Rebels3
Jim Lenehan (48)
When did reducing the pro teams suddenly mean the wallabies perform better? Is it because of Ben Darwin’s cohesion theory? Other than that I don’t see much evidence. People point at back in the day, but is that just a decline because other teams have usurped us? it’s also dull to ignore the fact that the better they have become so has the professional opportunities in these countries, so works against the theory. How do we explain that Argentina have just finished a season with their worst ever losing run happened in their history, funnily enough under one team. Darwin’s theory doesn’t actually focus on reduction or loss of opportunity, it focuses on funneling talent into minimal bases. It gets lost in translation.
Ireland 10/15yrs ago were asking questions about their ability to compete against other teams and looked at cutting their teams down, the expert that came in told them it would be a backward step and that it wouldnt provide what’s required to compete in the modern world game. His reasoning stated that there needs to be 120 pro players to sustain a competitive national team in the modern game because injuries and form dictate performance more now in a hyper professional world. Put in simple terms if you have 2 teams it takes 2 injuries and suddenly your club level reserve guy is starting a major international, not ideal.
To me the question shouldn’t be reducing team, that ignores so many aspects like lack of opportunities and lack of visibility which are massive drivers for player retention and also encouraging people into the game. Perhaps the model has to change where like in Ireland there is more a clear definition of what a teams purpose is. Obviously all teams aspire to win however Connacht in Ireland is seen almost as a development union, ulster somewhere in the middle and Munster & Leinster are high performance unions that attract the highest level of funds. Maybe we need to be at the stage where the Waratahs are the Leinster of our system (where they theoretically should never go through a rebuilding phase) QLD the Munster, Brumbies the Ulster and Rebels the Connacht. Your Hodges, Uelese’s, Jones, etc. spend formative years at the Rebels then get encouraged to head East to Sydney, etc. which will see Darwin’s cohesion theory work in practice as QLD and NSW would end up with most the Wallabies. Equally talented players that can’t break the first teams of NSW and QLD are encouraged to head to Melb or ACT for opportunity. It could mean twice the amount of money is spent on Tahs than Brums or Rebels but you’d have your largest market engaged which brings others positives.
Ireland 10/15yrs ago were asking questions about their ability to compete against other teams and looked at cutting their teams down, the expert that came in told them it would be a backward step and that it wouldnt provide what’s required to compete in the modern world game. His reasoning stated that there needs to be 120 pro players to sustain a competitive national team in the modern game because injuries and form dictate performance more now in a hyper professional world. Put in simple terms if you have 2 teams it takes 2 injuries and suddenly your club level reserve guy is starting a major international, not ideal.
To me the question shouldn’t be reducing team, that ignores so many aspects like lack of opportunities and lack of visibility which are massive drivers for player retention and also encouraging people into the game. Perhaps the model has to change where like in Ireland there is more a clear definition of what a teams purpose is. Obviously all teams aspire to win however Connacht in Ireland is seen almost as a development union, ulster somewhere in the middle and Munster & Leinster are high performance unions that attract the highest level of funds. Maybe we need to be at the stage where the Waratahs are the Leinster of our system (where they theoretically should never go through a rebuilding phase) QLD the Munster, Brumbies the Ulster and Rebels the Connacht. Your Hodges, Uelese’s, Jones, etc. spend formative years at the Rebels then get encouraged to head East to Sydney, etc. which will see Darwin’s cohesion theory work in practice as QLD and NSW would end up with most the Wallabies. Equally talented players that can’t break the first teams of NSW and QLD are encouraged to head to Melb or ACT for opportunity. It could mean twice the amount of money is spent on Tahs than Brums or Rebels but you’d have your largest market engaged which brings others positives.
