State Of Origin Players Are Easily Worth $50,000 Per Game
Is it unreasonable to suggest that the biggest domestic sporting event in Australia would generate enough money to see the participants in that contest earning $50,000 each?
No, not really?
That is the situation we face right now with the State Of Origin series.
The Rugby League Players Association is pushing for a pay increase for State Of Origin players, from the current $20,000 per game up to the figure they want of $50,000 per game.
It sounds like a hell of a lot of money, but when you look at what State Of Origin generates, it is actually a lower percentage of the overall money the series makes than NRL players receive from the money the NRL competition generates.
Far from being an unreasonable "demand", it is actually quite conservative. They RLPA could actually demand three times as much and it would still be economically viable.
So the push for each player in the State Of Origin series to receive $50,000 per game is not about affordability, because the game can afford it. It is more a case of public sentiment and many people not realizing that the series generates so much money that such figures are well within the games budget.
I love looking at the business side of Rugby League and even to me, when I first heard that $50,000 per game figure, I was shocked. So your average punter, your casual fan, they would no doubt think that figure is beyond ridiculous, when in fact, it isn't.
In the next broadcasting deal is it very likely that State Of Origin and International football will be sold off in one block to maximize the amount of money the game can get from both. The State Of Origin is actually seen as the jewel in the crowd of the entire broadcasting deal.
It is the one domestic football series that generates national attention, that rates well in every single major television market, that gets lock down, shut out, guaranteed ratings wins in all of NSW and Queensland, it is basically like getting three Grand Finals to broadcast every single year.
So the money side, it isn't an issue. Players should get $50,000 per game because quite simply, they generate far more than $50,000 per game during the Origin series.
What about the other impacts on the game though?
Forget this idea that all of that money would no filter down to junior Rugby League. I don't think that happens anyway. I don't believe anyone will miss out on any money they are getting right now, this extra money that players are asking for will be more than covered by the increases in the broadcasting deal anyway.
Everyone will get more money from now on.
The big problem will come from the incredible riches that State Of Origin will now offer players, and the impossible to turn down chance to earn $50,000 in one game when compared to playing for other nations.
By turning his back on the country of his birth, Tamou has guaranteed himself at least $70,000 more this year than he earned last year.
Imagine that next season you are a young New Zealander, Samoan, Tonga or Fijian....and you moved to Australia when you were 14 which qualifies you to play in State Of Origin football. You can decide to play for the country of your birth, know you will hardly play any decent games outside of World Cups, where the chances are you'll get smashed by Australia anyway....
OR....
You can decide to put your hand up to play State Of Origin. If you do, you could ear $150,000 more than you current earn by playing in just three games.
I don't care how proud you are of the country you are born in, you have to take that deal!
That is the danger of making State Of Origin so lucrative. It will basically canalization international Rugby League in the southern hemisphere, and we can not afford to let that happen.
What I would like to see happen is a representative wide view taken of the game in the next broadcasting deal. If we are going to spin off State Of Origin and International Rugby League as one package, pool all of the money from both areas of the game together and work out match payments from there.
If State Of Origin players earned $40,000 per game, which is double what they do now, and the extra money was spent to raise match payments for and playing conditions for New Zealand and Pacific Islands test teams, would that help alleviate the problem of State Of Origin football eating away at Test football?
Australia and the ARLC can not just look at our own back yard. Even if you look at it from a selfish point of view and say that we need to spend money in New Zealand and the Pacific Islands because we want to build those players bases so that we have more depth in our own club competition, we need to be willing to spend money generated in Australia by Australian players on international teams in the Pacific Islands.
The end goal should be that we want Australia to have opposition that is good enough that it generates even more money for the representative broadcasting and sponsorship pool. We should be looking to list the standards of New Zealand and Pacific Islands nations so that at the end of each season, Australia can play all of these teams, at home, and offer the public a good enough show that they will pay money to go and see it.
I have no doubt that if State Of Origin players knew a 20% pay cut from their State Of Origin demands went straight into the pockets of players from Pacific Islands nations to develop test football, they would be more than happy to accept just $40,000 per game.
It would need work though, and it would need to result in an outcome that not only players could see, but that broadcasters and sponsors could benefit from as well.
One last thing extra payments for representative football should bring an end to is the act of giving contract bonuses at club level for representative football selection.
These clauses in contracts have been an issue for a number of teams over the years and have meant some teams have either needed to shed players or they have gone over the salary cap.
If a player can earn up to $50,000 a game playing State Of Origin, do they really need a clause in their contract to earn more from their club? I personally don't think so.
At the end of the day, this is a really nice problem for Rugby League to have. With a bit of forward thinking it could have an incredibly positive impact on international football. However, if our games administrators don't look at the wider impact on the game, and they just focus on Australia, it could cause major issues that will be must harder to address.
For once, the games administrators need to be proactive rather than reactive.
The Queensland Rugby League has announced the Maroons side for game one of the State Of Origin series and there were basically no surprises what so ever.
The Queenslanders have a big production around the announcement of their side and its pretty funny if only for the fact that you have so many journo's who are "hearing things" and "have mail", and yet the entire Queensland side is flown to Brisbane for this function.
Its hardly a state secret!
Anyway, take a look at the banana benders side:
The Official Queensland Maroons Team
1. Billy Slater
2. Darius Boyd
3. Greg Inglis
4. Juston Hodges
5. Brent Tate
6. Jonathan Thurston
7. Cooper Cronk
8. Matt Scott
9. Cameron Smith (C)
10. Petero Civoniceva
11. Nate Myles
12. Sam Thaiday
13. Ashley Harrison
14. Matt Gillett
15. Dave Taylor
16. Ben Hannant
17. Dave Shillington
18. Daly Cherry-Evans
19. Dane Nielsen
Its a pretty good looking side.
I'm surprised they decided to select Petero Civoniceva. I think he weakens their pack. I'm also a little surprised they picked Brent Tate, if only for the possibly injury concern that has to always surround him.
I like the NSW pack over the Queensland pack by quite a long way but as always, the Queenslanders strength is their backline.
Hodges will be coming into this first game of the series a little under done. He should handle the game alright but then again, he isn't normally the type of player that comes back from injury and hit the ground running. He normally needs a run or two under his belt.
I would expect the Maroons to go with the four forwards on the bench.
So there we have it now, both sides have finally been named and we can stop with all the stupid rumours and conjecture!
The NSWRL has announced the Blues State Of Origin side for game one and I have to say, its a lineup I really like and one that looks like its been selected to attack the Maroons and really go after a win rather than trying to defend its way to a series.
When you have lost 6 series in a row, you need to go out and try something different. I think there is no doubt that that is what Ricky Stuart has done.
James Tamou, Tony Williams, Todd Carney and Jamie Buhrer all make their State Of Origin debuts, and its hard to argue against their inclusions in the team.
So, lets have a look at the team:
The Official New South Wales Blues Team
1. Brett Stewart
2. Jarryd Hayne
3. Michael Jennings
4. Josh Morris
5. Akuila Uate
6. Todd Carney
7. Mitchell Pearce
8. Paul Gallen (C)
9. Robbie Farah
10. Trent Merrin
11. Luke Lewis
12. Glenn Stewart
13. Greg Bird
14. Jamie Buhrer
15. Tony Williams
16. Ben Creagh
17. James Tamou
I pretty much like the entire lineup, which is a rare thing for me to say.
The backline looks dangerous. I have no problems at all with Michael Jennings being selected from the Windsor Wolves. He is a quality player, a game breaker, and when he is given quality ball he shows his class, something he never gets playing for the Panthers.
The halves have played a lot of football together which is good and Todd Carney is in fantastic form.
The forward pack looks like it has a lot of ball playing ability and when you look at it with the bench rotation, it has huge impact too.
The two players most have questioned selecting are Ben Creagh and Jamie Buhrer.
Jamie Buhrer has been picked as a bit of a utility player. I've got no problems with his selection at all. As for Ben Creagh, I'd have rather seen Tariq Sims as I think he gives more pure grunt off the bench, but thats probably the only change I'd like to see made.
I tend to think the NSW forward rotation has it all over Queensland this year. Especially if they select Petero Civoniceva in their lineup.
So now we wait for Queensland to pick their Origin side for game one. I have a feeling there are going to be a few surprises in their lineup.
Penrith In A Dire Position In Regards To The Salary Cap
Earlier this year on Twitter Phil Gould was answering questions put to him by Penrith Panthers fans and tried his best to convey the terrible position the clubs previous management had left the club in in regards to the salary cap.
Gould didn't beat around the bush either. He basically said that the club was struggling just to stay under the salary cap, that the Panthers were not really in a position to sign any big names, and that the majority of his focus would on the long term, rather than the short term.
It was refreshing to have a club official being completely honest about where the club is at right now.
As the Panthers season slowly descended into a fight to avoid the wooden spoon, and with Michael Jennings being dropped to reserve grade, I blew up on Twitter.
My argument was that Jennings wasn't in the best form, but he had plenty of mates out there in this Panthers side. I thought is was a disgrace that one of our top two players has been dropped from a first grade team that looks like a NSW Cup side at the moment.
See, Michael Jennings is reported to be on around $600,000 per season with the Panthers, which would make him one of the top five paid players in the game. I have no problem with how much he is earning, he is really the only game breaker we have in the team. I'll cop spending that much on Jennings.
It would be easy to look at it from a different point of view that, if the Panthers could force him from the club, sacking him for instance, that would free up $600,000 under the salary cap and help ease the issues the club was facing.
I also blew up being I felt that the club should be blooding a lot more youngsters than it has so far. At the time, I didn't realize just how bad the clubs salary capo situation was this season.
Basically the Panthers are at the cap limit for their second tier players. This means that they can not blood any more youngsters into first grade without going over the salary cap and copping a salary cap penalties, something the club really can not afford.
