Australian Rugby / RA

[John S]

Fuck me. The hypocrisy of NFJ never ceases to amaze me. The last time this bloke was on a Rugby Board, he used the NSWRU funds as a personal bank signing off loans to mates.

You're not wrong. He's a nice enough bloke, I've met him at some corporate events over the years, but I'm not sure he's a good thing for the RA board. (Happy to be wrong though)

 

[Braveheart81]

I've started listening and he states early that get club rugby right, get the Wallabies right and the middle looks after itself.

But I think that's the crux of it. Everyone's invested so heavily in the middle (and locked it away from the masses), that it's skewed priorities.

The bit in the middle is clearly the most complex though.

Even what would be considered the best leagues in the world effectively run at a loss and rely on either an injection of funds from team owners (UK, France, Japan) or the national Rugby Union (Australia, NZ) to pay the shortfall.

 

[barbarian]

What's the endgame though? This is the thing with sport. What are you actually trying to achieve?

Let's say RA get their shit together somehow, we settle on a structure that works and is relatively popular. Cash coming from every orifice. But we have a weak national side and don't win many games. Will we be happy then? I doubt it.

There is no magical solution here that will make everyone happy. Look at the NRL and AFL. Wildly successful leagues in many ways, but are their fans happy with the direction of the code? Sometimes, but not often.

Sport is always going to be a mess of compromises, good and bad decisions, self-interest, emotion. We could have the most amazing RA administration but if Bernard Foley kicks 1/7 and we lose a Bledisloe game by a point then we are all still ropeable.

Through all of this you have to consider it in the way that you relate to the game. Personally, I'm all for strong grassroots but a Wallaby win gives me a week-long glow of happiness. That's what matters to me. I understand there's an element of chicken-and-egg about it, but I am completely fine with a lot of money being spent on high performance.

This is a roundabout ramble with no point. But it helps me to think that when the Wallabies win, I couldn't give a rats who is on the Board or the latest financial figures etc. It's why I do this whole thing.

 

[fatprop]

I have always thought rugby should be modelled on the Cricket model

That is everything below the national team is designed to break even at best and at worst not bleed badly

Revenue (if any) comes from the Wobs

 

[Braveheart81]

I have always thought rugby should be modelled on the Cricket model

That is everything below the national team is designed to break even at best and at worst not bleed badly

Revenue (if any) comes from the Wobs

Super Rugby goes way closer to breaking even than Cricket Australia's domestic competitions.

 

[Adam84]

I have always thought rugby should be modelled on the Cricket model

That is everything below the national team is designed to break even at best and at worst not bleed badly

Revenue (if any) comes from the Wobs

First that would require World Rugby to establish a proper rugby calendar which promote the international aspect of the game and allow the sufficient revenue flow, until then it cant happen

 

[Dan54]

I have always thought rugby should be modelled on the Cricket model

That is everything below the national team is designed to break even at best and at worst not bleed badly

Revenue (if any) comes from the Wobs

I would think that is general rule, watched Impey the NZRU chairman say the smae thing the other night on a tv rugby show, basically said that NZ or the ABs pay for NZ rugby from top to bottom in one way or another.

 

[Dan54]

What's the endgame though? This is the thing with sport. What are you actually trying to achieve?

Let's say RA get their shit together somehow, we settle on a structure that works and is relatively popular. Cash coming from every orifice. But we have a weak national side and don't win many games. Will we be happy then? I doubt it.

There is no magical solution here that will make everyone happy. Look at the NRL and AFL. Wildly successful leagues in many ways, but are their fans happy with the direction of the code? Sometimes, but not often.

Sport is always going to be a mess of compromises, good and bad decisions, self-interest, emotion. We could have the most amazing RA administration but if Bernard Foley kicks 1/7 and we lose a Bledisloe game by a point then we are all still ropeable.

Through all of this you have to consider it in the way that you relate to the game. Personally, I'm all for strong grassroots but a Wallaby win gives me a week-long glow of happiness. That's what matters to me. I understand there's an element of chicken-and-egg about it, but I am completely fine with a lot of money being spent on high performance.

This is a roundabout ramble with no point. But it helps me to think that when the Wallabies win, I couldn't give a rats who is on the Board or the latest financial figures etc. It's why I do this whole thing.

Bang on Barb, even JON said when he ran Aus rugby they made mistakes, but because the Wallabies were winning noone noticed or commented!

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I have always thought rugby should be modelled on the Cricket model

That is everything below the national team is designed to break even at best and at worst not bleed badly

Revenue (if any) comes from the Wobs

So how do we go about this? Do we look to lower the salary cap of our Super Rugby teams and change their focus from one of being the primary selection vehicle for the Wallabies and switch them to one of a primary talent retention vehicle with the goal of shipping our best off overseas?

 

[Quick Hands]

The bit in the middle is clearly the most complex though.

Even what would be considered the best leagues in the world effectively run at a loss and rely on either an injection of funds from team owners (UK, France, Japan) or the national Rugby Union (Australia, NZ) to pay the shortfall.

