Rugby League try of the season? - Page 3

In other words, you're using a single 7 year nephew of yours as anecdotal evidence to explain a position inconsistent with trends across a country of 310 million people. Do you see a problem with this?

Jesus H. C. NO! I don't know why I bother. I'm not using anecdotal evidence. I'm using a real life example to demonstrate what I mean by white athletic talent being spread out across more sports and non-sporting options. Is it really that hard to understand?

And it's a two edged sword. Some people might point out that 100% of medal winners in swimming are white and use that as proof that whites are better athletes.
That would be the stephenhero logic.

But of course any asshole will tell you that blacks don't swim, they play basketball and football instead.
If you put every kid in Oakland in the pool for two hours a day from age 4 onward, you would have a lot of good swimmers. And if you put every kid in Orinda and Moraga on the ball court from age 4 you would have a lot of good ballers. Culture, environment, economics, and tradition are all important factors that are often overlooked when discussing the issue of race and sports.

Really the only way to answer the question is to take a sport and have people from all racial backgrounds and economic and cultural backgrounds play it and see who is the best.
Now jeez if only we had such a sport. If only we could get the whole world together and have a big fucking tourney, maybe hand out a big fucking cup at the end. Too bad we don't have anything like that because I would be forced to point out that the best players come from... all over with the best teams being mixed race Indian/black/european and northern european and southern european and some more indian euro mutts and well wouldn't that be awkward.

I already answered that: If what you suggest is true, we would be able to eliminate any disadvantages of accessibility among groups and isolate their skill to determine the better group. Unless you've been living under a rock, Africans are known to not have equal access, no matter how much you think soccer balls made of t-shirts and fields covered in dirt equate to a level playing field. They have vastly inferior coaching, equipment, travel money, and league organization at the youth level. You're completely ignoring that European and South American countries pay for talented children to attend soccer training academies. Instead of comparing countries on uneven metrics you should look at countries with mixed populations and relatively equal amounts of access and mentorship. If you weren't too careless to look, the American and French systems are good examples. Even though American blacks play soccer at a lower rate than white children they still exceed whites at the professional level as a percentage of their population. 30% of the U.S. World Cup roster was black. 4.6% of youth soccer players in the U.S. are black. 12% of the U.S. population is black. 56% of the French World Cup roster was black. 3% of the French population is black. http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/2/1/8/9/pages21892/p21892-16.php

Oddly enough, I agree with that. I don't like arguing along racial lines or making such generalisations but athletes of African descent are generally faster and stronger. Athletically, on a fundamental level, I would say that they are superior. Unfortunately, rugby league is a grind. It's not about shoulder blocks or the big hits. It's the toilers, the engine room, which gets you the win. If the US invested more of their resources in rugby league, I'm sure you could field a consistently competitive side in 5-10 years. It is one thing to field a consistently competitive national team/ domestic competition and another thing to consistently compete with Australia at league, just ask the Poms.

An interesting little fact, the last time Australia played US at league, US scored like three unanswered tries to pace the clock. It was played in the States on astro turf. USA was made up of talent taken from the developing league there and Matt Petersen and Brandon Costin who are both journeymen here and likely qualified on the parent rule (one or both parents being American). Petersen was forced to play out of position as a five-eighth, which is the secondary playmaker, against the best player in the world at the time, Darren Lockyer. It was unbelievable and certainly not league's proudest moment. The Kangaroos were lucky to get away with it with some exceptional mop-up work from Tonie Carroll and Petero Civoniceva in the middle. There was some talk about one of the more "˜flashy' Australian forwards joining the NFL in Willie Mason, but he was seriously injured early. The game was hardly a glowing trial for him. You can use this event to enhance your argument, but I think of it as a one-off.


It's more to do with the way the game is played at the top and the players that play the game than the game itself. About 10 years ago, the Australian Rugby League challenged the Wallabies to a hybrid game of footy (one half of league and the other union). The Wallabies declined the offer. I don't blame them. There's Andrew Johns, Darren Lockyer and Brad Fittler running the show? I mean, get real. Even in more recent times, a player like Dan Carter, the golden child of union for so long, wasn't within a bull's roar.


All Kiwis I see. All that I'm going to say is Dallas Johnson (applying his trade for French outfit Catalans in the ESL now). What a machine. If it is offensive/defensive workrate you want, in recent times, Steve Price was unbeatable.


League develops, they poach. There is no question that league is better at nurturing and developing talent than their footy code rivals. NSW and QLD will ALWAYS be league country.

Again, this is not something I want to agree with, but I think it may be right. Recently, there was a big thing down this way about the Crusaders (one of the more successful union teams of NZ) and their questionable selection policy. It is alleged that they had a quota on the amount of "˜pepper' they could mix with their "˜salt'.

I don't even know what people are trying to argue in this threak anymore. It is that retarded.

It's turned into a SF melee.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.       I AGREE TIP: to embed Youtube clips, put only the encoded part of the Youtube URL, e.g. eBGIQ7ZuuiU between the tags.

Those guys are/were great players, but it's a different sport. Of course the Wallabies are gonna decline, what would be the point in such a game apart from risking injuries? it's tough enough to find time in the international calendar, let alone for a silly "we're better than you" match.


What? I'm not going to say Dan Carter would do well playing league, but he would be a better union 10 than any league player converting to play 10.

That's the point, he is excellent at what he does, which is rugby union, not league. And he would most certainly be better than any league convert. Just as most other flyhalfs would be (larkham etc).


Indeed, Steve Price was the man. From Union, Richie McCaw has a comparable work rate. George Smith was good for a while.

yeah, i agree with this. League has a lot more money and puts a lot of effort into development. A good friend of mine (Karl McNichol, you might've heard of him) was signed for the bulldogs when he was 12. In Wellington! they have people everywhere! he's since transferred to the sharks i believe.


this idea is kinda ridiculous, although i have heard it before. Often playing rugby i've heard the old "yeah our team is big and strong but we need a few more white guys to play the smart game".

it's bullshit really. Even a so called "intelligent player" like Carter is really not that smart. The difference is that when you're not a huge guy, you learn to have vision and foresight, to set up plays rather than creating them.

The crusaders have been good because they recognise this ability, rather than every other idiot selectors who see "oooh, 6'6", 120kg, he's not that good right now, but he has so much potential"

I've had a rant about this before, but Aaron Cruden is a case in point. Recently selected for the All Blacks as a number 10, people were calling out "he's good but he's just not big enough to play" (he's 5'10, about 80kg). And now the coaches are talking of moving him to halfback .

which is why i like some aspects of league selection, they're not worried about any of that height +weight = potential bullshit, they pick the player on how well he plays. see:Preston Campbell.

Here is the summary:
Davidko19 and stephenantihavingaclue: Fear the black man, choose to grovel in multiculturalism and thinly veiled white guilt.
Me: Proud white soldier of god.
Hendrick and Sesame Seed: ??? Some foreign funny talk best as I can tell ???
















oh, and for those with no snark meter (10).