Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Except for Ireland...
Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
Except for Ireland...
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
I'd front my $100m for that model - the NSW and Qld Barbarians sides effectively being the 7th & 8th teams, but with more creative names.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
Speaking from a NSW perspective you could base the 2nd NSW in either North Sydney or if you want a more regional base somewhere like Wollongong or Newcastle.
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
or Parra
I really can't see how these points make any difference.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
I'd love for a team based in Western Sydney. I'd even suggest taking games to other locations like Campbelltown and Penrith. However, as someone who grew up in the general region and lives somewhat still adjacent to it for that to be viable it would require a lot of work that I cannot see RA being interested or capable of. I mean when I started playing 25 years ago there were 2 clubs within range of my place. Today it's still those same two clubs.
Tomthumb
Chilla Wilson (44)
What does this have to do with having a centralized model?
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Because a centralised model - the centrepiece of which is a national competition - would cost a helluva lot to set up and run until (if) it becomes self-sufficient.
is he? I believe he came from pretty working class background? Old man was a plumber or tradie? Phil picked up a scholarship because he happened to be good and footy and they clearly has opened up doors for him, which is actually one of the often untalked about benefits of rugby.
Tomthumb
Chilla Wilson (44)
Based on What? Ireland, Wales, South Africa, New Zealand etc all play in multi nation comps
It's simply about clear pathways to the most important team; The National team
One of the biggest issues with the NRC is that RA didn't invest money into it (money they didn't have mind you).
They didn't market it by any means leaving most of it to Foxsports and driven by Maloney, Swain and Hoiles to drive.
They didn't make it a true High Performance program. I don't reckon the 'next tier' got any real added advantage in terms of performance or S&C etc than they would in club land - largely.
Still, the quality of rugby it produced and the players it helped showcase and provide a platform for players such as Tupou, Hodge, Kerevi, etc etc etc.
Taking it back some years, perhaps the biggest turning point in the game was the withering away of the 2003 RWC surplus that went somewhere pretty quickly.
They didn't market it by any means leaving most of it to Foxsports and driven by Maloney, Swain and Hoiles to drive.
They didn't make it a true High Performance program. I don't reckon the 'next tier' got any real added advantage in terms of performance or S&C etc than they would in club land - largely.
Still, the quality of rugby it produced and the players it helped showcase and provide a platform for players such as Tupou, Hodge, Kerevi, etc etc etc.
Taking it back some years, perhaps the biggest turning point in the game was the withering away of the 2003 RWC surplus that went somewhere pretty quickly.
RemainingInTheGame
Herbert Moran (7)
Is there an updated Rugby AU strategy (or vision / direction) that is available?
I found this one from 2015 (thank you Hunter Rugby!):
Australian Rugby Strategy 2016-2020
Most successful organisations are pretty clear with stakeholders (staff, customers, investors etc..) about where they are going and how they are going to get there, but I can't see anything on the Rugby Australia site - and worryingly it doesn't appear anything has been available for over 8 years?
I found this one from 2015 (thank you Hunter Rugby!):
Australian Rugby Strategy 2016-2020
Most successful organisations are pretty clear with stakeholders (staff, customers, investors etc..) about where they are going and how they are going to get there, but I can't see anything on the Rugby Australia site - and worryingly it doesn't appear anything has been available for over 8 years?
Goosestep
Jim Clark (26)
Ah yes those Machiavellian Shute shield “powerbrokers”
Not sure about that. I know his older brother went to Shore. I think the Waugh family was doing OK. But that's not really relevant I suppose.
Wallaby Man
Nev Cottrell (35)
Biggest issue RA have is they don’t have control over the entities that technically sit below them. They have no control over NSW, QLD, WA, Vic, Tas etc. they can exert pressure with some states due to funding but there is some that know that RA need the influence as a voting block to affect change, hence why some decisions happen and others don’t. Equally with NSW there is no control over the SS and also nationally there there is little control over the schools system. They are all run by independent bodies. This is the issue other countries don’t have, there is little control our governing bodies has without appeasing voting blocks etc.
This is why the sale of assets might be key to RA, there is a chance we can change the current model by effecting buying out the influence they have and changing the way things are conducted.
The way things are is why RA is adamant that when the wallabies preform well then everyone wins. Because when the wallabies win, it gives less credence for other entities to vote against decisions that help the greater good. But when the wallabies aren’t performing well then it gives reason for other entities to look after their own patch, with the potential diminishing returns which on a federated model is the natural thing to do
This is why the sale of assets might be key to RA, there is a chance we can change the current model by effecting buying out the influence they have and changing the way things are conducted.
The way things are is why RA is adamant that when the wallabies preform well then everyone wins. Because when the wallabies win, it gives less credence for other entities to vote against decisions that help the greater good. But when the wallabies aren’t performing well then it gives reason for other entities to look after their own patch, with the potential diminishing returns which on a federated model is the natural thing to do
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
I suppose they have some form of control, in one respect, I was pleased to be told that players who want to be selected in our youth rep teams have to have been signed by a Super Rugby franchise. Let the leaguies go and play league and leave our international pathways alone.
Wallaby Man
Nev Cottrell (35)
RA runs the u20s but not the Aus school boys. Hence why we regularly get players selected that end up in the NRL at that age. The Aus School Boys panel might be more fragmented from RA collaboration than the SS is from NSWRU at times. It’s a shame really.
What RA have done in recent years is collaborate with a wealthy conglomerate of businessmen that donate to the Australian rugby fund that allows us to contract some school boy players at wages that are competitive with NRL junior salaries. Some of the recent names of this list have included Tane Edmed, Will Harrison and Pasitoa. All would have most likely signed NRL wider squad deals. It’s allowed us to retain some players that previously our Super Rugby teams would have been able to keep. The cycle only broke 4/5years ago, which has coincidentally coincided with improved u20 results at national level. So hopefully when these guys are 25/26 we will see an uptick in results.
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
The current schoolboys pathway(s) are ridiculous and convoluted. It used to be there was an Australian Schoolboys side selected by the ASRU and that was it. I don’t think there is enough space to try to explain how it now works so I will try to shorthand it, and I’ll be spinning it from a NSW perspective. Nowadays the pinnacle is called the Australian Schools and Under 18s side. To make that side you need to be in one of the U18 development pathways aligned with the super rugby franchises. In NSW that is referred to as Gen Blue, but wait they actually pick 2 sides, so around 40 players. Same with Queensland, and the other 3 franchises have one each. That pathway gets first dibs, just doing some rough maths around 130 players all up. These kids don’t need to be at school, just under 18. If you are at school and not selected in one of those teams you may then be selected in one of the state ‘schoolboy’ sides, again in NSW there are 2 of those, and then a SJRU side, and a Barbarians side. Two more from Qld and then the other states throw in combined sides usually. This lot all play a comp, and from this is the ‘Australian Schoolboys’ side that was selected during the school holidays. Which excludes the supposed actual 130 approx best players in the age group. They will go on a tour to New Caledonia or something. The ‘pinnacle‘ team is selected after all the feeder teams play each other over the next couple of months, and that’s who will play the equivalent NZ etc team. In fairness this system was designed to bring us into line with the rest of the rugby world, somewhat belatedly, and RA do oversee the program.
Jimmy_Crouch
Peter Johnson (47)
It due to the fact kids in the UK finish a year older you bellend. Our schoolboys team were getting bashing by kids older then them. That is why they changed it.