Australian Rugby / RA

[Wilson]

He's been working in the professional world for less than 5 years and the automotive sector at that. No sports administration at all. I really like him but if he was anywhere near the job it goes to show a part of why Aus rugby is where it is. Feel good appointments for blokes that can tackle well and lift trophies.

While I don't think Horwill is the best candidate for the role he's not that ridiculous as a candidate. Aside from his professional experience I believe a lot of his business studies were focused on professional sport - I think his MBA dissertation focused on private equity in sport and previously he looked at things like global player contracting markets. I definitely don't think his inclusion is about feel good appointments for former players.

Horne looks to be the standout candidate by a fair way, but that doesn't mean there's no value interviewing someone like Horwill who clearly has something to offer and may find himself in another role in Australian rugby down the line. Much better to have a range of candidates to compare from than some of the fait accompli appointments we've had in the past.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Sounds like he has the makings of someone who will be effective in a role like this in the future but there was a more appropriate candidate available. This role needed someone who has seen it before and not figuring it out, we don't have that time or resource to burn.

Would be a good person involved around QLD, RUPA or even Super Rugby Pacific.

 

[John S]

At least they've gone further than the car park at Moore Park / Nth Sydney.

 

[Tomthumb]

He might be correct but it will either come at the detriment of the wallabies or the new coach will just be picking more overseas based players

Super Rugby must speed up to lure fans back: Waugh

www.rugby.com.au

Maybe they should focus on fan investment and then they wouldn't need every game to be the best ever.

They need to get people to care about these teams and this comp, and then bad games can happen and it's not the end of the world. I just sat through an NFL game that ended 3-0, but millions still watched it all the way though because they cared that much about their teams

 

[Tomthumb]

I wonder if Brett Clark has ok'd this yet

 

[Wallaby Man]

Good appointment, very happy to back him in. My concern however is we are like this with every appointment, “just the guy we need”, “true rugby man”, “we need more business nous”, “ex captain”, etc. we genuinely think every appointment is amazing, which is a good attitude to have. However until we get correct buy in from all parties to sacrifice a little to gain a lot, we will inevitably be baying for blood of this guy in 2yrs time because the system and foundations he works for will let him down.

It’s all good and well to have a new coach, high performance, head SnC etc. but if they aren’t able to shape the framework into how they can best utilize it because someone else’s patch will be eroded a little because of it, they will fail. They will be seen as hopeless and we will cheer a new guy into the system and then rinse and repeat.

 

[Wilson]

Maybe they should focus on fan investment and then they wouldn't need every game to be the best ever.

They need to get people to care about these teams and this comp, and then bad games can happen and it's not the end of the world. I just sat through an NFL game that ended 3-0, but millions still watched it all the way though because they cared that much about their teams

100%, there's so much more they could be doing beyond "make the game quicker". For example I wish they'd get in some match day experts from OS leagues, NFL in particular. Need to consider the product and how it should work for the entire competition and that goes well beyond what's happening on field, particularly given they have so much more control of the off field, not having to get world rugby approval to change things. A model that requires teams to be successful to be financially viable or every game to be a cracker for the competition to work is doomed for failure. Absolutely work to improve the on field product, but there is so much more that can and should be be done outside of that to make super rugby into something worthwhile.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

If we aren't willing to give them a chance then of course it's going to rinse and repeat.

We can only judge them on the skills being brought to the position and this one would fit the selection criteria.

Maybe buy in will come when we have the right people in positions to provide advice and instruction. They haven't parachuted someone into a role who is out of their depth or it seems like a hobby. This is what he does.

 

[Goosestep]

Maybe they should focus on fan investment and then they wouldn't need every game to be the best ever.

They need to get people to care about these teams and this comp, and then bad games can happen and it's not the end of the world. I just sat through an NFL game that ended 3-0, but millions still watched it all the way though because they cared that much about their teams

epl games are 0-0 draws yet still attract millions of ppl

 

[Goosestep]

He's been working in the professional world for less than 5 years and the automotive sector at that. No sports administration at all. I really like him but if he was anywhere near the job it goes to show a part of why Aus rugby is where it is. Feel good appointments for blokes that can tackle well and lift trophies.

Who cares .. it’s all about making $ at the end of the day …

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Maybe they should focus on fan investment and then they wouldn't need every game to be the best ever.

They need to get people to care about these teams and this comp, and then bad games can happen and it's not the end of the world. I just sat through an NFL game that ended 3-0, but millions still watched it all the way though because they cared that much about their teams

Why not both? In order to get more people to buy in you have to provide a product that is not only engaging but entertaining. So addressing the flow of the game is important. You can do that and work on fan investment at the same time to not only maintain the current base but capture more of those who may have drifted away or giving it another go.

