Drew
Bob Davidson (42)
As much as I’d like to see NRC#3, I’m glad it isn’t a thing this year as it couldn’t help but be half arsed. Next year, let’s hope to see it.
Australia A - Back on the Cards
- Thread starter Tomikin
- Start date
dru
David Wilson (68)
If they are moving to a Domestic comp in 2024 they will need something to aid the transition, surely.
Everyone get's a ribbon? <great>
dru
David Wilson (68)
Agree, but if a "everyone wins a prise for joining in" policy is real, I just lost a huge amount of enthusiasm for the series. Can't imagine the Pacific Nations could be particularly impressed either.
Members Section
John Thornett (49)
Geez that would be good for developing players a tour to japan!
Adam84
Rod McCall (65)
i don't think we even know who the best 23 are yet either, some players step up when put in higher environments, some don't
dru
David Wilson (68)
Agreed, we don't. If the selectors/coaching team doesn't that is hardly comforting.
The Ghost of Raelene
David Codey (61)
I'm a fan of the Super Rugby A comp structure. Keep the players in as streamlined a path as possible following from academies like Gen Blue etc...
Whilst I think it's a fun idea of getting behind a local area its just a cluster fuck (at least in NSW as per usual) The Rays had various versions/partners. The Stars were initially linked with a Subbies club (Balmain) which is now in Div 5 of Subbies. They also had so many spots to fill some players were being hounded to play. Clubs all want control and don't get along due to old ties and rivalries.
Rae Rae
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
The best way to avoid the cluster fuck is to have each super franchise control 2 x teams under their name, think of how QLD ran their teams.
This allows for a 10 team competitions, Run each week end with 2 x double headers and 1 x single header and then in the second round swap the home ground.
eg -
Rd 1 - QLD Country v Rebels 1, Brisbane City v Rebels 2 at QLD
Rd5 - Rebels 1 v Brisbane City, Rebels 2 v QLD Country at Melbourne.
If you are not involved in a double header then you play Friday night at home with your own 2 x teams.
Double Headers would be Saturday and Sunday.
Maybe player loans could be allowed to ensure that all teams are up to standard.
dru
David Wilson (68)
The problem is that not only are Rebels unlikely to be able to manage two teams, they are not on their own. If you were able to pick up Fiji it might balance that element, but even then things are tricky.
You have the SRU/NSWRU issue to broach. There is surely a way through this but maybe seek 3 teams in NSW and put out offers to the SS clubs for interest, then spread the Waratah players and coaching staff through whatever happens. I'm not convinced you will assuage the more noisy club politics with 2 teams.
Qld with two teams is probably a given, though both being based in Brisbane would have it's pros and cons. Moving "Country" to IDK, Gladstone, would be interesting but again pros and cons. They are more likely to end up on the Gold Coast, which may not be "City" but it's not country either.
Brumbies have solid ties to Vikings and as I understand it the rest of the club scene has seen itself 'left right out'. So maybe something could happen there with an amalgam of "the rest" and spread the Brumby talent, BUT fan base? ACT is limited. If you don't have two in the capital there is a complete mis-match in terms of strength. For the comp you would need to move a stack of players into other clubs - can you imagine trying to negotiate that with a highly successful Brumbies outfit?
Would uncle Twiggy fund two teams? He's more likely to consider how they would go in the resulting comp, or god forbid look to re-align with NZ as he has threatened previously. Groan.
I think the result could be really interesting but the work getting there is immense.
Try this:
1. Waratah A - Manly?
2. Waratah B - Gordon?
3. Waratah C - Eastwood?
4. Brisbane City
5. Qld Country - aka Gold Coast
6. Vikings
7. We hate the Vikings
8. Melbourne Rebels
9. WA Force
10. Fiji Drua
With the right talent retention, the right funding (NOT equal, has to be needs based), talent levelling, and some considered scheduling - there are bells on this approach.
If we're looking at a replacement to Super Rugby in 2024 I'd think you'd start with 8 teams because adding more than 2 teams from the get go would be hugely challenging.
Keep the current 5 Australian teams plus the Fiji Drua and add another team in NSW and Qld that are both privately owned.
The NSW team is presumably Western Sydney based out of Parramatta.
Not sure on the Queensland team whether you'd have a second team based out of Suncorp or instead look to base them in the Sunshine Coast.
Keep the current 5 Australian teams plus the Fiji Drua and add another team in NSW and Qld that are both privately owned.
The NSW team is presumably Western Sydney based out of Parramatta.
Not sure on the Queensland team whether you'd have a second team based out of Suncorp or instead look to base them in the Sunshine Coast.
dru
David Wilson (68)
That comp, with out further changes, is simply going to change "Kiwi teams" with Brumbies for lop-sided progress. A second team in Sydney without opening to the clubs will hit problems, unless something has drastically changed since the days of NRC.
It is an easy entry to a local comp but also needs a lot of work, not just the two new teams.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Yeah, even 2 would be tough in the timeframe.
Fiji would be desirable but resources would be needed to get them in as they have an option.
Possibly not.
Although he has funded more than two before - outside Australia.
Others have also funded rugby o/s.
The Shute Shield would continue running at the same time.
We have to create new teams. Sydney and Brisbane are really the only markets where that seems viable.
In my view it is essential to bring in private equity for these teams and not have them fall under the umbrella of NSWRU/QRU.
Personally I am strongly against not using the existing teams in a new comp. The Waratahs and Reds are some of our best IP and have established membership bases. For a new comp that needs everything to go right it would be insane to do away with that in favour of entirely new teams everywhere like the NRC had (even if some of them are basically just the Super Rugby team by another name).
New teams probably will struggle but we also don't improve our competition by bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
8 teams seems like the minimum viable number for a new comp in my view. I don't think we can go back to 5 or 6 and proclaim it as a step forward.
Would Fiji have an option elsewhere? They're somewhat reliant on Australian Commonwealth funding aren't they? Plus World Rugby still helps fund them. Hopefully they are tied to us.
The Ghost of Raelene
David Codey (61)
Kanaloa Pacifica could still be floating around and looking for a place to play. They are completely self funded and not tied to NZRU like Moana Pacifica. Strong NZ ties but they wanted autonomy over control of the team which NZ would not allow.
Rae Rae
Rae Rae
dru
David Wilson (68)
Agree on the IP re the Reds and Waratahs. And whatever way forward is going to have plenty of warts. It's not just new teams that would struggle, but also the emasculated Reds and Waratahs. That's 4 teams in the 8. With 1 team set to dominate - Brumbies. Agree, that this may simply be issues that have to be accepted and/or dealt with. Going domestic would not be easy.
Still setting up a Western Sydney team, without buy in from the clubs, and the Warataahs continue as it - sounds like a suicide pact. Unless you relocate MP (Moana Pasifika) (unlikely as they as with NZ) or Fiji - which doesn't solve the 8 teams issue.
This isn't like the NRC. They are professional teams that need to sign full time players. I don't really see what involvement you want from club rugby sides. Why would it be more than the Reds/Tahs currently have? Those players can play club rugby after the season finishes just like everyone else not in the Wallabies setup.
I don't see how you're emasculating the Reds and Tahs. Sure, you're adding competition in their market but it shouldn't make those teams substantially more likely to sign their players when off-contract than any other Australian team. The one benefit the players would have is not having to relocate.
Teams have to catch up to the Brumbies whether we like it or not. There's no value in trying to weaken them and anyway, how would you do it? They are stronger through nothing more than good recruitment and coaching. They don't have a strong catchment nor more money and bigger crowds than the other teams.