The club is working with the leagues salary cap auditor to try and manage their lineups while not breaking any salary cap rules, but the clubs hands are tied to a certain extent by terrible contracts signed by the clubs previous administrator.
So my rant about blooding youngster, I felt bad about it!
I have got no doubt that Phil Gould is working his arse off to try and turn all of this around. I have no doubt he was horrified when he first looked at the clubs books when he took over as the clubs General Manager. He has publicly stated that the club can no do much until 2015, which for a fan like me, is devastating.
It makes you think about the previous administration. I don't want to write what I feel like writing about them, because I wouldn't want to give them any reason to sue me, but I think you can probably guess the epic rant I would love to go on about all those involved...
I have said all year that Panthers fans need to accept that things are going to get worse before they get better, but to think that we can't even bring youngsters into first grade without breaking the cap, it basically stops us from tapping into out greatest resource.
When you look at how well Blake Austin has played so far this year you can see that the clubs junior base can produce very good talent. Its just unfortunate it will not be able to come through as quick as fans would like thanks to the clubs previous administrator.
Betfair And IOC Cooperate To Tackle Corruption At The Olympics
As we have seen in recent years gambling on sports has become a major issue with a number of sporting organisations. Many try to form partnerships with gambling organizations in an effort to try to stamp out corruption in a move that see's a sporting organisation retain the integrity of the sport they govern while betting organisations stamp out fraud and therefore set an even playing field form themselves.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has recently formed one such partnership with Betfair to stamp out corruption at the Olympics.
The partnership will see both organisations sharing information over a wide range of sports leading into, and during, the 2012 Olympic Games which will be held in London.
Most betting organisations are very quick to flag unusual betting practices and we have seen in recent years with other sports, they will refuse bets and close markets if they feel something untoward is going on.
With the Olympic movement opening itself up to a number of more popular sports in recent time, it has also opened itself up to new audiences.
Sports betting is a growing industry world wide and online betting on sports as well as online casino's are trying to work with sporting organisations to forge relationships that are beneficial to both parties.
There is no doubt that in 2012 the IOC has finally stepped up to the mark to protect the integrity of competition at the Olympic Games.
The Olympics is the biggest sporting event in the world. With all eyes focused on two weeks of sporting competition it is imperative that the IOC continues to stay one step ahead of people who would want to have any sort of untoward influence over results.
Thankfully, it seems they are doing just that.
Great Britain is slowly gearing up for the opening ceremony and they have already stated that their one major goal at the Olympic Games is to beat Australia on the medal tally.
There is no chance of this happening!
I think we will see Australia take a hit in the pool though which our track and field squad may do a little better than expected.
Fingers crossed anyway.
The Olympics is part of what is being called a "Golden decade of sport" in Great Britain. At the end of the day the number of gold medals Great Britain win may ultimately decide how people look back on the 2012 games.
Why Do You Believe You Are More Important Than Any Other Fan?
You are a unique and delicate flower. There is no one else quite like you. You are special. So very, very special.
You are a Rugby League fan living in the "heartlands". The game is belongs to you. Who cares about anywhere else, you come first and that is the way that it should always remain.
It is an interesting mind set that some people that follow Rugby League have. It is also completely wrong.
Right now there are people in Italy, the United States, Russia, Ireland, Wales, Lebanon, Western Australia, Victoria, and they all LOVE the game of Rugby League.
They go out of their way to find a game Rugby League. They play a sport that few people they know have ever heard of. They watch games on TV and online. They try to get their friends to watch it with them, but have trouble explaining why this "Isn't just rugby".
They choose favorite teams that play in places they have never even been too. They buy jerseys and wear them with pride, looking like a tourist when they go out in their own town wearing it.
They don't care.
This is a game that called them, that they have within their soul. Rugby League is their game, and nothing, not even distance and isolation will change that.
So, why are they less important than you or I?
We can flick on the TV every day and get some sort of Rugby League content beamed right into our lounge rooms. We take it for granted that we can jump in the car and go and watch out favorite teams at stadiums that are close by. We don't have to go out of our way to be a fan. Hell, for a vast majority of us, we follow Rugby League just because that was the most popular sport where we live.
How can we say to someone that goes out of their way to experience the game that we are more important than they are? That the game owes more to us than it does to them?
This is why I have never understood with some people. Many of the same people that will claim that Rugby League is the best sport in the world and that they can't understand why it isn't more widely enjoyed are some of the first to rubbish any moved to take the game to a wider audience.
When I see 14,000 in Melbourne cheering on the Storm, I see 14,000 who look forward to watching their team every few weeks play at their ground and they wear their jerseys. They are loud, they are proud, and they go out of their way to follow this sport in the face of zero local marketing and very little media coverage.
When I see the die hards of London turning out to watch the Broncos play, not in a big comfortable stadium with a great atmosphere, not to watch a great team or a well run club, turning up just to watch any sort of Rugby League they can get, I see fans that Rugby League should cherish!
