B
Bobby Sands
Guest
Why?
I am sure he has an international coaching caveat.
Not that I am championing him either way.
Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
Why?
I am sure he has an international coaching caveat.
Not that I am championing him either way.
Rugby Central
Charlie Fox (21)
I agree. What you're looking at in the attached values is capitalism in it's truest form. Supply and demand. 10 is important and a good one is as rare as hen's teeth.
Good 7's are plentiful and what they do is subjected heavily to referee interpretation. This means there value is diminished.
Hooper's value is so high to the Australian team because he is the workhorse best suited to cleaning up the inability of our inside backs to tackle. Find backs who can defend in the position they are picked and you will save a fortune.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Where are these backs? Playing league?
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
They are mostly of other nationalities.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
C'mon Wamb. There are and have been in recent years plenty of inside backs who can tackle and who can accordingly play in their rightful positions in both attack and defense.
Luckily, To'omua will tighten up the 10 spot when available, but Deegan has been a strong defender at 10 and could easily have been given a trial or two in 2018. Godwin, for all his faults, was a strong defender at 12 but rarely made it beyond the training squad. Kerevi defends soundly at 12, as does Meakes. Coming through this year will be Stewart at 10 who never fails to make his presence felt in defense.
There were/are options but none will get a chance in the Wallabies starting 15 while-ever the favourites are able to be picked.
Luckily, To'omua will tighten up the 10 spot when available, but Deegan has been a strong defender at 10 and could easily have been given a trial or two in 2018. Godwin, for all his faults, was a strong defender at 12 but rarely made it beyond the training squad. Kerevi defends soundly at 12, as does Meakes. Coming through this year will be Stewart at 10 who never fails to make his presence felt in defense.
There were/are options but none will get a chance in the Wallabies starting 15 while-ever the favourites are able to be picked.
Rugby Central
Charlie Fox (21)
WTF!!!!
This was in the SMH/Fairfax papers this morning.
Former Wallabies Rob Horne and Drew Mitchell are among a handful of Test stars who have agreed to mentor the Australian men's sevens team as they look to bring a harder edge to their footy.
Horne was at training with the men on Monday after completing an "outstanding" tour as team manager during their last tournament in Dubai.
Australian coach Tim Walsh, who will take the team to New Zealand for the next leg of the World Rugby Sevens Series this weekend, revealed he had approached Horne and his former Wallabies and Waratahs teammate Mitchell to mentor the team and help add ruthlessness to their trademark work ethic.
They join other former Test stars Adam Freier and Stephen Hoiles, who is an assistant coach to Walsh, plus former Aussie sevens reps Peter Miller and Tim Atkinson. Former Wallabies captain Stephen Moore and second-row legend Nathan Sharpe will also take up mentoring roles as the season progresses.
In the Australian 7’s squad for the next round there are 13 Players.
In the Admin set there are 2 coaches a “periodic” manager (so assuming another manager somewhere) and 5 mentors. The article doesn’t mention medical staff but without them this means we have at least 9 people to run a squad of 13. Now I don’t know if these mentors are being paid, or having their costs covered. But seriously, if they need this much coddling what are they doing playing a contact sport.
Here’s a perfect example of RA losing sight of its purpose.
This was in the SMH/Fairfax papers this morning.
Former Wallabies Rob Horne and Drew Mitchell are among a handful of Test stars who have agreed to mentor the Australian men's sevens team as they look to bring a harder edge to their footy.
Horne was at training with the men on Monday after completing an "outstanding" tour as team manager during their last tournament in Dubai.
Australian coach Tim Walsh, who will take the team to New Zealand for the next leg of the World Rugby Sevens Series this weekend, revealed he had approached Horne and his former Wallabies and Waratahs teammate Mitchell to mentor the team and help add ruthlessness to their trademark work ethic.
They join other former Test stars Adam Freier and Stephen Hoiles, who is an assistant coach to Walsh, plus former Aussie sevens reps Peter Miller and Tim Atkinson. Former Wallabies captain Stephen Moore and second-row legend Nathan Sharpe will also take up mentoring roles as the season progresses.
In the Australian 7’s squad for the next round there are 13 Players.
In the Admin set there are 2 coaches a “periodic” manager (so assuming another manager somewhere) and 5 mentors. The article doesn’t mention medical staff but without them this means we have at least 9 people to run a squad of 13. Now I don’t know if these mentors are being paid, or having their costs covered. But seriously, if they need this much coddling what are they doing playing a contact sport.
Here’s a perfect example of RA losing sight of its purpose.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Mate, some ex-players are coming to training occasionally. They are giving Rob Horne a role post injury
I think you are reading way way too much into this
Yeah I'm with Cobber. Sounds to me like they've tapped a few ex-players to pop their heads in occasionally - likely through Hoiles' links with the classic Wallabies.
Considering the 7s are generally a bunch of really young guys it makes a lot of sense, especially now they've lost James Stannard. I'd assume they are all doing it pro-bono.
.
Considering the 7s are generally a bunch of really young guys it makes a lot of sense, especially now they've lost James Stannard. I'd assume they are all doing it pro-bono.
.
Hoiles and Horne are the only two that are employed by the Aussie 7s side out of that group I believe.
Rugby Central
Charlie Fox (21)
Maybe I am reading too much, but if it's just a couple of guys dropping in then it really is a slow news day for rugby. On the flip side, these are full time professional rugby players, selected based on their skill and abilities at the highest level.
I appreciate some mentoring is handy but doesn't this risk too many voices giving advice. And if their all singing from the same song sheet, what's the point?
Maybe I'm just old school, you trust your coach and playing the best and hardest for your team mates and club (and country for these guys) was significant enough motivation.
