www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/ar ... d=10736002 would be great would only had to value of our TV deal and help game grow in NZ further on the same week as our origin im sure it would get massive tv ratings in australia and NZ..

www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/ar ... d=10736002 would be great would only had to value of our TV deal and help game grow in NZ further on the same week as our origin im sure it would get massive tv ratings in australia and NZ..

The biggest problem with manufacturing an Origin concept is that, well it can't be manufactured. Origin works because it has developed naturally. To create something similar you have to have a natural rivalry like NSW v Qld. The stupid England v Exiles thing will never really work because it's not a natural or even rivalry. The tricky thing about NZ is how do you create a natural rivalry that will also be an even contest? Auckland v the rest seems like the best bet because everyone is NZ outside Auckland hates Auckland. And if you allowed the Australian "Kiwis" to play for the rest of NZ side they'd probably be competitive. But Auckland would still have the bulk of players, especially if they let the Aussies play for Auckland instead of the rest. That bit I don't get.

Sounds like NZ's version of City vs Country.

I'd like to see this at the same time as NSW's City vs Country, and then a 3-test series between NZ and PI at the same time as NSW and QLD. I think everybody wins then. If NSW can do it, why not New Zealand?

I think the Exiles experiment can be called a success. An entertaining game, a good crowd, a tough test for the English players, and - perhaps most importantly - it exposed the difference in intensity and skill between our somewhat unexciting national side and a quality international side who threw the ball around and tore us apart at times. If I was McBanananana I'd have a long list of items to work on thanks to that game.

I was sceptical about the whole idea but will admit it won me over.

As a spectacle, it was nothing more than an exhibition really. Some great skills on show, but nothing really too exciting as there is not that rivalry there (yet), and with it being a manufactured team there may never be. That's its only downfall. It beat playing France in every other area: intensity, exposure, crowd size, interest, etc. It was definitely worth it.

[url=http://viewtopic.php?f=62&t=499720What's the point of the NRL and Australian RL board?[/url

dally messenger spat his dummy out a while back. It's either a self imposed exile, or he's banned.........he doesn't do debate....

Where's the 'natural rivalry' in City vs Country?
Exiles vs England worked and will be even better next year.

There's probably more rivalry in a City/County game than England/Exiles from a fan point of view. As mentioned earlier, many from outside Auckland have a dislike about it. It's like how everybody hates Londoners

Never got that when I lived in (and around) Sydney. Maybe it could work with Auckland though.

Its died off a lot now because its not really a big event anymore.
It was seen a selection trial to a place for NSW SOO team now its just not much at all.
It was always seen as Country boys against City Slickers.
Many from the Country areas are scouted and signed for Sydney Clubs at a young age and it lost its way a bit with blurred lines on who was Country or City.

That's the problem when the area you represent isn't exactly defined and when most people move freely between the two it becomes a bit of a schamozzle.

Nonsense. City and Country are very clearly separated. Country players certainly know they are from the country. I don't know what city people think.

Is it where you are born
Where you were developed
When you first come to grade
Is Penrith City or Country? what about their juniors that are further west are they still City?
Are the Players that come through St George Illawarra Club classed as City or Country if they come from Bundeena?

The concept needs to be dropped, it served its purpose and now no one watches it or care or gives a rats ass.

It follows exactly the same rules as SOO.
Penrith is city. Do you even understand that City/Country is based on the NSWRL and CRL? Do you even know the CRL exists?
I have you well and truly sussed now. You're from Sydney and you have no idea about the game outside Sydney. And that last comment proves it. Typical Sydney-centric ignorance and narrow-mindedness.

Great idea. Better than the top NZ players being sat in the stands. This could be huge.

I reckon move Origin to NZ for the first game one year and have a double header to kick off this new series. Easy sell-out for the first game.

I can't see any problem with it. This kind of thing is pretty unique to RL.

No rules then...........or maybe rules, but we make them up as we go along

Just because you don't know the rules doesn't mean there aren't any. They are very clear.

Origin is 'natural' and not manufactured???? The rivalry yes, but the rules for eligibility are a load of cobblers and have been manufactured in their entirety.

The rules for eligibility are very clear and have been so since the start. But at the end of the day players are essentially able to choose when there is a question mark. There is only one bloke who has played Origin for the wrong team and everyone knows who he is and he will forever be a joke as a result.

Under State of Origin rules players are selected for the state in which they first played senior (or registered to play) rugby league. I believe Greg Inglis played his first Senior game in NSW for the Newcastle Hunter club. He Plays for Queensland in SoO.......what part of that didn't break the rule above?

Under State of Origin rules players must be eligable to play for Australia.Akuila Uate (born 6 October 1987 in Votua, Fiji)
On the 15th of May 2011, Uate was selected on the wing for the NSW State of Origin team for Game 1 of the 2011 State of Origin series. This happened after he wrote to Rugby League International Federation chairman Colin Love, requesting a change of allegiance from his native Fiji to Australia giving the most b0ll0k excuse I have heard for switching international countries. Colin Love had a pretty important job before his RLIF post by the way....Chairman of...wait for it, NSWRL.



I repeat, the rules are bent as and when required....regardless of how clear you think they are.

The rules are you play for the state where you played your first representative football from age 16 or up. Inglis played his first rep football in Brisbane. Uate played his first EVER game for the Wyong Kangaroos. So the rules have been applied exactly as written in both cases.

And there is no such thing as the "Newcastle Hunter club" so you are just showing the kind of ignorance I would expect from a union troll. You don't know the rules, you don't know anything about the players' backgrounds and you don't know anything about the game here at all, which is why you make up clubs that don't exist. Credibility bye bye.

Was Adrian Lam eligible for Australia then?

Yes he was. He moved here as a small child. The only difference is he chose to play for PNG. Even though it's nothing more than a "third world country" full of criminals and and corrupt politicians apparently.

Isn't Benji Marshall eligible for Australia then?