It is easy to follow the crowd to "the big game" in town and to follow "everyone's team". If you are the person that follows "what?" and goes to see "who?", you are Rugby League to your core.
The heartlands of Rugby League are anywhere the game is played.
From the cathedral of Rugby League excellence that is Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane, to the fields of Russia where they play in snow and wear beanies.
It is all hallowed turf that our great game graces with its presence and we should value every single fan, no matter where they come from, and no matter how many people they bring with them.
As many of you know I have complained a number of times about the money wasted in Sydney on stadium developments at venues that are no where near the standards required for top level sport these days.
I have talked about the need for some sort of stadium rationalization for years now.
Today came news that the NSW Government is likely to refuse to spend any more tax payers money on putting new coats of paint on some of the relics NRL clubs play out of only a few times every year. This is a good thing.
On the weekend there was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Richard Hinds titled Wanted: Stadiums Fit For Both Fans And Sponsors in which Hinds echo'd some of my opinions in that a top class Rugby League stadium in the goegraphic center of Sydney would be a true jewel in the crown of the game in Sydney.
He proposed tearing down Parramatta Stadium and rebuilding it along the lines of Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane, which is the best stadium I have ever watched the game at.
The more I've thought about this, the more it makes sense...
Parramatta Stadium is fairly easy to get to by Sydney standards, so the transport links are there. You'd hope that there would be a big commitment to "Events" planning that would make transport to the stadium even easier.
If you put a clone of Suncorp Stadium on the site Parramatta Stadium sits right now, I think you would have to develop the area around the stadium and put as much parking there as possible. That may mean the training field and Cricket field next door is removed, but surely the council has other sites they can used instead.
Between Parramatta Mall and a completely redeveloped area around the stadium, you could build a really good pregame atmosphere before the game around the whole stadium, which is something we don't do enough of here in Australia.
Imagine being able to head to the stadium early to have a drink and a feed alongside the river in places that are open only for game days? Open areas where fans can mingle ahead of the game, in sight of the stadium, no rush to get in there.
One of the things I like about Suncorp Stadium is that it hasn't got a fence around it. The stadium itself is where the gates are. The open plan around the stadium is great. You can head there early, have a few beers in the pubs before the game, and its not some huge rush to get to the stadium. We need to focus on these sort of things to get the best game day experience possible.
If you put all of this together, it would be an incredible addition to the Sydney sports scene.
You could have the Parramatta Eels and Canterbury Bulldogs playing out of this stadium full time, not to mention the Western Sydney A League team over summer. I also have no doubt the Wests Tigers and possibly even St George/Illawarra Dragons would play games there too.
This stadium would be perfect for Rugby League internationals although I think State Of Origin would remain at ANZ Stadium.
In Sydney, we really lack foresight and planning when it comes to stadiums. With a bit of effort, commitment and vision, Sydney could have a major Rugby League stadium that even the Queenslanders would envy!
Super League's Popularity Depends On What We See On The Field
Recently Warrington Wolves coach Tony Smith told the media that the game administrators needed to look at ways to create more buzz around the sport and compared it, strangely, to Darts.
Yes, Darts.
He also talked about the need to make decisions that would probably upset some of the big power brokers in the game, but mentioned that the short term pain would result in long term gain for Rugby League in Great Britain.
It is clear that slowly but surely, we are seeing a shift in attitudes in Rugby League's halls of power. More and more club owners are starting to push for change in very public ways. Players and coaches are talking about rationalization and yet the need for national relevance is started to become an issue for a sport that is finally working out that is confined geographic footprint is costing the game money in a huge way.
When it comes down to it the needs of Rugby League in Great Britain right now are pulling it in tow different directions.
There is the need to cut Super League down from 14 teams to at least 12, if not 10. At the same time there is the need to expand the competition into bigger media markets.
There is a need to to cut back the salary cap to a sustainable level and yet we need to pay players more money so that Super League is a viable career option.
There is a need to develop international football and yet clubs need to play as many games as possible to generate income.
At some point someone needs to step into a leadership role at the Rugby Football League and choose a path for the game to go down, because we simply can not have it both ways.
Right now we have a lot of people pushing for Promotion and Relegation to come back. These people are completely and utterly insane!
Take one look at Widnes right now, who were given many months more than any Promoted team would be given to step up to Super League level. Widnes simply are not up to being in Super League. They are not even close. At best they are years away from being competitive at all.
Surely Widnes is the best example of why Promotion and Relegation doesn't work.
If we have Promotion and Relegation in play right now, Widnes would have spend so much money to try and become a competitive Super League team, they would be heading straight back down at the end of this season, that would see them lose players, coaches and sponsors, and they would be Relegated in a worse position than what they were Promoted in.
That would happen to the next team, and the next team, and the next team.
So Promotion and Relegation is not the way to go. It doesn't work.
I wonder if what we need are two tiers of Super League. You have a 10 team Super League A league and a 10 team Super League B league. Obviously you'd come up with better names than A and B, but for this, lets just stick with them to keep it simple.
Super League A teams would play to the current salary cap levels. Super League B teams would play to a lower cap level would would be much more sustainable for teams in that competition.
Super League A teams would play each other twice, home and away, and then play each team in Super League B once. Super League B teams would play everyone in their own league twice, home and away, and then the big boys in Super League A once.
That gives you a 28 game club season for all Super League A and B teams.
I would make Super League B end one week earlier than Super League A. I would then have the two 4 teams from Super League B play off....giving you two teams that would advance to the overall playoffs.
The top 4 Super League A teams would then be joined by the 2 advancing Super League B teams and they would play a 6 team playoff series to find out who our Grand Final winners are.
Why use this system?
First of all, this keeps Super League B very relevant to the overall top level of competition. They will be able to attract players, coaches and sponsors a lot easier because they can guarantee 10 games every year against Super League A competition, they can possibly be involved in the overall playoffs, hell, if they are good enough they could win the Grand Final!
Super League A teams get to offer fans, sponsors and broadcaster more high intensity games while maintaining the current salary cap level. They can offer 10 games against lower intencity competition, which I think will generate some interest, but they also are assured that 40% of teams get a start in the overall playoffs, and that is a pretty good number.
My biggest worry about this system is its effect on the Challenge Cup. With Super League A teams regularly playing Super League B teams, the "magic" of the Challenge Cup becomes something we would see on a regular basis. Not so magic any more.
When it comes to the Challenge Cup I would remove the random element of the draw from it. I would have a set, bracket style schedule so that every team knows exactly who they will possibly be playing a head of time, who they will have to beat and who they may face if they make the final.
This would allow clubs and their fans to plan out in advance when to buy tickets, and dare I say it, book stadiums.
So what have we done so far?
We have allowed teams to play at levels that are more financial sustainable to them. We have managed to keep the second tier of the game completely relevant to the top tier and maintained their exposure to the highest levels of the game.
We have added a little bit of extra intrigue to the playoff series and we have planned the Challenge Cup ahead of time.
I can't see any reason why all of that wouldn't work!
Now....here is where we look ahead a little and take this concept towards expanding the games national footprint....
Super League B is the perfect place to bring in teams in "expansion" area's. If you think of teams from the past like Gateshead or Wrexham, chances are they would still be with us at the "Super League" level if they were brought in at a Super League B level, with lower salary cap demands and more realistic expectations in terms of player strength.
With some forward thinking, good planning and the right investment, Super League B could end up being the savior of the game. It could be the nationalized competition that actually drives, not only its own commercial success, but the success of Super League A team as well.
Super League needs more teams based in large media markets. It needs to have a true national footprint so that it can go to broadcasters and offer them relevant content across Great Britain, and then take that better coverage and go to sponsor to show them that they are buying into a competition that isn't just based in a few small towns in Northern England.
You could look to bring teams into Super League B from Wales, Ireland, Scotland and France. Imagine one day being able to have the London Broncos from Super League A playing a live league match against the London Skolars from Super League B. Tell me that clash wouldn't help both sides and develop the culture of Rugby League in London.
The lower demands of Super League B would allow so much more freedom to expand the game.
Add all of the above along side a true cut back on imports (Three non GB/French born players per club) and I think Super League starts to look pretty interesting.
It stands out from other competitions. Its different. It has looked at some of the issues it faces, and it has fixed them in a unique way.
That at the end of the day is the real issue with Rugby League in Great Britain. The problems it faces can not be fixed with closed thinking and burying its head in the sand. There needs to be an honest assessment of where the game stands.
Right now, the game is in a dire financial position. It is not competitive. It is not offering a product that is comparable to any of the world class alternatives on offer elsewhere. On top of all of that, it is trying to sell a competition mostly based in tiny little towns in Northern England.
If you can reign in spending to affordable levels, bring back back exciting competition, give people a product that is unique and different from anything else in Great Britain and on top of all that, offer new markets to broadcasters and sponsors.....you're taking a step in the right direction at least.
The alternative is to make no changes. Just stay the course. Do nothing and wonder why things are getting worse. Wait for someone else to step in and fix things.
If that attitude continues to win out at the Rugby Football League over the calls for change, then you can forget about Rugby League in Great Britain over the long term.
You Can't Treat Them Like Kids And Expect Them To Act Like Adults
It has been a bit of an interesting week in the National Rugby League with different different teams facing different issues that really come back to personal responsibility.
In Canberra, the Raiders season has once again got off to a terrible start and there is talk that an alcohol ban imposed by the club went down quicker than a Sonny Bill Williams opponent in what ever round had been agree'd to beforehand.
When I heard about this I thought about the make up of the Raiders team. Sure, there are a fair few younger players in the team but there are also a number of older players.
