Australian Rugby / RA

[Joe King]

What do people think about the idea of re-establishing the Australia A team? Could be a good next step for developing players like Reesjan Pasitoa, and also building cohesion among future Wallabies from the different Super Rugby teams.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

What do people think about the idea of re-establishing the Australia A team? Could be a good next step for developing players like Reesjan Pasitoa, and also building cohesion among future Wallabies from the different Super Rugby teams.

I like the idea of it. Especially if it has it's own touring schedule. Would love to see it returned and then do tours of Sth America and the REC nations etc. I think for younger blokes that would provide them with not only interesting tours but surprisingly decent games. It should be brought back. Alongside move expansive domestic schedules, a move toward centralisation of talent contracting and as mentioned on the previous page. A loan agreement system.

 

[PhilClinton]

What do people think about the idea of re-establishing the Australia A team? Could be a good next step for developing players like Reesjan Pasitoa, and also building cohesion among future Wallabies from the different Super Rugby teams.

I think the idea, and think it would also help provide some guidelines around this player centralisation structure that is being proposed.

For example there could be something in place where a team can't have 3 hookers on their books who have all played for either the Wallabies or Australia A within the last 2 years. It is then up to them to put one of them up on the trade block to be reallocated to a team who is in need of that position.

 

[mst]

And the obvious thing to do.

Which is why it is the least likely option to be taken.

I know! It could then risk player development, open pathways, build quality player numbers, make a tier 3 pro-comp viable, produce revenue opportunities and secure the games future........

Stupid me, I should know better. I will shut the door on the way out.

 

[mst]

I think the idea, and think it would also help provide some guidelines around this player centralisation structure that is being proposed.

For example there could be something in place where a team can't have 3 hookers on their books who have all played for either the Wallabies or Australia A within the last 2 years. It is then up to them to put one of them up on the trade block to be reallocated to a team who is in need of that position.

If you can solve conundrum of having a centralised model with more than two centres it might have a chance.

In all seriousness I think we need to start with a competition that's not over in 5 mins and one that people give a toss about. 7 home games and playing TT or anyone offshore which has less interest has never, nor ever will be something that fans can really invest in.

The closet thing we have to it that will we continue to have that's centralised is the departure lounge.

 

[Dan54]

I just wonder if the central contrcting and directing players is the best system, doesn't it then discourage perhaps money being spent by academies etc in developing players?
I not sure if it would that would be at back of my mind, same as idea of a draft, if I was pretty good players living say in Brisbane /Sydney/Perth etc, and someone says well you been drafted to somewhere else it would increase the temptation to say bugger it I may look at Japan or somewhere, if I can't ;ive where I want I may as well take the biggest money I can?
Just a thought.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I just wonder if the central contrcting and directing players is the best system, doesn't it then discourage perhaps money being spent by academies etc in developing players?
I not sure if it would that would be at back of my mind, same as idea of a draft, if I was pretty good players living say in Brisbane /Sydney/Perth etc, and someone says well you been drafted to somewhere else it would increase the temptation to say bugger it I may look at Japan or somewhere, if I can't ;ive where I want I may as well take the biggest money I can?
Just a thought.

If you can solve conundrum of having a centralised model with more than two centres it might have a chance.

In all seriousness I think we need to start with a competition that's not over in 5 mins and one that people give a toss about. 7 home games and playing TT or anyone offshore which has less interest has never, nor ever will be something that fans can really invest in.

The closet thing we have to it that will we continue to have that's centralised is the departure lounge.

Yes you know and if f we kept super rugby au 6 nations style competition we could have increased the number of games and home games, plus the same thing if we kept or created an nrc competition. I feel we have gone backwards as not created the right competitive TT competition. Nz players playing in nrl oz teams are not stopped from representing nz in nrl but yet we put these constraints in place for union. No wonder nrl in Australia been so successful and why RA and nzru will face continuing increasing threats from league.

 

[Dan54]

Yes you know and if f we kept super rugby au 6 nations style competition we could have increased the number of games and home games, plus the same thing if we kept or created an nrc competition. I feel we have gone backwards as not created the right competitive TT competition. Nz players playing in nrl oz teams are not stopped from representing nz in nrl but yet we put these constraints in place for union. No wonder nrl in Australia been so successful and why RA and nzru will face continuing increasing threats from league.

Yep and it worked well for RA with Kerevi and Cooper last year, I don't want NZR to consider it, they may well, it just muddies waters too much.
You can't even begin to compare the 2, NZ has one team in NRL as that's all the player strength here can cope with. Perhaps a lesson there? Oh and I not hearing NZ leaguies screaming it's not fair. Mate lets not be dumb enough to compare Apples and Oranges as I just pointed out, it doesn't make Aussie rugby look as intelligent as NZ league by not having more than they can afford in money or players, and that's not something I would want to contemplate!