Time for Bex and a good lie down
They're generally really young guys and a big part of playing 7s is dealing with the travel, being away from home and preparing for tournaments. I imagine a lot of what the mentoring is about has nothing to do with what happens on the field.
By getting half a dozen former players involved means it is a volunteer basis because no one has to do it very much. If you make it a regular thing for one person then it's a role and you have to pay them.
Also, the Hamilton 7s is this weekend and the Sydney 7s next weekend. Most of this article is essentially filler so they can publish the squad for this weekend and talk about the Sydney event being on next weekend.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Means that the paper can get some names in the article that their readers may possibly have heard of as well
I've been reading a few cricket books over Christmas, the best of which is 'Crossing the Line' by Gideon Haigh. Thoroughly recommend it if you are a cricket fan.
The workings of Cricket Australia and their role in the Cape Town fiasco (amongst other things) is a big focus of that book, and it appears to me there are a few real lessons you can draw about sports administration in general.
CA suffers many of the same problems that RA seems to - a focus on the professional game has alienated the grassroots, a domestic competition structure that works against high performance goals, a lack of transparency, a loss of trust and good will, amongst other things.
It makes me wonder if the best practice model for sports administration that has been accepted over the last decade or so is flawed. That being - independent board of directors, a separation of the professional and participatory arms of the game, an increasing professionalisation of 'the pathway' for young players, a decreased reliance on traditional clubs, and a focus on revenue (particularly TV revenue) to drive performance outcomes across all levels.
Not all of these are bad things, and you could make an argument that many or all are necessary in 2019 to survive in a competitive landscape. But it does seem that the major sports (who have all adopted most of these values) are all suffering from the same maladies that I outlined above.
Brett Papworth and his ilk are by no means a rugby-only problem. It's symptomatic of professional sport in Australia, where the traditional stakeholders feel increasingly left behind by modern structures.
I'm not sure how you fix the model, but there are changes that definitely need to be made. I think a few practices of Government need to be introduced - more transparency, better coverage of day-to-day investment and routines, and a focus on sharing the spoils of the game with all participants.
I want to know the work DOs are doing in Western Sydney. I want to know when the Waratahs are doing a school clinic. I want to see what some of the staff at RA actually do - I'm sure it's something, but I don't really know what.
Some of this stuff is cosmetic, and then some of it runs deeper - more open Board processes, for example. But I wonder if it's something that we need to think harder about, something that a consultant's review will never pick up.
It's not 'burn down the joint' or 'sack Clyne/Raelene', it's about watching the problems that all major sports are experiencing, and learning from the mistakes being made. There's an opportunity for rugby here, I think, though I doubt it will be taken.
And yes, I'm bored and we need some rugby to talk about. Should we extend Super Rugby to January?
.
The workings of Cricket Australia and their role in the Cape Town fiasco (amongst other things) is a big focus of that book, and it appears to me there are a few real lessons you can draw about sports administration in general.
CA suffers many of the same problems that RA seems to - a focus on the professional game has alienated the grassroots, a domestic competition structure that works against high performance goals, a lack of transparency, a loss of trust and good will, amongst other things.
It makes me wonder if the best practice model for sports administration that has been accepted over the last decade or so is flawed. That being - independent board of directors, a separation of the professional and participatory arms of the game, an increasing professionalisation of 'the pathway' for young players, a decreased reliance on traditional clubs, and a focus on revenue (particularly TV revenue) to drive performance outcomes across all levels.
Not all of these are bad things, and you could make an argument that many or all are necessary in 2019 to survive in a competitive landscape. But it does seem that the major sports (who have all adopted most of these values) are all suffering from the same maladies that I outlined above.
Brett Papworth and his ilk are by no means a rugby-only problem. It's symptomatic of professional sport in Australia, where the traditional stakeholders feel increasingly left behind by modern structures.
I'm not sure how you fix the model, but there are changes that definitely need to be made. I think a few practices of Government need to be introduced - more transparency, better coverage of day-to-day investment and routines, and a focus on sharing the spoils of the game with all participants.
I want to know the work DOs are doing in Western Sydney. I want to know when the Waratahs are doing a school clinic. I want to see what some of the staff at RA actually do - I'm sure it's something, but I don't really know what.
Some of this stuff is cosmetic, and then some of it runs deeper - more open Board processes, for example. But I wonder if it's something that we need to think harder about, something that a consultant's review will never pick up.
It's not 'burn down the joint' or 'sack Clyne/Raelene', it's about watching the problems that all major sports are experiencing, and learning from the mistakes being made. There's an opportunity for rugby here, I think, though I doubt it will be taken.
And yes, I'm bored and we need some rugby to talk about. Should we extend Super Rugby to January?
.
I know, I was being facetious. It's a stupid idea that I wholly expect to be adopted in the next Super Rugby restructure.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Ahhh. So Brett Papworth and his ilk are a problem but Clyne/Raelene are not.
I'm not even a Pappy fan but so long as we're identifying people as a "problem" then let's go ahead and call out rugby's Toff boys and their ilk as a problem.
You know who they are … and, sport-wise at least, they're a rugby-only problem.
The simple difference between Papworth and Clyne (if you want to throw in Castle or Cheika … well, as they say in Thailand, "up to you") … is that the latter is responsible for the direction and outcomes of the Australian game.
This should be held to account. When the performance in the job not up to scratch, they should be sacked. No one's crying if Larkham or Grey are "moved on" after recent wallaby results - and for which it is Cheika who is actually on the hook.
Why should Clyne keep his seat after the shitshow he has presided over. The sooner he is gone, the better.
BTW - Happy new year, everyone!