Australian Rugby / RA

[Bullrush]

Really? Aside from the completely illogical nature of that statement...

Off the top of my head I can give you a few examples where that is simply not the case...

The Brumbies' four Wallaby hookers last year...

The Brumbies' four Wallaby locks...

The Rebels' three Wallaby tighthead props next year.

I was using the example given of a 19-year-old 3rd choice.

My point is that if you are not good to make a competitive Super Rugby squad, with however many tight 5 players they want to carry, then you are not good enough.

If Australia had 3 Super Rugby teams each with 4 hookers, you need to be one of the best 12 hookers to get a Super Rugby contract. If not, you can play in the pro comp below that or try your luck overseas. But if you want to be the best and you want to be a Wallaby - this is the best place to be.

 

[Viking]

Burkey explained why this doesn’t wash on the same podcast. Gits can think that because he’s always going to attract top dollar where he has played. Times have changed and the potential quality reserve isn’t going to sit around and offer competition in 2023, hes going to head overseas to play regularly and earn starter money.

What’s going to happen to the 19yr old talent that’s playing 3rd choice. Not play for 5yrs and play club rugby? Meanwhile overseas talent has 100 games pro experience in this time. Then all of a sudden we have a 25yr old with with the experience of a 21yr old in Europe and spends the next 3/4yrs learning the finer details of the game that the training pitch can’t offer.

It’s just no feasible in 2023. We need more games in our players. Looking at the Welsh team that beat us, they aren’t more talented, not athletically better, they are just more refined pros from systems that keep offering them opportunities to learn at the highest level.

We have been found out in Super Rugby as professionalism increases overseas. We celebrate 100 Super games like it’s a lifetime achievement. 100 games, it’s not even mentioned in the NRL and overseas pros are racking up 200/300 club appearances. No wonder we are so bereft of ideas on the pitch and unable to adapt with tactics on the fly. NZ is fairly naive as well, they have managed to keep the wolves away by having a little bit more money, a slightly better pro system and the most gifted athletes in rugby. But rugby smarts missing a plenty across both countries

Nice post.

People are so caught up on the quality of the super rugby teams. But I think reducing the teams is such a short-term fix.

More teams with more games is the answer. Sure, in the short-term the quality will drop but over the long-term if players are playing more games then the quality will only get better over time.

Look at the French top 14 as an example. 10 years ago the quality was terrible but now it's better then super rugby (or close to it). It's full of foreign players to help that but ultimately the French national team has reaped the benefits of that.

This is what we should be aiming for. A short-term drop in quality for a long-term goal.

In regards to having a non-domestic competition, then I can't see why we couldn't have a Super Rugby Cup against NZ/Japan/SA as a southern hemisphere version to the European Cup.

 

[wamberal99]

Ironically Bernie Larkham basically endorsed it in a recent interview. Remembering his experience in Ireland too.

Blow it all up and start again.

 

[Members Section]

Nice post.

People are so caught up on the quality of the super rugby teams. But I think reducing the teams is such a short-term fix.

More teams with more games is the answer. Sure, in the short-term the quality will drop but over the long-term if players are playing more games then the quality will only get better over time.

Look at the French top 14 as an example. 10 years ago the quality was terrible but now it's better then super rugby (or close to it). It's full of foreign players to help that but ultimately the French national team has reaped the benefits of that.

This is what we should be aiming for. A short-term drop in quality for a long-term goal.

In regards to having a non-domestic competition, then I can't see why we couldn't have a Super Rugby Cup against NZ/Japan/SA as a southern hemisphere version to the European Cup.

YES,

have a 3 tier "Heineken cup" then you can have your
4 nz 2 aus & 2 jap sides
div 2 so on & so on

 

[Viking]

Ironically Bernie Larkham basically endorsed it in a recent interview. Remembering his experience in Ireland too.

I think it's only the part where they don't guarantee the Brumbies stay in Canberra that's the problem. Giving RA the power to relocate the team at will is madness.

All the other areas around player movement and shared data and resource seem like the Brumbies are on board with.

 

[Wilson]

Ironically Bernie Larkham basically endorsed it in a recent interview. Remembering his experience in Ireland too.

As I understand it the opposition isn't to centralisation, just to the model (or lack of detailed model) being put forward by Rugby Australia. Certainly I can't see why or how the states could trust RA on form without a well developed plan being put forward.

I don't think it helps that Waugh's preferred 3rd tier is an elevated club comp that no one else thinks is a good idea (at least compared to Super AU/NRC models), but that's just speculation on my part.

 

[hoggy]

Well you could even have the 5 current teams form the basis of the national competition, and create 2 new brands for the Super Rugby tournament. It'd be like in cricket where the Australian squad is largely separate from the big bash and other domestic competitions.