 

[Braveheart81]

Yes you know and if f we kept super rugby au 6 nations style competition we could have increased the number of games and home games, plus the same thing if we kept or created an nrc competition. I feel we have gone backwards as not created the right competitive TT competition. Nz players playing in nrl oz teams are not stopped from representing nz in nrl but yet we put these constraints in place for union. No wonder nrl in Australia been so successful and why RA and nzru will face continuing increasing threats from league.

This is a weird point you're trying to make. The issue for rugby in Australia is the money to sign players. Being able to overpay for All Blacks isn't going to improve the competitiveness of our teams.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Yep and it worked well for RA with Kerevi and Cooper last year, I don't want NZR to consider it, they may well, it just muddies waters too much.
You can't even begin to compare the 2, NZ has one team in NRL as that's all the player strength here can cope with. Perhaps a lesson there? Oh and I not hearing NZ leaguies screaming it's not fair. Mate lets not be dumb enough to compare Apples and Oranges as I just pointed out, it doesn't make Aussie rugby look as intelligent as NZ league by not having more than they can afford in money or players, and that's not something I would want to contemplate!

I want a more open market for teams in super rugby where they can play with other teams outside their country but represent their national team still. I would though to safeguard this prefer quotas like nzru has with MP (Moana Pasifika) where they allow 3 players to represent ABs. Longer term would even up the teams given salary caps and help a better healthier competition and indeed grow the footprint of the back of that. I am steadfast in my belief this is the right long term model and I fear yet again this seasons super rugby results will support this.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

This is a weird point you're trying to make. The issue for rugby in Australia is the money to sign players. Being able to overpay for All Blacks isn't going to improve the competitiveness of our teams.

It ain’t weird - just your logic is - people want to see the best players - not mediocrity. It is just creating a more open market for players without the constraints. Japanese rugby has no such constraints so hence able to bid for quality players to increase the attractiveness of their teams and competition. Who said I am saying overpaying all blacks, as still sensible commercial decisions need to made on what player will do for the commercials like signing folaua and koroibete was about when they were signed on big money from league.

 

[Braveheart81]

The constraint is money, not who you can sign.

 

[PhilClinton]

I just wonder if the central contrcting and directing players is the best system, doesn't it then discourage perhaps money being spent by academies etc in developing players?
I not sure if it would that would be at back of my mind, same as idea of a draft, if I was pretty good players living say in Brisbane /Sydney/Perth etc, and someone says well you been drafted to somewhere else it would increase the temptation to say bugger it I may look at Japan or somewhere, if I can't ;ive where I want I may as well take the biggest money I can?
Just a thought.

The market for unproven, unsigned players though is quite different to someone who has spent years at Super Rugby franchise. I don't think any young player looking to play professionally would necessarily turn their nose up at being sent to any of the Super Rugby franchises, it is a step in the right direction for their career.

Just because someone is Australian and a good rugby player doesn't mean they're automatically going to be earn big money overseas. No doubt there are some examples of schoolboy plahyers who've been picked up overseas e.g. Gunther. But he's the minority, most of the guys earning big have at least a few seasons of Super Rugby experience.

 

[Dan54]

The market for unproven, unsigned players though is quite different to someone who has spent years at Super Rugby franchise. I don't think any young player looking to play professionally would necessarily turn their nose up at being sent to any of the Super Rugby franchises, it is a step in the right direction for their career.

Just because someone is Australian and a good rugby player doesn't mean they're automatically going to be earn big money overseas. No doubt there are some examples of schoolboy plahyers who've been picked up overseas e.g. Gunther. But he's the minority, most of the guys earning big have at least a few seasons of Super Rugby experience.

Mate, I not saying it guaranteed, but as is shown by Pasitoa etc, good young players will get contracts and take them where they feel is best for their careers, I think when you say well no we will decide where you go, it doesn't help retain players to the sport or the country. I understand what you say about not automatically getting money from overseas, but why make it easier for overseas clubs to buy tham, because sure as hell they will be sending scouts to NZ and Aussie now, why we already seeing a few young guys head off.

 

[Dan54]

I want a more open market for teams in super rugby where they can play with other teams outside their country but represent their national team still. I would though to safeguard this prefer quotas like nzru has with MP (Moana Pasifika) where they allow 3 players to represent ABs. Longer term would even up the teams given salary caps and help a better healthier competition and indeed grow the footprint of the back of that. I am steadfast in my belief this is the right long term model and I fear yet again this seasons super rugby results will support this.

