Australian Rugby / RA

[Clubhouse coach]

Going back to Joe King’s post regarding reestablishing Australia A games, this is a concept that would fit seamlessly into touring teams programs.
We have England touring in a few months, if Australia A could play mid week games against England A it would give both countries an ideal opportunity to blood younger players and bring others back from injury all the while giving the players a chance to get match harden and perform under real game conditions.
If the test is in Sydney, they could play mid week at Campbelltown or Brookvale, Perth would use HBF park, Melbourne AAMI Stadium and Brisbane could use a revamped Ballymore, Redcliffe or Townsville.
This format would make top level rugby accessible for far more fans and give RA another income stream through extra sponsorship and broadcast rights.
Similar to how the Lions tour.

 

[PhilClinton]

I’m not sure if it’s logistically viable for touring teams to bring enough players on tour to field both a first string and A side, that would mean a squad of what… 60ish (probably closer to 70 if possible to cover for all injuries) for the length of the tour.

When the Lions tour they just play their regular squad (usually the fringe players get a run) against the provincial teams.

Essentially what I’m getting at is I think you’d be better off trying to organise mid-week games against England to play Australia A. Maybe add a few extra days to the tour to accomodate more games played etc.

 

[Clubhouse coach]

I wasn’t suggesting extra players in the touring party, just the left over players from the thirty odd touring squad to play midweek. Some players can go a full four weeks on tour and not see any game time, and return home with no experience playing under different conditions and against different styles of play.
I also believe it would help keep players in Australia.
More games, more exposure and more supporters.

 

[RugbyReg]

23 man test squad.

23 man ‘A squad’.


You’re talking touring with between 40 and 50 players.

 

[RugbyReg]

Wallabies named 37 (give or take) for the tour last year. The team to face Scotland on the first test of the Euro tour was:

1. James Slipper (111 Tests)
2. Folau Fainga’a (22 Tests)
3. Allan Ala'alatoa (51 Tests)
4. Rory Arnold (26 Tests)
5. Izack Rodda (31 Tests)
6. Rob Leota (3 Tests)
7. Michael Hooper (c) (116 Tests)
8. Rob Valetini (15 Tests)
9. Nic White (44 Tests)
10. James O’Connor (58 Tests)
11. Jordan Petaia (15 Tests)
12. Hunter Paisami (12 Tests)
13. Len Ikitau (10 Tests)
14. Tom Wright (7 Tests)
15. Andrew Kellaway (10 Tests)
Replacements
16. Connal McInerney (1 Test)
17. Angus Bell (13 Tests)
18. Taniela Tupou (36 Tests)
19. Will Skelton (18 Tests)
20. Pete Samu (16 Tests)
21. Tate McDermott (12 Tests)
22. Kurtley Beale (92 Tests)
23. Izaia Perese*

The best you could do of the non- players would be:

1 Robertson
2 Kaitu’u
3 Pone F (assuming fit)
4 Swain
5 Philip
6 Swinton
7
8
9 Gordon
10 Loloesio
11
12 Foketi
13
14 Daugunu
15 Hodge

16 Latu

The rest you’d have to fill with the test match 23.

 

[dru]

Wonder if you could do an Australia A staying in Australia, seeking games against second tier Nations - Romania, Georgia, Spain, USA, etc.

 

[Clubhouse coach]

A squad of 38, two complete sides, an extra front row, one extra lock, one extra 6/8, one extra seven, an extra nine and a utility back.

 

[PhilClinton]

I mean the other legitimate question is whether the blokes who fall into the strictly ‘A’ category of selection will ever really be a chance of playing for the Wallabies. I’m not convinced our depth in Australia is deep enough to say we’ve got 50-60 players who are genuine chances at playing test match rugby one day.

More games played and more exposure is always a plus though.

 

[KOB1987]

Wallabies named 37 (give or take) for the tour last year. The team to face Scotland on the first test of the Euro tour was:

1. James Slipper (111 Tests)
2. Folau Fainga’a (22 Tests)
3. Allan Ala'alatoa (51 Tests)
4. Rory Arnold (26 Tests)
5. Izack Rodda (31 Tests)
6. Rob Leota (3 Tests)
7. Michael Hooper (c) (116 Tests)
8. Rob Valetini (15 Tests)
9. Nic White (44 Tests)
10. James O’Connor (58 Tests)
11. Jordan Petaia (15 Tests)
12. Hunter Paisami (12 Tests)
13. Len Ikitau (10 Tests)
14. Tom Wright (7 Tests)
15. Andrew Kellaway (10 Tests)
Replacements
16. Connal McInerney (1 Test)
17. Angus Bell (13 Tests)
18. Taniela Tupou (36 Tests)
19. Will Skelton (18 Tests)
20. Pete Samu (16 Tests)
21. Tate McDermott (12 Tests)
22. Kurtley Beale (92 Tests)
23. Izaia Perese*

The best you could do of the non- players would be:

1 Robertson
2 Kaitu’u
3 Pone F (assuming fit)
4 Swain
5 Philip
6 Swinton
7
8
9 Gordon
10 Loloesio
11
12 Foketi
13
14 Daugunu
15 Hodge

16 Latu

The rest you’d have to fill with the test match 23.

Yeah thats OK, it's a tour match right? Need to keep the front row fresh but you'd do something like this:
1 Robertson
2 Kaitu’u
3 Pone F (assuming fit)
4 Swain
5 Philip
6 Swinton
7 Latu
8 Samu
9 Gordon
10 Loloesio
11 Perese
12 Foketi
13 Hodge
14 Daugunu
15 Beale

Bench: from within

Starting players play as much of the 80 minutes as possible. Man up. They would love it.

