group winners and best runner up go to the dance, along with 4 winners of runners up playoffs.
That could work. Fewer games in qualification generally. The really poor teams that never look like improving won't be wasting anyone's time. As things stand, Northern Ireland would be pre-qualifying and Scotland are on the brink.
The Euros
Oh, darn it, here's where UEFA mess it up. For some reason they now want 24 nations making up the finals for this tournament. That's nearly half the members of the confederation. When you think of it that way, what's the point of pre-qualifying?
A better way to go would be to not make the best 8 teams have to qualify at all (how you decide best 8 would be up for debate - world rankings aren't really used for this tournament, maybe go with the quarter finalists last time around auto qualify). Really, reducing qualifying stages is for their benefit anyway so that they play less games against poorer teams. We know they are highly likely to get into a 24 team competition anyway, the outcome is known in advance, another reason people argue for pre-qualifying.
Then the remaining 45 battle it out in 9 groups of 5. Here, the minnows play the 2nd tier countries, giving them a chance to play against some bigger countries - for example, Croatia, Netherlands and Russia would be in the pot based on not being Euro 2012 quarter finalists. The holder and host should auto-qualify too, so if the host isn't in the 8 previous quarter finalists, it just reduces the amount of teams in the qualification stage by one.
These are my poorly conceived ideas if UEFA decide to cut down the amount of frankly boring international qualification games. Anyone do any better?
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
2013 Rugby League World Cup - One year out preview
With the Autumn trail matches over and the World Cup less than 12 months away, I've been wondering if England can win this World Cup next year. I'm not sure if this is misguided optimism but I really think we have a decent shot. I've been thinking about it for weeks now and I've not managed to convince myself otherwise.
I assure you it's nothing to do with three big wins in this Autumn northern hemisphere series. If anything I thought we were scratchy and disorganised in attack, rarely tested in defense and a little bit unprofessional in going about our business in this recent series. Add to that a lot of big name players were missing, some of whom would walk into any squad in the tournament, and I'm not convinced we can take a lot from this little showing.
So, why do I think we have a fair crack at this?
1. Sam Tomkins (Wigan Warriors - 1 SL, 1 CC)
2. Ryan Hall (Leeds Rhinos - 4 SL, 1 WCC)
3. Kallum Watkins (Leeds Rhinos - 1 SL, 1 WCC)
4. Jack Reed (Brisbane Broncos)
5. Tom Briscoe (Hull FC)
6. Kevin Sinfield (Leeds Rhinos - 6 SL, 3 WCC)
7. Gareth Widdop (Melbourne Storm - 1 NRL)
8. Sam Burgess (South Sydney Rabbitohs)
9. James Roby (St Helens - 1 SL, 3 CC, 1 WCC)
10. James Graham (Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs - 1 SL, 3 CC, 1 WCC)
11. Gareth Ellis (Hull FC - 2 SL, 2 WCC)
12. Gareth Hock (Wigan Warriors)
13. Sean O'Loughlin (Wigan Warriors - 1 SL, 1 CC)
14. Adrian Morley (Warrington Wolves - 1 SL, 4 CC, 1 NRL, 1 WCC)
15. Luke Burgess (South Sydney Rabbitohs - 1 SL)
16. Ben Westwood (Warrington Wolves - 3 CC)
17. Rob Burrow (Leeds Rhinos - 6 SL, 3 CC)
18. Zak Hardaker (Leeds Rhinos - 2 SL)
19. Josh Charnley (Wigan Warriors - 1 CC)
20. Michael McIlorum (Wigan Warriors - 1 SL, 1 CC)
21. Chris Heighington (Cronulla Sharks - 1 NRL)
22. Chris Hill (Warrington Wolves - 1 CC)
23. Richie Myler (Warrington Wolves - 1 CC)
24. Leroy Cudjoe (Huddersfield Giants)
I accept I'm being optimistic and we need it all to fall into place perfectly, but I really don't think I'm being delusional. COME ON ENGLAND!!!