I understand your point, but as I pointed out that already we have seen what happened with clubs in Japan maybe putting pressure on Kerevi etc, and I don't want ABs to have same quandary. I have absolutely no problems with NZ players playing for Aus teams, but I believe the players shouldn't split loyalties. In NZ there are probably up to 100 players of pretty good super quality that will never (and know ) make All Blacks, why aren't Aus teams grabbing them? I fully understand why NZR don't want it to happen , same as I agree with Rennie saying he thinks vast majority of Wallabies need to be playing in Australia. I don't think it would help Wallabied with their players in NZ super teams, because I am not convinced that there is the same care for players by outside clubs.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I understand your point, but as I pointed out that already we have seen what happened with clubs in Japan maybe putting pressure on Kerevi etc, and I don't want ABs to have same quandary. I have absolutely no problems with NZ players playing for Aus teams, but I believe the players shouldn't split loyalties. In NZ there are probably up to 100 players of pretty good super quality that will never (and know ) make All Blacks, why aren't Aus teams grabbing them? I fully understand why NZR don't want it to happen , same as I agree with Rennie saying he thinks vast majority of Wallabies need to be playing in Australia. I don't think it would help Wallabied with their players in NZ super teams, because I am not convinced that there is the same care for players by outside clubs.

Oz teams won’t grab as many nz players because the risk they get good and háve a chance to represent ABs they will head back to nz to allow that to happen and hence wasted investment developing those players. Anyhow you know I believe in more open market then currently the case and we just need to accept opposing views as neither of us likely to budge on our views and really it is whether nzru and RA budge on those views. This then means if we can’t address player imbalance not helped by these market constraints what do we do which gets us in the domestic competition discussion and round and round we go again.

Every year we have crap lopsided super rugby results which had for some time the same conversation happens with no resolution. Yet magically some think we do the same things again and again (just shuffle the deck chairs) and expect a significantly different result.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Wonder if discussion of player movement deserves its own thread.

As clear some teams have players that would be better elsewhere for their own plus oz rugby development and improving overall quality of oz pro teams. So just some thoughts of the top of my head on positions.

Hooker: brumbies clearly have with 4 quality hooker a need to see some move. One or two of their quartet to rebels, force and/or reds perhaps who are all lacking depth of quality super rugby hookers (Hanson at rebels getting on as backup)

Props: I think a shortage here as don’t think anyone club has excess quality here that would be better elsewhere.

Locks: As per above.

Backrow: Tizzano behind hooper and gamble so maybe better option for him at force or rebels

halves: not sure any excess quality here to shift around. Quality backup options maybe for tahs as not sure about grant myself but not sure of any suitable excess quality candidates at other c


10s: Harrison, Donaldson and Edmed all going well. Maybe one of them might be better elsewhere. Maybe as back up for pasitoa at force given McIntyre moving on at end of the year, or rebels given To'omua at back end and backup option for Gordon.

Centres: reds seem to have glut of talent in centres. Maybe one of the their talented centres would be better at rebels (obvious need) or the force (Godwin so so and kahui getting on).

wing: not sure of any excess talent here

fullback: rebels could do with one and to me force could too. Not sure of any excess here.

 

[PhilClinton]

And this is why the player movement conversation and logistics is so hard.

I don’t think one of Harrison, Donaldson or Edmed would be moved on, three deep isn’t exactly crazy depth and it’s not like all three are in the Wallabies discussion. Which is contrast to the hookers situation at the Brumbies where they’ve got three current Wallabies in the ranks.

Just because a team has depth in a position, doesn’t mean the excess are free for all, especially if some of them are still developing. It is such a hard line to draw because you’re looked at factors which can’t really be measured like potential of a player to improve with more game time.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

And this is why the player movement conversation and logistics is so hard.

I don’t think one of Harrison, Donaldson or Edmed would be moved on, three deep isn’t exactly crazy depth and it’s not like all three are in the Wallabies discussion. Which is contrast to the hookers situation at the Brumbies where they’ve got three current Wallabies in the ranks.

Just because a team has depth in a position, doesn’t mean the excess are free for all, especially if some of them are still developing. It is such a hard line to draw because you’re looked at factors which can’t really be measured like potential of a player to improve with more game time.

Fair comment as much for me about where depth at certain clubs vs gaps in others. I would agree at this point Donaldson, Harrison and Edmed probably not at level where crazy. But this also about where players who may be super rugby ready moving on to get more game time. For example, Tizzano as 3rd in line 7 at tahs going to find it hard to get game time vs force or say rebels where could be at least 2nd in line.

This is as much like the force raid on brumbies where players who are super rugby but keen for more game time could be lured to clubs who have depth gaps. I reckon one of the reds centres could be a target as glut of talent there and in comparison depth gap at rebels and would probably say force as well (given kahui 36 etc)

 

[Ignoto]

I still think you're getting confused with players who can play in a position being available and a "glut of talent".

You've mentioned twice the Reds centres. How many centres do you think we have?

Stewart is our 12/10 back up
Hunter is our 12/13.
Henry has been out for most of 21/22 so far.
Flook has been injured over the last 3 seasons and is primarily a 13/Winger.
Jordan can play 13 but is being used on the Reds wing.

Taking one of those 4/5 names out for 3 positions leaves the Reds very thin, especially with all those players being young and still maturing into their bodies.