State of Origin Origin Debate

Every year it seems the debate on how the "origin" for State of Origin should be determined. This year has caused one of the biggest debates with the selection of James Tamou for NSW, the continued talk about Greg Inglis and the recent headlines surrounding Sam Kasiano.

When the criteria keeps changing you know that the officials are never going to make everyone happy and always seem to be trying to retrospectively correct a problem that will always be there. Regardless of which way they go there will always be a for and against.

1: State of Birth:  Many want this to be the criteria for which state a player is able to represent. A very simple way and a very flawed process. When we have a country with a very large percentage of our population born overseas, this will only dilute the pool of available players. A child could move to Australia at a very young age, be a citizen, raised and educated and always feel that they are Australian and part of the state in which they live and never be able to play. Yet this same person would be eligible for National selection.  Or with the modern working world, a family born and bred in Queensland might have to move to Sydney for work, stay there 2-3 years and in that time have a child. Then move back to Queensland to raise their family yet their child who only spent a very short period in the Sydney would have to represent NSW even though in their heart they would be a Queenslander. With the mining boom this will also work against NSW. People who live on border town also face the same dilemma if they have to cross the border to go to the closest hospital.  With the code growing bigger and expanding further, which state do the players who are Australian born  but not from Queensland or NSW represent. I would be quite happy for them to miss out, but we know that it won't happen.

2: New Zealand:  The recent selection of players who are eligible to represent New Zealand has many worried it will ruin the game. I see this as the problem New Zealand has due to so many of their players and population moving to Australia for better opportunities and lifestyle. If they are citizens of Australia then I see no problem. I can certainly name a few New Zealand representatives that are born and bred in Australia. With a changing world this will happen more and more.  The only way New Zealand is going to change this situation is by creating a similar Origin concept and making it more lucrative for a player to represent his country.

3: First Game:  Another flawed system. When you have a rule where it is based on a players first senior game, all common sense is gone in the modern sporting world. All clubs sign players very young and there are some very well known high schools that are Rugby League schools of excellence that do what they can to get talented footballers. A child could play all his junior games in one state yet his first senior game is in another.

4:  Grey Areas:  What happens when an import player decides he wants to become an Australian Citizen? After waiting a mandatory representative sitout, he would be eligible to play for Australia.  If they turn their back on their home Country would they then be eligible for Origin? With all but 5 clubs in NSW it is most likely NSW would be their "State of Choice", I cannot see the NSW selectors refusing to pick a high profile player of international standard.

Overall this is a very complicated system that has never been handled with much credibility and the continual changes to the criteria makes it hard to have an argument stating facts from past with current. Both sides have benefited and it will continue regardless of change. What shouldn't be seen though is a situation where players are wanting to play Origin for the "Experience" or the money. If that happens, the passion in the game will slowly disappear and what we know Origin to be will eventually be lost.