I assure you it's nothing to do with three big wins in this Autumn northern hemisphere series. If anything I thought we were scratchy and disorganised in attack, rarely tested in defense and a little bit unprofessional in going about our business in this recent series. Add to that a lot of big name players were missing, some of whom would walk into any squad in the tournament, and I'm not convinced we can take a lot from this little showing.
So, why do I think we have a fair crack at this?
- We have some of the best players in the world! This isn't my opinion, this is the opinion of the wider Rugby League world. Rugby League World listed Sam Burgess as 7th best player in the world and Sam Tomkins was voted 10th best player in the world. 9 other England players made the RLW top 100 for 2012. Ryan Hall retained his title as RLIF Winger of the Year and James Graham was awarded the top prop honours.
- We have more and more players playing at the highest level! The NRL has come hunting for British talent and has helped bring some guys through for us as well. Gareth Ellis leaves Wests to come back home but he has three outstanding years and one injury dogged one at the top level. Gareth Widdop gets in the premiership winning Melbourne side week in week out. James Graham made a big impact at minor premiers Canterbury. Sam Burgess is a leader at the returning to competitiveness South Sydney Rabbitohs, with his brother Luke keeping a starting jumper through most of 2012 too and George even showing potential, with his twin Tom also now on the NRL roster. Jack Reed and Chris Heighington have come through NRL systems and are experienced top level players. Even Scott Moore has been given a lifeline in the NRL at the Cowboys and rumours have been out there for the likes of Briscoe and Hock to be in demand too.
- We have a squad full of winners! Look though any team England have put out in the last two years and you'll see that almost to a man they have winners medals on the mantelpiece - some of them hold medals from down under, others run out of fingers to count final appearances on and a lot can boast impressive individual honours as well.
- We only have to beat the Aussies once! We generally can beat them at least once in a series, but unfortunately this has often come early in series rather than when trophies are on the line. We might time it right this time.
- We're at home! Ok, we're playing a game in Cardiff and potentially (hopefully!!) a game in London but tickets are all reasonably priced and we have ages to save up and get them so lets get out and support the team. Try and make being at home an advantage. And don't just go to sit back and watch the world class players from the other side of the world, go to watch and cheer our own world class players on.
1. Sam Tomkins (Wigan Warriors - 1 SL, 1 CC)
2. Ryan Hall (Leeds Rhinos - 4 SL, 1 WCC)
3. Kallum Watkins (Leeds Rhinos - 1 SL, 1 WCC)
4. Jack Reed (Brisbane Broncos)
5. Tom Briscoe (Hull FC)
6. Kevin Sinfield (Leeds Rhinos - 6 SL, 3 WCC)
7. Gareth Widdop (Melbourne Storm - 1 NRL)
8. Sam Burgess (South Sydney Rabbitohs)
9. James Roby (St Helens - 1 SL, 3 CC, 1 WCC)
10. James Graham (Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs - 1 SL, 3 CC, 1 WCC)
11. Gareth Ellis (Hull FC - 2 SL, 2 WCC)
12. Gareth Hock (Wigan Warriors)
13. Sean O'Loughlin (Wigan Warriors - 1 SL, 1 CC)
14. Adrian Morley (Warrington Wolves - 1 SL, 4 CC, 1 NRL, 1 WCC)
15. Luke Burgess (South Sydney Rabbitohs - 1 SL)
16. Ben Westwood (Warrington Wolves - 3 CC)
17. Rob Burrow (Leeds Rhinos - 6 SL, 3 CC)
18. Zak Hardaker (Leeds Rhinos - 2 SL)
19. Josh Charnley (Wigan Warriors - 1 CC)
20. Michael McIlorum (Wigan Warriors - 1 SL, 1 CC)
21. Chris Heighington (Cronulla Sharks - 1 NRL)
22. Chris Hill (Warrington Wolves - 1 CC)
23. Richie Myler (Warrington Wolves - 1 CC)
24. Leroy Cudjoe (Huddersfield Giants)
I accept I'm being optimistic and we need it all to fall into place perfectly, but I really don't think I'm being delusional. COME ON ENGLAND!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)