Quote headhunter="headhunter"What, so you're saying that because people have been wrong in the past, that I am wrong now?
Using the opinion of the majority to back up your argument isn't really the best idea in any situation, let alone one dealing with RL expansion, and in this case I'm not even sure that the opinion of the majority is on your side.'"
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that a lot of people have been wrong in the past, so when it comes to opinions on things they don't really mean anything unless it's tried. We won't know who's right and who's wrong unless it's tried. There is no right and wrong answer on this, it's all opinion based. But there is a right and a wrong way to argue an opinion (which is why there are discussions and arguments).
I've not used the opinion of the majority to back up my argument that it should happen in this thread (apart from to show that it is not an "Australian view", which you kind of need people's views/opinions to be able to argue that). I've just acknowledged that they're there.
Quote headhunter="headhunter"No, nations are not based on geography. They are based on shared cultural heritage and sovereign rule. Fiji and Tonga aren't even in the same region of their continent, they have as much in common as Spain and Belarus. The fact that none of the nations are realistically going to compete with the bigger countries is just the way it is, they are small countries. '"
I apologise, I meant that it forms "part" of the basis of a nation. You are very much right about the shared cultural heritage, etc.
And it's not the same as Spain and Belarus really, is it? Fiji and Tonga are Pacific Island nations (hence the name). Where they are in that continent is irrelevant. They aren't excluding anything in between so it still represents an area, unlike Spain and Belarus which is just two random countries you've picked (again).
And it doesn't have to be the way it is. It isn't in some other sports, and hasn't been in ours in the case of GB&I.
Quote headhunter="headhunter"They do have every right to try and compete though, without being grouped together in some sort of contrived attempt to gain credibility. And I know you're not suggesting a PI team replaces the nations, but realistically it would become the focus wouldn't it if the people who proposed this idea had their way, in fact I think you even stated that the nations would become feeder teams. '"
They have every right to compete as individual nations. But if GB&I have been allowed to compete as a group of nations in the past, then surely they also have every right to compete as a group as well? If it worked, would there be such a problem? If it becomes successful, and becomes the focus, then does it matter if the individual nations become feeder teams?
Quote headhunter="headhunter"Why should I care what Cricket does? Please don't try to use the England/Wales argument as it's not the same situation at all, the situation with the Home Nations isn't equitable to anywhere else in the world.'"
When looking to develop your own sport, you should often look at what other sports as an example. Not exactly to follow, but just as an idea, an experiment, to see if it's worked and how it's worked. "I don't care about what cricket does" doesn't really add up as a reason not to try something they've tried that has been very successful.
Quote headhunter="headhunter"Again, your argument seems to be based on 'a lot of people are saying it so it must be right'. '"
Again, not at all. It's not what I've said in the slightest.
What I HAVE said is that a lot of people have come to the same conclusion, so there must be a point. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's right, but it does mean there is a point to it.
Quote headhunter="headhunter"Because the nations aren't able to compete with the best in the world, they no longer have the right to try and need to be joined together? That's not really the sort of principle we should be abiding by in RL. Is this game supposed to be billed as an international, or some sort of invitational match? What would be gained from playing it? '"
And again, your making arguments that aren't there. They have the right to either. No-one is taking anyone's rights away, or even suggesting it. Only you at the moment.
How did they bill GB&I? Was that an international?
If you need a "politically correct" name for it, it would be a representative fixture.
Quote headhunter="headhunter"Has anyone from any of the Islands actually said anything about this, or even anyone from NZ? As far as I can tell, it's a throwaway idea from a bunch of Australians who think that 'Origin' is the be-all and end-all and don't understand international sport.'"
I don't know. But gathering from the reports, it's building up support from the NRL clubs, of which contains a NZ club, as well as Kiwi/Islander players. Whether they've thrown their support behind it or it's just the top brass remains to be seen. But they certainly haven't argued against it. Do you not think if they were against it they'd have said something by now?
Quote headhunter="headhunter"England can't compete with Australia, maybe they need to be joined together with NZ. After all, the nations have about as many similarities culturally as Fiji and Samoa.'"
Again, it's a ridiculous argument. NZ can compete with Australia (in fact they'd had the better of them recently), so why join up with England? As well as the (again) lack of geographic proximity. They do not represent an area. It's just a poor argument.