We have too many layers in the middle though which increases complexity. I think that it's quite apparent that the game of rugby in Australia isn't big enough to support Super Rugby and NRC and possibly it never was. The solution is to have one layer in the middle which supports the Wallabies and is supported by strong club rugby competitions below.

To my mind that's a national domestic league and it's definitely not pan-continental Super Rugby.

 

[Aurelius]

I think the solution for Australia is relatively straightforward: invest in the clubs, get the right domestic provincial competition, whether that be three or four teams, find a way of how you pay for that through television and you’ll have a strong national team.

I was thinking about this a little earlier. How many truly successful international teams from around the world - in any sport - have been produced from just three or four teams at the second-tier level?

The All Blacks ever since the start of the SANZAAR era have had five teams in Super Rugby. Bradman's Invincibles had five Sheffield Shield teams to draw on (Tasmania wasn't admitted until the 70s). The Dream Team of basketball? They had the whole of the NBA to support them. Every great soccer team has had a world-class club competition - and I'm not sure when there's ever been a requirement for players to play in their country to represent it. So the idea that with just three or four provincial sides Australian rugby can produce a world-beating Wallabies team - I suppose it's not impossible, but it runs counter to history and depends on Australia unearthing a remarkable pool of talent at just the right time.

So I think it's pretty much inevitable that the Wallabies will have to open themselves up to selecting overseas-based players if they're going to ensure their competitiveness. How long can they afford to keep leaving world-class Europe-based players on the pine while they get whipped by the All Blacks on a regular basis?

 

[barbarian]

So the idea that with just three or four provincial sides Australian rugby can produce a world-beating Wallabies team - I suppose it's not impossible, but it runs counter to history and depends on Australia unearthing a remarkable pool of talent at just the right time.

Your point is fair enough, but the Wallabies 1998-2003 would fit the example you are looking for of a world-beating side coming from 3 teams.

If that's how we're going to be, I'll take it. Middling teams with a golden era every 25 years or so. Could do worse.

 

[wamberal]

Bradman's Invincibles had five Sheffield Shield teams to draw on (Tasmania wasn't admitted until the 70s).

WA was not admitted until 1947/48, right at the end of the Bradman era.


On the general point you are making, we certainly must maintain a solid cadre of good talent here in Oz. Whether we have enough to make up three, four, or five (or more) strong teams is a matter for conjecture.


It could be argued that the single most important thing would be for our best players to compete consistently against the most competitive and talented players that they can. That seems to imply a cross Tasman competition, to my small mind, anyway.

 

[Aurelius]

Your point is fair enough, but the Wallabies 1998-2003 would fit the example you are looking for of a world-beating side coming from 3 teams.

If that's how we're going to be, I'll take it. Middling teams with a golden era every 25 years or so. Could do worse.

Cool. All we need to do is clone John Eales three or four times and we're sorted!

 

[Braveheart81]

I think it is pretty clear that the main competition that the players you are picking your test side from has to be world class.

Whilst it would be better having 5 teams playing in that competition than 3 or 4, I think it is the standard of the comp more than the number of teams playing that matters.

Our biggest issue at the moment is not the number of teams we have to pick from it's that they're not very good relative to our competitors. We have one good team.

 

[Aurelius]

WA was not admitted until 1947/48, right at the end of the Bradman era.

True. There was an insane amount of talent in that side and it was a long time before any Sandgropers got selected on a regular basis anyway.

But it does indicate that you're pretty much trying to catch lightening in a bottle selecting from a relatively small selection base.

Going off on that tangent, though ... did anyone else read Ian Chappell's article about the Greatest XIs from New South Wales vs Barbados? What a game that would be.

 

[KOB1987]

Your point is fair enough, but the Wallabies 1998-2003 would fit the example you are looking for of a world-beating side coming from 3 teams.

If that's how we're going to be, I'll take it. Middling teams with a golden era every 25 years or so. Could do worse.

And the 1991 Wallabies only drew from 2 teams really

 

[RugbyReg]

I have always thought rugby should be modelled on the Cricket model

That is everything below the national team is designed to break even at best and at worst not bleed badly

Revenue (if any) comes from the Wobs

It's a pity we don't have an India to help fund that for us

 

[dru]

I think it is pretty clear that the main competition that the players you are picking your test side from has to be world class.

Whilst it would be better having 5 teams playing in that competition than 3 or 4, I think it is the standard of the comp more than the number of teams playing that matters.

Our biggest issue at the moment is not the number of teams we have to pick from it's that they're not very good relative to our competitors. We have one good team.

It has not been working.

 

[Froggy]

The big difference with cricket is all the other forms of the game. Yes, Shield is a massive loser, but you get a whole lot more players with contracts for one day cricket and 20/20, plus domestically there's the Big Bash keeping plenty of players in a living, and the ability to go overseas and play IPL or English County Cricket, and still be very much part of the Australian scene. Possibly some things to learn there.