 

[Joe King]

I mean the other legitimate question is whether the blokes who fall into the strictly ‘A’ category of selection will ever really be a chance of playing for the Wallabies. I’m not convinced our depth in Australia is deep enough to say we’ve got 50-60 players who are genuine chances at playing test match rugby one day.

More games played and more exposure is always a plus though.

What about some of the young guys who have just finished u20s? They're on their way to the Wallabies potentially, but we don't want to rush them in. It's effectively a step between Super Rugby and Test. It could also give some combinations a head start in building cohesion.

You wouldn't want it to just be an u23s team, but they could make up a fair chunk.

I'm just throwing this out there as an idea.

Edit: although it could also take away from an effective '3rd tier' now that I think about it. Unless it's just the Super Rugby teams minus test players. An Australia A team might make room for more club players to take the step up to the 'Super Rugby' teams???

 

[formerflanker]

I’m not sure if it’s logistically viable for touring teams to bring enough players on tour to field both a first string and A side, that would mean a squad of what… 60ish (probably closer to 70 if possible to cover for all injuries) for the length of the tour.

The eighties have called and offered a solution.
Alan Jones' Grand Slam squad played 18 matches in 8 weeks.
32 players.
Lynagh took to field most, with 11 games. 11 others played 10 times.
Sure, a lot has changed since then but mid week matches would bring renewed interest in the game. Touring squads don't need to be 70-strong to field two teams a week. A dozen on injury stand-by at home is also a fall back position in today's world of fast international travel.

I reckon that mid week international games at accessible medium sized grounds would be sell outs.

 

[wamberal]

The eighties have called and offered a solution.
Alan Jones' Grand Slam squad played 18 matches in 8 weeks.
32 players.
Lynagh took to field most, with 11 games. 11 others played 10 times.
Sure, a lot has changed since then but mid week matches would bring renewed interest in the game. Touring squads don't need to be 70-strong to field two teams a week. A dozen on injury stand-by at home is also a fall back position in today's world of fast international travel.

I reckon that mid week international games at accessible medium sized grounds would be sell outs.

The game has changed a fair bit since then.

 

[PhilClinton]

The eighties have called and offered a solution.
Alan Jones' Grand Slam squad played 18 matches in 8 weeks.
32 players.
Lynagh took to field most, with 11 games. 11 others played 10 times.
Sure, a lot has changed since then but mid week matches would bring renewed interest in the game. Touring squads don't need to be 70-strong to field two teams a week. A dozen on injury stand-by at home is also a fall back position in today's world of fast international travel.

I reckon that mid week international games at accessible medium sized grounds would be sell outs.

What is the goal of playing an A side though? Is it to sell out mid week matches, or to improve the development of players who aren’t quite Wallaby level? Getting them playing games in a different setup.

I don’t think our player development is helped if you leave 15 odd blokes at home at injury cover rather than have them touring with the team.

At the same time I’m not sure the players union in 2022 would be agreeable to going on tour with only 35 odd blokes and expecting some to play two games a week.

But obviously as ive noted I also don’t think touring with large parties is advisable either. It’s probably a bridge too far to expect RA to get this off the ground in the next few years.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

What is the goal of playing an A side though? Is it to sell out mid week matches, or to improve the development of players who aren’t quite Wallaby level? Getting them playing games in a different setup.

I don’t think our player development is helped if you leave 15 odd blokes at home at injury cover rather than have them touring with the team.

At the same time I’m not sure the players union in 2022 would be agreeable to going on tour with only 35 odd blokes and expecting some to play two games a week.

But obviously as ive noted I also don’t think touring with large parties is advisable either. It’s probably a bridge too far to expect RA to get this off the ground in the next few years.

The goal should be to have the A squad to play T2 national squads from my perspective. So when the Wallabies are playing say France in FRance the A squad could play Spain in Madrid. And so on.

 

[KOB1987]

It's to give them game time to justify their inclusion in the squad. Even if they only get 5000 into the stadium midweek it's hard to see what the downside is, unless one of the A players picks up an injury, but that's a risk at anytime. You'd think that longer term the net benefits would far outweigh the negatives.

 

[PhilClinton]

The goal should be to have the A squad to play T2 national squads from my perspective. So when the Wallabies are playing say France in FRance the A squad could play Spain in Madrid. And so on.

Yep so in that case, a touring Aussie squad would need to take at least 50-60 players away, because you'd be playing both a test side and an A side as their own squads in different parts of the world. I'm not sure Australian rugby has the depth or funds at the moment to be taking away that many players.

There are a lot of different cases being put forward so it's good to see this driving conversation.

It sounds like most people would be keen for some type of A team to be brought back into the fold.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's all about cost. Getting an Australia A game to happen costs pretty much the same as playing a test match but doesn't generate anywhere near the amount of revenue.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Yep so in that case, a touring Aussie squad would need to take at least 50-60 players away, because you'd be playing both a test side and an A side as their own squads in different parts of the world. I'm not sure Australian rugby has the depth or funds at the moment to be taking away that many players.

There are a lot of different cases being put forward so it's good to see this driving conversation.

It sounds like most people would be keen for some type of A team to be brought back into the fold.

The way I see it is that we currently have an issue of a lack of professional games for our professional players. Particularly our younger guys.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

The way I see it is that we currently have an issue of a lack of professional games for our professional players. Particularly our younger guys.

Agree but with the financial limitations RA currently have what do you suggest? Many people will bag the NRC and Bill Pulver but he was able to make the NRC cost neutral for RA. Might not have been perfect but was something.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Agree but with the financial limitations RA currently have what do you suggest? Many people will bag the NRC and Bill Pulver but he was able to make the NRC cost neutral for RA. Might not have been perfect but was something.

Hopefully we'll see it return. Even if it's essentially Super Rugby Au plus the Drua and minus our Wallabies. Would be better than nothing.