KOB1987
John Eales (66)
I'd argue that the Country teams would be an even bigger imbalance, and there is the issue of where to base them as the travelling band concept during NRC didn't really work, not for the Eagles anyway. For NSW you'd likely be looking at Newcastle, and for Qld I assume either the Goldy or Toowoomba, but it's going to be hard to get people to relocate to any of those on a low level contract.I don't think mixing in age grade teams works at all for a comp like this.
If you're doing it to offer more pro contracts to young players then doing it this way creates a massive imbalance for young talent with QLD and NSW capable of offering so many more places and potential game time in the early years. Eventually that opportunity dries up as players age out and plenty have to head elsewhere. Yes there will be some oppurtunity at the Force and Brumbies for them, but they've missed time developing in system in Perth or Canberra and are much more likely to take the money overseas then they otherwise would have been.
If you're doing it for interest in the comp (financial return effectively), I can't see it being worth the cost. Adding a few more teams might help to add a bit of interest overall, but the age grade sides are always going to be more poorly supported than they're state equivalents. Over time that's likely to get worse as the players move through them at a much faster rate.
If there is money for 2 extra sides it would be much better spent on something like a city/country approach for QLD and NSW, with both teams being full sides in their own right. It's going to drive more interest than age grade sides, hopefully with more money coming in as a result and teams that can be built around long term. From a development persepective it's much better aligned with the top sides and doesn't force QLD and NSW into a position where they are incentivised to (and need to) swallow up all the age grade talent.
The alternative if you want a focus on age grade is to run an under 21s comp alongside this. Start contracting the best 18-21 year olds in much greater numbers on base contracts and play them all as double headers with this Super AU comp. That offers better flow through the pathways and gives the age grade players more top level game time. Balancing it with the under 19s might be a bit tricky, but there are options there, the biggest challenge is going to be cost, which with a lot more players contracted will be significant.
All that said I don't think they should be looking to stretch anything in the first few years of this Super AU if it gets up. Run lean and efficient and build a base that can then be built on as needed, probably not until the world cup. Then with that influx of cash and interest RA can build more on what they've already established.
I do agree that ideally you want an age group comp run alongside the senior one, but that would probably be a phase II development, and what I am proposing could be a pre-cursor to getting that off the ground. An alternative to mine, and possibly an even better one, would be to target the exact same players (i.e. the U21's-ish) and split the Tahs and Reds squads into North and South (harbour in Sydney, river in Brisbane) teams.
I agree that the age group sides would have a lower overall interest, but they would have a younger supporter base (their peers) with the objective that they also transition to the senior teams when the players do. I don't really have an issue with NSW/Qld being incentivised to swallow up the taklent as that is where the talent is coming from, but I also think they should carry part of the cost - it's only a short term solution to keeep the players both in the game and in their comfort zone geographically until the better ones get on a full pro contract and can justify relocating.
Last edited: