T
TOCC
Guest
World Rugby is leaps and bounds ahead of the AFL and NRL when it comes to dealing with head injuries, far from perfect but some of their policies are reassuring to see
absolutely - the first step is to get the board right - the board needs to be high profile successful corporates who know how to run a business, not ex rugby heroes and jersey tuggers. Then the governance can be put in place and the new CEO, and other management hired. To keep Clyne and co is to keep the same architects of this f*&ked up strategy while the new guy - oh an old pal, steers the ship towards eternal oblivion.The problem is, people (us, journos, etc...) start throwing up "rugby" names usually on the basis of their long involvement in rugby without critically looking at their suitability. Rugby is niche enough that some background in it is probably desirable, but unfortunately many entrenched rugby people in the public eye in any way are just that, entrenched. The network needs to be at least seriously reworked, if not broken, not just rewired in a new box.
You miss the point Michael, entitled and self centred statements from somebody who doesn't watch the game. I'll watch Rugby regardless of who is playing generally, though the I dropped out of the Australian Super Rugby games this year because of the lack of quality.
I find it strange that people who'll watch the contrived altered rules competition of the NRC won't watch the Shute shield which is IMO better quality.
.
Yes this could only work if a) current ARU board cleaned out
I now watch both.you should try the same..re NRC as well as Shute Shield.
As to the contrived altered rules of NRC...rugby needs to evolve as an entertainment product which is why the rule change trials are sanctioned by World Rugby.
I find your comments disappointing as you don't seem to be following your own advise as you criticised Michael for making criticism about Shute Shield and not having watched a game. Have you bothered to actually go along and watch a NRC game. It is quite an entertaining and fast paced product but yes not marketed well and yes its evolution could have perhaps been better to not alienate club rugby factions (SS in particular but lets face it latter is a political beast which has not been blameless for playing own agenda and self interests too hard). Ok NRC might not be for you just as SS might not be for others either.what is the difference.
NRC at least is trying to trial and offer a different sort of product that may appeal to different audiences as you can put your head in the sand and think it is just a problem with Super Rugby. It isn't.the game of rugby needs to evolve with demands for modern day sports fan to compete in what is a crowded sports market.
I have watched the televised games. I watch the Top 14 Currie Cup and NPC as well, if its Rugby I tend to watch it. My comments are indeed from what I have seen. As per my other comments on numerous threads I live a long way from any games, not metro type long way, country type long way, so I haven't been to one live.
Some games have been good but many have been about the standard of the Australian Super sides this year.
The difference is that in a climate of limited finances and serious erosion of organisational capital the ARU spends both on a completely new competition with questionable benefits. I do not doubt that in 5 to 10 years the competition could become something more and provide what its stated aims are, but the inescapable fact is that Rugby doesn't have the capital or to spend now. The results are needed in the short term, and hence why any proposal really had to build off the existing base structures. Sure the Shute teams in particular play a brand of the toxic political NSWRU game that needs to be eliminated entirely, but in saying that this move has always smacked as political move by the ARU itself just dressed up a bit more. The NRC has failed badly to engage the base rugby public and that is the genesis to the present of my position.
Fresh thinking, eh. You really need to look back at his reputation in the other code, when he was widely vilified and despised for selling the tv rights far too cheaply.
I really at this point would like to see someone outside of Australia rugby as yes we need some outside thinking to challenge the status quo especially as status quo is rather broken and fractured.
I find it strange that people who'll watch the contrived altered rules competition of the NRC won't watch the Shute shield which is IMO better quality.
Gnostic you are off track - the ARU does not spend a cent on the NRC..broadcasters, clubs and volunteers involved foot the bill.
Its easy, SS represents only a small part of Australian Rugby, over 60% of the Australian Rugby public live outside of Sydney. And, even some who live in Sydney like myself, have no affiliation to any Sydney club.
That's not to say it's not reasonably decent rugby, but I have no attahement to any teams so it doesn't capture my attention.
Not really they may not be spending their own budget, but they are spending. Also they are spending non monetary capital.
As I've said here many times, I have no affiliation to any club either, and apart from my Alma Mata have never been a member of a club for various reasons, mostly work related. BUT I watch as I said Rugby, regardless of who is playing, though this year I turned off many of the Australian Super games. Its easy to take my comments as pertaining only to the Shute but for those of us in NSW it is the only FTA rugby for most of the season.
I won't go over it all again, but suffice to say nobody has challenged the key points of failure, that being lack of traction in the single biggest supporter base, the lack of time that Rugby has to achieve that traction and engagement of the fans so that the NRC can actual achieve the development role it is supposed to provide.
No need to reply this is a circular argument and it has been such for two years now.