3rd tier is back in 2014 [Discontinued]

[wamberal]

sort of

I speak as a Woodies supporter of very long standing. I do remember some very, very dark days.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I've floated my thoughts, how can we get the VIC & WA 3T teams selecting solely from within their state. I'll start;
Have U21 & Grade in the 3T.
Year 1 they have the benefit of their Soup team.
Year 2 tweaked a little, slight reduced benefit of Soup.
Year 3 tweaked a little more, slightly reduced against
Year 4 or 5 their 3T is 100% local, with the support of the allowable marquee players.

Dave, that has a great deal of merit. You should be working towards a goal and you can't just cut off cold turkey. I think it may be closer to 10 years, but I also think there should be a limit on the players they can keep initially.

There are a few issues though. Firstly, to initially send players away, how does that work? Do the players want to head back to Bris/Syd? Who gets to stay, who goes?

At the same time, you can't say to them eventually, they cannot keep their own Super players to play. The Force are ahead of the Rebels in this regard, but the goal really needs to be towards developing their own home grown Super Rugby talent. Otherwise we are probably just prolonging their inevitable mediocrity.

I also doubt we will ever quite get there. But we want to be developing talent there. At the same time, if we get to a stage where Melbourne and Perth are developing talent that can play at that level, they shouldn't be sent back to their original states if they happen to play for the Canberra, Brisbane or Sydney teams either.

I agree with your views on developing players, but players should not have to move to play beyond moving for the opportunity to play that would not otherwise be available where they are.

 

[Dave Beat]

Dave, that has a great deal of merit. You should be working towards a goal and you can't just cut off cold turkey. I think it may be closer to 10 years, but I also think there should be a limit on the players they can keep initially.

There are a few issues though. Firstly, to initially send players away, how does that work? Do the players want to head back to Bris/Syd? Who gets to stay, who goes?

At the same time, you can't say to them eventually, they cannot keep their own Super players to play. The Force are ahead of the Rebels in this regard, but the goal really needs to be towards developing their own home grown Super Rugby talent. Otherwise we are probably just prolonging their inevitable mediocrity.

I also doubt we will ever quite get there. But we want to be developing talent there. At the same time, if we get to a stage where Melbourne and Perth are developing talent that can play at that level, they shouldn't be sent back to their original states if they happen to play for the Canberra, Brisbane or Sydney teams either.

I agree with your views on developing players, but players should not have to move to play beyond moving for the opportunity to play that would not otherwise be available where they are.

Yep, simple model and it shouldn't be set in stone, but it has a goal and with each year that goes by we get one step closer, the U21 provides a pathway to achieving this as that age group will then have a state team playing against other rep teams in the 3T.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Dave, I'm not sold on focusing too much in age restricted competitions beyond the level of colts.

It's a big factor in the demise of the Sheffield Shield quality. Not many NRL U20's players are ready for 1st grade either. Players develop best playing against men, not other boys. You just end up with a fast but less physical competition. Players who would be playing in any age group comp would be better prepared playing club rugby in my opinion.

 

[Done that]

QH if Uni are alone, awe have Nth Harbour, and then Sth, Easts, Wicks join together - does there need to be a 4th team to capture Parra, Penrith, Wests, and Eastwood?

Easts ,Randwick,Uni. perhaps.

 

[Forcefield]

I'm interested in the WA & VIC model though...

Don't put a timeline on it. It is insulting. No-one in Victoria or WA wants to be bringing in players from NSW or QLD. But this comes in direct conflict with both VIC and WA's need to be successful at Super Rugby level to survive as sporting franchises. Where there are appropriately talented/skilled Victoria and West Australian players, they will be selected. It is goal of each team to have the maximum possible number of local players. It will happen when it happens.

 

[Dave Beat]

Dave, I'm not sold on focusing too much in age restricted competitions beyond the level of colts.

It's a big factor in the demise of the Sheffield Shield quality. Not many NRL U20's players are ready for 1st grade either. Players develop best playing against men, not other boys. You just end up with a fast but less physical competition. Players who would be playing in any age group comp would be better prepared playing club rugby in my opinion.

