• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Australian Rugby / RA

Derpus

Derpus

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Bullrush said:
You guys have absolutely nothing. On one hand you guys want to get rid of NZ, the closest international playing partner you have, but on the other hand, you still want your pro teams playing internationally?

Before pointing out that having your pro teams play internationally is exactly what Super Rugby is, who will you play? Just the teams you’re confident of beating? Or is it your contention that the current Australian Super sides just need to play each other more - in fact, spread the talent out to make more teams to play against- that will make your teams better contenders for some kind of cross-over competition against Super Rugby Aotearoa teams?

It is forever being trotted out that Super Rugby is terrible for Australia, NZ are only in it for themselves (as if Rugby Australia has only ever had the greater good of rugby at heart LOL) and the path forward includes the absolute need to dump Aotearoa.

For what? This 3rd rate domestic comp that is apparently so appealing and high quality that broadcasters will be falling over each other trying to rain money on rugby?

You can’t name one country in the Top 5 rugby nations who do this and you cannot point to any notable rugby expert who can provide a plan of shrinking rugby to a mainly domestic game and still producing a Wallaby side that is a realistic RWC contender.
Click to expand...
Don't France, New Zealand, South Africa and England all have domestic only competitions? In the case of England and France these are used to qualify for composite international comps.

Advocates for a domestic comp aren't saying it'll immediately be bigger or better than Super Rugby or any other competition. But, to me at least, it seems like a necessary foundation on which you might then add an international component.

Its a house built on sand at the moment and, I think, we need to back to basics before we can commit to an international comp. Our participation based on current structures is unsustainable.

Build a solid base that actually garners local interest and use that as the foundation on which to grow. We are trying to do it in reverse at the moment. Build interest via the Wallabies and hope that trickles down to the states and sustains them in Super Rugby. Hasn't, isn't and won't work.

I actually agree to an extent - we have next to nothing at the moment. Time we did something about that.
 
Last edited:
HogansHeros

HogansHeros

Jim Clark (26)
Derpus said:
Don't France, New Zealand, South Africa and England all have domestic only competitions? These are used to qualify for composite international comps.

Advocates for a domestic comp aren't saying it'll immediately be bigger or better than Super Rugby or any of other competition. But, to me at least, it seems like a necessary foundation
Click to expand...
I brought this up last time Bullrush went on a rant about how closed minded we all are and I never got a reply.... doesn't fit his story.
 
MarkJ

MarkJ

Bob Loudon (25)
Wasn't that kind of how the old Super 10 worked (at least for the NZ & SA teams) - the top teams from the NPC & Currie Cup played in the following year's Super 10 comp. Maybe we should bring it back - the Reds fans should be keen as they'd be leading the trophy count
 
Oldschool

Oldschool

Jim Clark (26)
All good structures are built off strong foundations.
NPC for NZ, Currie Cup for SA.
This is where we need to focus. A big hurdle is QRU and NSWRU with their Shute Shield and Hospital Cup.
Things need to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt.
 
sunnyboys

sunnyboys

Bob Loudon (25)
You do know that the NPC is becoming less and less important to NZ pro rugby with each passing year? from nz contacts i've heard it is seen as a very very expensive development program which isnt delivering the players it once did. school to academies to under age national teams and onto super is the more likely pathway nowadays.
 
hoggy

hoggy

Nev Cottrell (35)
sunnyboys said:
You do know that the NPC is becoming less and less important to NZ pro rugby with each passing year? from nz contacts i've heard it is seen as a very very expensive development program which isnt delivering the players it once did. school to academies to under age national teams and onto super is the more likely pathway nowadays.
Click to expand...
Yes but the NRC has been degraded by NZRU over a long period of time. As a competition it has never been allowed to adapt to market conditions.

It was replaced in the market place by Super Rugby, it may be very expensive but it exists under the conditions dictated to it, it has not been allowed to adapt.
Moving to age teams and academies may be the future, but blaming the NPC is like owning a car for 20 years and not servicing it, and then complaining it no longer runs well.

Only the other day Israel Dagg stated he feared for the future of the game in NZ as it is losing support in the country.
 
Last edited:
sunnyboys

sunnyboys

Bob Loudon (25)
hoggy said:
Yes but the NRC has been degraded by NZRU over a long period of time. As a competition it has never been allowed to adapt to market conditions.

It was replaced in the market place by Super Rugby, it may be very expensive but it exists under the conditions dictated to it, it has not been allowed to adapt.
Moving to age teams and academies may be the future, but blaming the NPC is like owning a car for 20 years and not servicing it, and then complaining it no longer runs well.

Only the other day Israel Dagg stated he feared for the future of the game in NZ as it is losing support in the country.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. I'd say that the Governance model in NZ where the Provincial Unions have more clout on the NZR board is the only thing keeping the comp at the semi-pro level it is. NZR and others on the board have moved on from the comp but breaking up is proving hard to do.

I'm certainly not blaming the NPC for anything.

But hoping to replicate the NPC or Currie Cup in Australia is to chase something that isn't considered fit for purpose in its own country of origin.
 
Tomikin

Tomikin

David Codey (61)
Bullrush said:
Bullshit. I wrote a genuine post making reference to rugby experts and the needs they see in rugby - players including keeping 5 Australian teams.

The hatred for anything NZ is so strong that the reply was

‘Cool story bro…’

So please don’t give me this bullshit about ‘genuine discussion.’

If you want genuine, show me which of the top countries have their professional teams play only domestically? Point me in the direction of the rugby experts who say this is the best way to make Australian rugby better.
Click to expand...
What a load of bullshit, you have a problem with something I said in a different conversation, and you now taking a shot at anything I say. Hence the cool story bro.

You want us to drop teams, we dont want that... you just point to other people who are wrong as well. The only reason you want us to continue in super rugby, is because if we left NZ, you be fucked playing your 5 - 6 team comp with nowhere to grow, and you would end up in a hole.. Nothing to do with wanting a strong Wallabies.

Its the same argument all Kiwi's make, and it's all in self interest.
 
Last edited:
Derpus

Derpus

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Tomikin said:
Cool story bro, not like all is rosey over in NZ, your heading home this weekend.

What a load of bullshit, you have a problem with something I said in a different conversation, and you now taking a shot at anything I say. Hence the cool story bro.

You want us to drop teams, we dont want that... you just point to other people who are wrong as well. The only reason you want us to continue in super rugby, is because if we left NZ, you be fucked playing your 5 - 6 team comp with nowhere to grow, and you would end up in a hole.. Nothing to do with wanting a strong Wallabies.

Its the same argument all Kiwi's make, and it's all in self interest.
Click to expand...
Worth adding that the self interest is fine from a Kiwi perspective - we are just free to ignore it.
 
Dan54

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
Oldschool said:
All good structures are built off strong foundations.
NPC for NZ, Currie Cup for SA.
This is where we need to focus. A big hurdle is QRU and NSWRU with their Shute Shield and Hospital Cup.
Things need to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt.
Click to expand...
You know that's a really good idea etc, and I truly believe it has the basics that you want.
Only trouble is if you burn it all down and start again, will the game still be around after the rebuild get's going. You lose the money from tv deals involving super , and to build these extra teams you need players will have to either be prepared to get much smaller pay packets, or go to League or overseas, I know saying ok but can select players from overseas, if a 18-19yo goes overseas(say Japan/USA etc)by the time they 24-5 they can then earn test caps for countries they reside in. It needs a transaction to get to where you want to get to, not burnt etc.
 
N

notdeadyet

Frank Nicholson (4)
thanks to @rikdog7
eddie jones selects his team to watch final funnyF7yfawNbgAA_hFX.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top