Now, I don't drink alcohol that often, but if I was in a team playing poorly and the club told me I couldn't drink, I'd just laugh! I'm an adult! Yes, I have a responsibility to make sure I stay at my physical peak, and for that, I am rewarded with a big contract. However if some suit thinks the way to motivate me is to treat me like a teenager, I have some bad news for them.
Imagine trying to tell a bloke that has a wife and kids in any other job in Australia that they are not allowed to drink....
The thing about alcohol bans is, unless they are a personal decision, they just don't work. It is all very well and good for a player group to sit down and all agree to not drink, but break those individual players up and they will have a quiet drink early in the week if they feel like it, no matter what they agree'd too.
Then we head on over to the Parramatta Eels and the way they have handled Chris Sandow. Sandow was a huge off season signing and I've watched his season play out very closely.
Over the first few weeks, he did everything he possibly could. This is a terrible Parramatta team and in the early rounds, Sandow was playing behind a beaten pack. He kept trying though! The problem was, opposition teams had a very simple task. If they shut down Chris Sandow, who else on this Eels side has game breaking ability? Who else was able to put in attacking kicks or do something decent on the last tackle?
No one!
Teams simply pressured Sandow out of the game and the Eels had no Plan B when that happened.
No other playmaker in the competition had the same lack of support that Sandow did. No other playmaker was under the same pressure from the opposition. You throw that in with a losing Eels team, a supporter base that is fed up, a bunch of former players who apparently never lost a game in their lives and a coach who is under pressure to make changes....and something had to give.
Leading into the representative weekend, Sandow asked the club to head back home to his country town just to unwind a bit. They said no. They said he would have to play in the clubs NSW Cup side. On the eve of that game, Sandow withdrew due to injury.
Last weekend the Eels stuck solid to their decision and Sandow played in the NSW Cup while the Eels themselves ran out a halves pairing of Casey McGuire and Ben Roberts.
If someone can tell me how that helped the Eels, I'd love to know.
So now you have your big signing, who was already under pressure, being shown that the coach will cut him loose after 2 months of the season in favour for a couple of reserve grade halves, and if he does make a return to this losing team, he will be expected to set the world on fire. Otherwise people are going to be saying he should be dropped back to park football again!
Talk about making a rod for your own back!
If Chris Sandow was a little more media savvy he would be coming out and pleading with the club to get him a bit of help!
In both of these cases, you have struggling clubs that think the way out is to treat players like children. It smacks of two coaches that have no idea what else they can do, and so why not try belittling their players in the hope that it might kick start something.
Both the Raiders and Eels have made a habit of making terrible decisions, from board level down to the coach, and at the end of the day, that is the reason for the clubs poor performances on the field. These two clubs can not get out of the mess they have made for themselves by trying to play the headmaster.
is it any wonder players struggle for motivation? They are not stupid, they are closer to all of this than you or I. They see the same mess we do, and on top of that, they get bagged every day for losing games.
So when these same players get treated like children by these dysfunctional club hierarchies, is it any wonder that they would respond in a negative manner?
Players demand discipline, it is a key part of any successful football club. The thing is, it has to be brought in in the right ways, in the right areas and most importantly, by the right people.
If you treat players erratically, if you treat them like children, and you do it from a base that suggest you don't know what you are doing yourself, you will lose the player base.
Right now, the Raiders and Eels look like two teams that have completely switched off and pay little to no attention to their coaching staff or the club boards.
The Clash Between The Canterbury Bulldogs And The Manly Sea Eagles
I love a good grudge match and tonight's Bulldogs vs Sea Eagles match is about as good of a grudge match as you will find.
It all stems back to the Sea Eagles implosion after winning the Grand Final. Their success on the field had been masking a lot of issues off the field and the Grand Final simply signaled the end of the season for the club and allowed a lot of dominoes to finally fall.
The day after the Grand Final the big news was that Will Hopoate had signed with the Parramatta Eels, in two years time, after he has finished his Mormon mission. It was sudden, it was unexpected and it was a shock that the club would lose a young star like that so easily.
The biggest issue was to come, as Des Hasler, who felt like the club had not given him the commitment he deserved as a two time premiership winning coach, looked to secure his future at the Bulldogs, who did nothing wrong at all by signing him for the 2013 season.
By this stage the implosion that was happening off the field at the Sea Eagles went to another level. They basically sacked Hasler, which allowed him to take up the Bulldogs coaching role in 2012, and they spent the next few months making ridiculous accusations towards him.
One of the Sea Eagles biggest issues was the fact that some players had clauses in their contracts stating that of the coach left, they effectively become free agents. The club blamed Hasler for this, but this is a clause certain players want put in their contracts and at the end of the day, Hasler didn't sign off on the contracts, the CEO does that job.
In the last week there has been a lot of talk about the future of Kieran Foran. It reached a beautiful peak on Thursday night on The Footy Show when Erin Molan's "mail" was that Foran had just signed with the Bulldogs. Paul Vautin immediately said he heard the opposite, and that Foran has re-signed with the Sea Eagles. It was pretty embarrassing but only because it played out on television. The fact is I've seen all many other journo's making declarations on Forans decisions for weeks now and here, on Friday afternoon, nothing has yet been confirmed.