After watching the Manly v Uni colts GF - it is good quality rugby. A number of players from both teams played grade this year as well.

 

[Dave Beat]

Don't put a timeline on it. It is insulting. No-one in Victoria or WA wants to be bringing in players from NSW or QLD. But this comes in direct conflict with both VIC and WA's need to be successful at Super Rugby level to survive as sporting franchises. Where there are appropriately talented/skilled Victoria and West Australian players, they will be selected. It is goal of each team to have the maximum possible number of local players. It will happen when it happens.

Everyone has explained that the players are on a payroll, so their employer can say where they should play.

A timeline line is like a target or goal - most successful businesses (employers) have them, placing a time line or a goal on this may speed up the process. Next review I'm going to tell my boss "you just insulted me", fingers crossed it works and my targets don't change.

But seriously how the F will the Force get better and build depth without pressure and goals - I'm simply providing ideas and was more supportive of them, and wanting them to develop than critical.

I'm hearing what you say - please note I did say it is not chizzled in stone, it is to provide a goal / target - that simple.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I agree with what you are saying Dave because with all their Super Rugby players available, the Force and Rebels would have far too much of an advantage of the Syd and Bris divided teams. Due to the fact that the next best players available cannot compete with that in Sydney, Brisbane and ACT I think they should get a timelined leeway against any restrictions on Super Rugby players as you mentioned though.

Any comp with the Super talent levelled out would see the Melbourne and Perth teams struggle right now because the local talent would have many players in that next 100 best un-contracted players in the country and they would not be able to attract players from Syd, Bris and Canberra with the financial incentive available.

I wholeheartedly agree we need to work towards being able to evenly spread Super Rugby talent across the teams and have equally competitive teams.

 

[Forcefield]

Everyone has explained that the players are on a payroll, so their employer can say where they should play.

A timeline line is like a target or goal - most successful businesses (employers) have them, placing a time line or a goal on this may speed up the process. Next review I'm going to tell my boss "you just insulted me", fingers crossed it works and my targets don't change.

But seriously how the F will the Force get better and build depth without pressure and goals - I'm simply providing ideas and was more supportive of them, and wanting them to develop than critical.

I'm hearing what you say - please note I did say it is not chizzled in stone, it is to provide a goal / target - that simple.

I know you are not being critical. I am just saying that, in a world where Super Rugby doesn't exist and performance does not affect revenue, WA and VIC would roll out entirely local teams. We do not need pressure and goals. We have placed them for ourselves. It is not a negotiation.

The situation that nobody wants is one where a team from WA or VIC is bringing in players from over east to supplement our 3T squads. As long as that is avoided I don't see this as an issue.

The number of Super Rugby players in each team was not an issue in the ARC. It shouldn't be an issue in the NRC. I am sure that there are a lot of players out there in NSW and QLD club land who would shine given the opportunity. Hell the Brumbies took a team half made up of discards to the Super Rugby final.

 

[Dave Beat]

I know you are not being critical. I am just saying that, in a world where Super Rugby doesn't exist and performance does not affect revenue, WA and VIC would roll out entirely local teams. We do not need pressure and goals. We have placed them for ourselves. It is not a negotiation.

The situation that nobody wants is one where a team from WA or VIC is bringing in players from over east to supplement our 3T squads. As long as that is avoided I don't see this as an issue.

The number of Super Rugby players in each team was not an issue in the ARC. It shouldn't be an issue in the NRC. I am sure that there are a lot of players out there in NSW and QLD club land who would shine given the opportunity. Hell the Brumbies took a team half made up of discards to the Super Rugby final.

So are you trying to tell me it wont work if I tell my boss I'm insulted?

This comp will operate in a window of no NRL, or AFL, if we have quality rugby why wouldn't sponsors jump on it.

Hope it's Saturday arvo rugby - but that is another topic.

