Australian Rugby / RA

[Adam84]

The Academy stuff seems to go in cycles.

We set them up, warehouse a lot of our gun young players and release them for club games on the weekend or the odd U/20s game. But then they become great at running around cones and tackling bags, rather than actually playing rugby.

So we disband the academies and send them back to the coalface of rugby clubs. But then they lose touch with professional high performance setups and we lose the 'cohesion' of having them all in the one system.

So we set academies back up again. The balance is obviously somewhere in between and having a third tier (or Super U20s, or 2nd XV) comp makes a difference.

I don't think academies and playing club rugby are mutually exclusive concepts, though.
Academy structures are about that value proposition beyond club rugby, including additional training sessions beyond what the club is offering, both during the seasons and post, as well as access to high performances resources like professional coaching, education, and facilities.

I think the debate comes in when you have u20s events that clash with club rugby, but that will happen regardless of an academy structure. Further the issue between national and state is about control, funding and player access. State unions think they know best and want RA to fund their academy programs; RA wants national alignment; this is the argument that goes in circles. Academy programs have never being disbanded as a whole, theyve just shifted between Super Rugby and RA for who is running/funding them.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Can only speak on what iv'e seen with the Tahs currently but I'd imagine the Reds are similar and the Brumbies definitely are but the Academy guys have been playing as much Club footy as possible. When available the likes of Bowen, Wilson were always out with Easts.

It's been said at nauseam but the issue is the standard gap between Club Rugby and Super Rugby. Sure we have guys playing Club footy but it's not a real prep for pro Rugby. It preps you for the MLR. Super Rugby A would be my approach. No need to create a new environment of team nobody gives a fuck about. There also isn't enough genuine talent to create a 8-10 team comp that would be at a standard to create better Wallabies. Some will not like that statement as they think their mate playing 1st grade for Warringah is actually better than the Super player but never got a run because of xyz.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I don't think academies and playing club rugby are mutually exclusive concepts, though.
Academy structures are about that value proposition beyond club rugby, including additional training sessions beyond what the club is offering, both during the seasons and post, as well as access to high performances resources like professional coaching, education, and facilities.

I think the debate comes in when you have u20s events that clash with club rugby, but that will happen regardless of an academy structure. Further the issue between national and state is about control, funding and player access. State unions think they know best and want RA to fund their academy programs; RA wants national alignment; this is the argument that goes in circles. Academy programs have never being disbanded as a whole, theyve just shifted between Super Rugby and RA for who is running/funding them.

I am not close enough to the ACT rugby organisation to know with certainty, but I believe that for some time during the 20teens, the state based academies did close down and all participants actually worked out of the national setup, I think at Narrabeen in Sydney. Was this not the case?