 

[Crashy]

Sorry if aready posted - Wallaroos coach appointed today. English coach Jo Yapp. First female coach at a national level in any code in Aus. Not that AFL has a national team....
Some green shoots this week.

 

[LevitatingSocks]

100%, there's so much more they could be doing beyond "make the game quicker". For example I wish they'd get in some match day experts from OS leagues, NFL in particular. Need to consider the product and how it should work for the entire competition and that goes well beyond what's happening on field, particularly given they have so much more control of the off field, not having to get world rugby approval to change things. A model that requires teams to be successful to be financially viable or every game to be a cracker for the competition to work is doomed for failure. Absolutely work to improve the on field product, but there is so much more that can and should be be done outside of that to make super rugby into something worthwhile.

I grew up watching NFL and I'm unsure how useful their expertise would be because the context surrounding the sport is so different.

It's the 2 ton elephant in the room of the American sporting landscape. It's the most watched sport in a country with 10x the population and a viewership with a higher tolerance for monetization in the form of frequent commercials to the point that the game itself will be stopped in person to cram in more commercials on TV. Its biggest competitor is its own development pathway in the form of nominally amateur D1 FBS college football which is self-sustaining and profitable on its own. Theoretically this development pathway also gives players a university degree though the most talented will leave university early without graduating. Though amateur in name, NIL money gives "amateur" student-athletes at the big programs a wage, with the biggest names approaching what the absolute best players for the Wallabies here earn.

There is no competing NRL to poach players or fan interest. It's specialized to the point that other sports don't find it useful to try to poach NFL players. There is no concern about parity because it's a closed system with worse teams being rewarded with higher draft picks and a salary cap. There is no international component to worry about.

There is just so much money in the sport compared to rugby here that I worry that their expertise would recommend solutions that RA simply can't afford.

EDIT: I'm going to say something harsh. The best comparison for rugby in America is not NFL, it's lacrosse. A regional, wealthy, private school sport the average person knows about but doesn't watch where the highest level of competition for most of its existence was at the amateur university level and most players went on to white collar jobs with no expectation of professional lacrosse careers. Professional lacrosse is growing right now but even die hard fans still care more about Duke vs. Yale and most players have a second normal job. Rugby is ahead of lacrosse, but there is more to be learned from what the PLL is doing than what the NFL is doing.

 

[kiap]

EDIT: I'm going to say something harsh. The best comparison for rugby in America is not NFL, it's lacrosse.

Neither comparison works. Best takeaway is:

We.are.not.America.

Sure, there are some commonalities but they're greatly outweighed by the difference.

If you start with a U.S. template, you need to dial it down by 10.

 

[stillmissit]

Neither comparison works. Best takeaway is:

We.are.not.America.

Sure, there are some commonalities but they're greatly outweighed by the difference.

If you start with a U.S. template, you need to dial it down by 10.

Don't think he was suggesting we start with a US template. It is interesting and the analogy I take from it is rugby union and AFL hold back NRL from being what the NFL is.

 

[kiap]

Don't think he was suggesting we start with a US template. It is interesting and the analogy I take from it is rugby union and AFL hold back NRL from being what the NFL is.

The analogy doesn't work and the NRL will never be what the NFL is.

 

[LevitatingSocks]

The analogy doesn't work and the NRL will never be what the NFL is.

It was more of an attempt to illustrate that 100 years of societal inertia favor the NFL in the US. The league commissioner is one of the most reviled men in the country, the officiating and rule changes are terrible, and QB play is at its worst in a decade but they will still collectively make 4.4 billion in profit.

RA is fighting from far more of a disadvantaged position and needs to be wary of applying American lessons to Australian problems.

 

[stillmissit]

The analogy doesn't work and the NRL will never be what the NFL is.

Opinions, opinions lucky we all have them regardless of how convinced we are about being correct, the truth is nobody knows exactly what will be or won't be. Eddie Jones is the perfect example of that....

 

[stillmissit]

Why not both? In order to get more people to buy in you have to provide a product that is not only engaging but entertaining. So addressing the flow of the game is important. You can do that and work on fan investment at the same time to not only maintain the current base but capture more of those who may have drifted away or giving it another go.

I am happy with that as long as we don't sacrifice the games complexity, as it is that component that keeps most of us watching the game, including many who moved over from League.

 

[wamberal99]

I am happy with that as long as we don't sacrifice the games complexity, as it is that component that keeps most of us watching the game, including many who moved over from League.

The complexity and, dare I say it, arbitrariness, of the rules is also what turns potential viewers off our game. A much better balance needs to be found. They could start at the breakdown.