When it comes to whinging and making excuses, Great Britain are World Champions. When it comes to Rugby League however, they are hopeless. Combine the two and you have a some very funny reasons why Great Britain thinks it keeps getting beaten every year for 30 years despite supposedly being the better Rugby League nation.
1. Australia Change The Rules To Suit Themselves
This one started in 2000 after the RFL’s Soccer Ball debacle during the World Cup when Australia forced a chance. Aisde from looking to install minimum standards for Test Football, Australia has not ever changed any rule to suit themselves, and they certainly haven’t done it over the 30 odd year period they have dominated Great Britain.
2. Biased Referee’s Hand Australia Games
When Australia called for the best referee available to control the best games, GB fans whinged. This led Australian officials to offer to play games under the control of British referee’s. This was welcomed by GB fans, that is until they continued to lose under their own referee’s. This led to the classic call of English referee’s going so out of their way to show they are un biased, that they end up being biased against GB.
3. Australia Makes Sure Games Are Scheduled In Their Favor
From the early 90’s all the way until 2006, Australia hosted GB once at home, during the 1999 Tri Series. Every other Test series or World Cup played during that time has been played in Great Britain and run by the RFL.
4. Australia Have Been Lucky, Nothing More, Nothing Less
If Australia had been dominant for one, two or even three years, this may be used as an excuse. When Australia has been dominant for 30 years however, it’s just comical to suggest such a thing.
5. More People Play Rugby League In Australia And Its Simply A Numbers Game
If this was the case China would dominate soccer, India would dominate Cricket and Australia wouldn’t be winning so many sporting competitions against much larger countries with biggest player bases. The fact is man for man, Australia is better at Rugby League than Great Britain. Its as simple as that.
I’m not a stereotypical Brit, in that I think that Australia and NZ are far better than our struggling nations. However one thing that has continuously baffled me (and it’s in relation to point 3 = the scheduling). For the Tri Nations of 2005 and 2006, Australia and New Zealand played against each other twice in two weeks. For the following four weeks, they had a weeks break between their games with GB, whereas GB had to play four games in four weeks. I never understood that!
I think if anything New Zealand would benefit more than anyone from playing four games in a row. They always look better when they play a number of games on the trot.
I guess with having to juggle the demands of touring teams and what broadcasters want, you end up with draws that don’t make the best of sense. I don’t think Great Britain or England could say their performances were comprimised by competition draws though.