Oh for the days of journalists rather than tea leaf readers....
So here we are, and these clubs match up for the first time sign all of this went down over the last 10 months or so. Who is going to win?
Both teams play a very similar style. When Hasler came to the Bulldogs the effect was immediate and they basically looked to clone the style of play the Sea Eagles have used for the last few years.
I tend to think that at times, this works against them. The Bulldogs haven't got the same ball players the Sea Eagles have, but at the same time I think they have more ability to blow a game open with the likes of Frank Pritchard and Greg Eastwood who can come up with something special rather than having them grinding out tackles and safe hit ups.
The big difference between these two teams right now is in the halves. Dale Cherry-Evans has been brilliant this season and the Bulldogs just don't get the same sort of control from their halves.
I don't think either side is near their best form at the moment but I would expect both see this as a game that could kick on the rest of their season.
One thing you need to remember is that, the Sea Eagles players probably feel like they have something to prove against their own coach. The Bulldogs player, hey, they are just caught in the cross fire! They haven't invested months thinking of revenge heading into this game.
I worry about the Bulldogs attack at times. They can be a nightmare of a side to face but they can also go through large periods of the game where they take no chances what so ever and look terrible in attack. I think back to their loss against South Sydney, they were terrible in that game.
The Sea Eagles don't have them sort of problems because of Cherry-Evans ability to guide his team around the park, and as these two teams go to war up front, that may well be the difference.
My guts are telling me to go with the Bulldogs, probably because I don't like Manly and the way they constantly carry on like arseholes, but my head is saying that you can't go past the Sea Eagles.
The Hypocrisy Of NRL Coaches And A Look At Wrestling
I don't need to hear from Rugby League coaches any more.
Coaches are cheats and liars. The don't care about anything other than winning their next game. They have no interest in what is best for the game overall, they don't care about their opposition, in fact they really don't care about their players either.
All they care about is trying to put in place the circumstances they want that they think will win games for them.
Now you understand where NRL coaches are coming from, maybe you can understand why they say the things they say.
No NRL coach has ever coached a team to a loss. They were screwed by the referee. The opposition team used illegal tactics. The draw was unfair. The ball they use is too slippery during night time football. Its the bloody salary cap. It was also the media. Then again, fan expectation is probably too high.
Do you see my point?
I've always found it strange that coaches have any say on the rules of the game and the way the game is generally played.
From a coaches point of view, they are looking to cut down on variables that could effect their chances of winning a game. That means that when it comes to changing rules, obviously coaches want to cut back on any parts of the game that they feel they can not control.
The Sin Bin is a great example...
Coaches think that a 10 minute sin bin is way too harsh, and it should be cut back to 5 minutes. What they would like is to be able to is instruct players to give away professional fouls, normally in the act of stopping an opposition players from scoring a try, and not have too much of an effect on their teams own performance.
Scrums are another area that shows coaches up. The same coaches that will claim the game is boring are the ones that refuse to attack from a scrum. They go one pass off the scrum and that is the end of it. Get tackled, try and get a quick play the ball. That is a variable you can control far more than a sweeping attacking play.
Wrestling is a great area of hypocrisy among coaches in the NRL. Lets take a look at wrestling a moment...
Try explaining the act of tackling in Rugby League without using the word "Tackle" or "Wrestle".
The basic idea is that you stop a players forward progress and kill the ball at the same time. You stop the offload and isolate the player, and therefore the ball, which allows you to concentrate your defense on that much smaller area of the field. Then, you drag the player to the ground, ideally. All of this happens in a matter of seconds.
Before Rugby League or even Rugby Union existed, the sports that they formed from used a situation changing method of wrestling a ball handler to the ground to enact a change of game situation.
When people talk about "Wrestling", what they are describing is the act that you come across when you have professional Rugby League players who are far more effective at tackling than we have ever seen at any other point in the games history.
What was once called a "tackle that cut him in half", something that has been valued in Rugby League since 1895, is the exact same thing as a double takedown, a more you see in wrestling and MMA. Don't believe me? Take a look:
If you went back to 1908 and attended a training session with any Rugby League team anywhere in the world at that time, they would be practicing that exact move....not calling it wrestling, they would be calling it tackle practice.
They are the same thing. A tackle is the art of stopping a players forward progress and wrestling him to the ground. That has always been the case, right back to the games formation.
With full time professionalism, every area of the game has improved. Smart coaches 15 years ago started to look at ways to tackle more effectively. They looked at ways players could improve the way they controlled an attacking players momentum. They looked at how to tackle players in a way that it took them longer to get up and play the ball, buying crucial seconds for their defensive line to get set.
We all know, and have always know, that for a defense, the best tackle you can make is when you take a player off his feet, drive him backwards, and have him land flat on his back. If you do that, you have won that ruck. The attacking player will take longer to get to his feet and then play the ball.