 

[Forcefield]

I don't think you quite get it. Your aims and the aims of your boss are probably very different. He wants maximum output from you. You want the minimum required output so that you can spend time with family/rugby/beer. He needs to set goals for you in order to negotiate the fact that you have different aims. I am saying that WA and VIC do not need goals because there is no difference to negotiate. The ARU wants WA and VIC to be churning out quality locally produced players. So do WA and VIC.

 

[Dave Beat]

I don't think you quite get it. Your aims and the aims of your boss are probably very different. He wants maximum output from you.

I'm self employed, and employ 3 staff, if I had a staff member say that to me I'd question my management, or they'd be moved on. Family yes, Rugby yes, and don't drink

I think we share the same desire - Force, and Rebs get stronger by building from within and not needing to recruit from abroad.

What we do not know yet, but are only guessing - WA, and VIC could possibly be running out the Force & Rebs minus a couple of players because they are on National Duty, whilst QLD, and NSW are still talking about who and what teams my apply.

Thus WA & VIC have had a whole Super Season together (from Feb).
And the QLD & NSW teams shake hands and say g'day (in Aug).

 

[Dave Beat]

I agree with what you are saying Dave because with all their Super Rugby players available, the Force and Rebels would have far too much of an advantage of the Syd and Bris divided teams. Due to the fact that the next best players available cannot compete with that in Sydney, Brisbane and ACT I think they should get a timelined leeway against any restrictions on Super Rugby players as you mentioned though.

Any comp with the Super talent levelled out would see the Melbourne and Perth teams struggle right now because the local talent would have many players in that next 100 best un-contracted players in the country and they would not be able to attract players from Syd, Bris and Canberra with the financial incentive available.

I wholeheartedly agree we need to work towards being able to evenly spread Super Rugby talent across the teams and have equally competitive teams.

Agree, simply want a strong attractive comp.
Just putting ideas out there without intending to insult anyone.

 

[Forcefield]

What we do not know yet, but are only guessing - WA, and VIC could possibly be running out the Force & Rebs minus a couple of players because they are on National Duty, whilst QLD, and NSW are still talking about who and what teams my apply.

I can't speak for the Rebels, but the Force have 15 players whose contracts end in 2014. Those players Foles doesn't want to keep won't be playing in the NRC. Minus those with season ending/extended injuries. Minus those, as you said, on National Duty. Minus those who request playing for a team in their home state and are granted the request. I reckon at most you'd have 50% of the main squad overlap.

Thus WA & VIC have had a whole Super Season together (from Feb).
And the QLD & NSW teams shake hands and say g'day (in Aug).

That'll definitely be an advantage in the first year. They predicted the same in the ARC and it didn't make a big difference.

 

[Quick Hands]

I don't think that the gap between the best Shute Shield players and those super players is as wide as people think, particularly when then will be condensed into less teams (hopefully 4). In many cases it's down to being in a professional set-up with access to coaching, conditioning etc. One of the aims of 3T is to close that gap - which I think it will do. I think any advantage to WA & Vic will be offset by their need to use players from local competitions to fill their squads.

 

[RugbyFuture]

people have to be dreaming if they think they're going to have 4 teams out of 8 or 10 based in Sydney

 

[Drew]

I like the idea of incorporating regional areas. Teams could be allocated specific areas to different 3T clubs. The teams could play a game in the country centre of their region. For example, North of harbour could take a game coffs, or you could have a country round. I think the afl does this well and turns a specific area into a nursery for future talent for their club. Probably a bit short notice to organise this year though.

 

[Done that]

people have to be dreaming if they think they're going to have 4 teams out of 8 or 10 based in Sydney

3

 

[Red Heavy]

I don't think that the gap between the best Shute Shield players and those super players is as wide as people think, particularly when then will be condensed into less teams (hopefully 4). In many cases it's down to being in a professional set-up with access to coaching, conditioning etc. One of the aims of 3T is to close that gap - which I think it will do. I think any advantage to WA & Vic will be offset by their need to use players from local competitions to fill their squads.

I thought the gap between super rugby and Shute shield is why Sydney uni has won 7 of the last 8 or what ever it is.