In attack, we know that if you can push through a defense, gain the momentum advantage, and then get tackled on your stomach, you will usually win that ruck. It means the defense is back pedaling, and it allows you to stand much quicker to your feet and play the ball very fast.
These two things have been keys to victory in Rugby League even since we have had a play the ball.
Wrestling is not a new thing. Wrestling is tackling. In a game where full time professionalism is the norm and the contest within a tackle is so crucial to overall success, of course tackling with be one area where specialized coaching is used.
You want to know why teams use "Wrestling coaches" rather than former players who were good defenders these days? Because "Wrestling coaches' coach take down techniques for a living! They know how to teach key aspects of a tackle and can articulate what works and what doesn't work far better than former players can.
The best part is, every single club uses "wrestling coaches". All of these coaches that are whinging about Wrestling, what they are really upset about is that their side is losing the ruck. They are not about to sack their own "wrestling coach" or try to revolutionize the game. They can't. Tackling is wrestling. This idea that you can "ban wrestling" is stupid because you'd basically be banning tackling!
Right now, the NRL has a great balance in the way the game is played. The balance between attack and defense is fantastic. The teams that are winning games by big margins, they are not taking advantage of rules that disadvantage the defense, they are winning because they are dominating the contest physically and backing that up with brilliant skill.
The teams at the bottom of the table that are losing games, they are the ones that are being beaten up front. The have poor go forward in attack and in defense they are being dominated by the opposition.
That is not wrestling.....that has been Rugby League ever since a bunch of clubs met at the George Hotel in Huddersfield in 1895.
Yet, here we are in 2012 and we have a bunch of coaches, all of who coach teams that are losing, whinging about Wrestling and demanding rule changes because the game is supposedly boring.
How ridiculous!
This is why coaches should not be involved in any way in setting the games rules. They only care about their own self interests and if they had their way, they would dumb Rugby League down to a contest that was nothing but a coin toss....probably with a double sided coin!
So as the media does it typical hysterical act and tries to sensationalize every angle possible, and coaches piss and moan about things they can't control, just use your own eyes and a bit of common sense.
The game is great. The game is exciting. Anyone that thinks the game is boring needs to stop watching teams at the bottom of the ladder playing each other, and start watching the best sides who are playing fantastic football.
League Freak 06/05/2011 03:20 Two COMPLETELY different games with completely different goals. They cant be compared.
fazerino 11/04/2011 17:01 Bit contradictory of you to back to NRL/Indigenous Allstars game and slam the Exiles idea! It's a competitive match for our national team which is badly needed, right?
League Freak 01/08/2010 13:11 Ridiculously, it all resets after every World Cup. Or the WC doesn't count. One of the two.
fazerino 30/07/2010 15:46 Ref Willie Manu. Didn't Hayne play for Fiji in 2008 WC then tour with the Kangaroos 2009??
League Freak 21/07/2010 12:27 Solid buys. Finch is a handy play maker, Lima a good prop. Hoffman has had injury probs though.
wiz66 21/07/2010 07:34 Lima, Hoffman and Finch signed for Wigan next season back with Mcquire good buys or not
League Freak 03/04/2010 14:05 People like you keep my fires burning. That and the Deep Heat I rub into my genitals.
john 03/04/2010 01:12 very funny,you nearly had me, keep up the garbage you prick
League Freak 01/04/2010 11:39 Hes not bad. Good mobility, gets stuck in. Doesn't mind playing in the middle of the field, unlike Gareth Ellis!
wiz66 01/04/2010 09:29 Freak - Have you seen and what do you make of young Flanagan that signed for the West Tigers from Wigan at the end of last year
League Freak 06/11/2009 13:13 Rich backers, the exchange rate and relaxed salary cap monitoring.
fazerino 06/11/2009 12:03 Fair enough, so why does SuperLeague have more cash than NRL? (if it's only played in grotty Northern towns in England?)
League Freak 04/11/2009 10:21 A Nation Comp means a bigger TV deal and bigger sponsorships. The NRL's deals are smaller because they don't have the national reach on a weekly basis.
fazerino 03/11/2009 18:24 Freak- why does AFL have more cash to lure players from league when there is absolutely no international scene?
League Freak 07/10/2009 08:14 To be honest all I know about him is that he is an assistant coach at Melbourne. He should be pretty good though.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories are correct, we cannot be held responsible for blah, blah, blah. Listen, if you have a problem with anything you find on this site, email me at leaguefreak@hotmail.com
1999-2012 LeagueFreak
http:www.leaguefreak.com is owned and operated by The King Of The Internet: League Freak
As we have seen in recent years gambling on sports has become a major issue with a number of sporting organisations. Many try to form partnerships with gambling organizations in an effort to try to stamp out corruption in a move that see's a sporting organisation retain the integrity of the sport they govern while betting organisations stamp out fraud and therefore set an even playing field form themselves.