It's not my preference for the long term, but I do think for the next 4 years we probably need to focus on the Wallabies as the number 1 priority, simply because if they perform well in 2025 and 2027 it could quickly save the sport as a major code in this country. Longer term I think the primary focus should be on what sits beneath the Wallabies - rugby needs other competitions and events that attract general interest, regardless of how the Wallabies are doing. International rugby is only going to become more competitive, and it's not realistic that we could always be in the top 2 or 3 teams, even with better structures, player development etc.

This is part of the dilemma facing the game, we need a better structure under the Wallabies to attract more people to the game. As the International game develops more, you won't be able to rely on enough Wallaby wins to generate interest.

Alternatively the problem with a short term focus on the Wallabies, is it sounds suspiciously like a drug addict, one more hit and I promise to change.

 

[Viking]

I've said it once and I'll say it again. If getting the wallabies winning again is the primary objective then you have to scrap the Giteau law and let the flood gates open.

How handy would Scott Sio have been this RWC.

Then all these players who left at there peak like the in-form Sean McMahon who literally just found his feet at Test level buggered off overseas when in peak form. If these guys were still selected we'd be winning more games.

Maybe we'd even lose less players who have chosen to play for rival nations like Dempsey or that giant lock who's going to play for France now.

 

[Slim 293]

As I understand it the opposition isn't to centralisation, just to the model (or lack of detailed model) being put forward by Rugby Australia. Certainly I can't see why or how the states could trust Rugby Australia on form without a well developed plan being put forward.

I don't think it helps that Waugh's preferred 3rd tier is an elevated club comp that no one else thinks is a good idea (at least compared to Super AU/NRC models), but that's just speculation on my part.

Also, it's paywall'd but...

ACT Brumbies coach Stephen Larkham calls for NRC revival​

'COVID wrecked the foundation of the game': Push for player development overhaul

The World Cup failure has highlighted rugby's structural issues.

www.canberratimes.com.au

 

[Wilson]

Doran has more detail around the centralisation debate:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706779126169018788

This seems to be the long and short of the problem:

Every review conducted by the Australian Rugby Union (now RA) since 2008 has pointed towards becoming more aligned, The Roar understands.

The issue is, RA has largely kept the review findings confidential and not engaged with the member unions.

Rugby insiders believe trust and respect are two of the biggest challenges facing the governing body’s desire to usher through reform.

With the Brumbies worried about being moved, the Force still burnt from being cut and the Reds in a reasonably strong and financially stable position off the back of their assets all 3 states feel they have something to lose and need more to go on before they can trust RA.

 

[half]

Australian rugby has reached its lowest point. How did it get here?

Pundits had suggested a strong World Cup performance was vital for the health of the game. The horror result in France will put even more pressure on the sport to reform to stay relevant.

theconversation.com

And this article pretty much hits the bullseye

Brilliant article, and I would also add this one.

This is the brutal reality: There are Aussies desperate to see Wallabies fail, and many want to see the sport's complete demise

There are reasons. Of course there are. Hundreds of them, at least. Eddie Jones? He's a reason, for sure. Say what you like about…

www.theroar.com.au

 

[Members Section]

Doran has more detail around the centralisation debate:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706779126169018788

This seems to be the long and short of the problem:


With the Brumbies worried about being moved, the Force still burnt from being cut and the Reds in a reasonably strong and financially stable position off the back of their assets all 3 states feel they have something to lose and need more to go on before they can trust Rugby Australia.

hang on so Nsw & Qld have 3 votes Wa, brums, rv 2 & the players 1

so atm a egm would win
Qld 3, act 2, WA 2 = 7
Nsw 3 RV 2 players 1 = 6

 

[HooperPocockSmith]

God, the longer this has gone on, the worse the Phil Waugh appointment looks. He's going to be nothing more than a mouthpiece for McLennan. I wonder what value someone like David Gallop would add?

 

[Wallaby Man]

Are you saying that if a player is 3rd choice for the Waratahs, they should be able to be 1st choice somewhere else in Australia?

This is already happening and all it seems to do is pull down the whole level of competition.

If you are 3rd choice here in Super Rugby, it should mean you are not good enough. If a club overseas wants to pay you big money to come and be their 1st choice then so be it. But playing for the Wallabies should mean something too and if a player doesn't want to stay and earn that privilege, let them go.

Again, another professional competition is needed under Super Rugby but keeping or creating more Super Rugby clubs so less talented or skilled players can stay and earn a living doesn't make sense to me.

Isn’t the whole theory of less teams means whoever is getting a starting gig at the clubs removed will play second fiddle at the consolidated club, therefore building standards? I genuinely don’t think it works like that in 2023, because nobody wants to be a reserve. Also the 3rd choice option was pointing out when does the young talented guy get exposed to high level rugby? If the theory of consolidation works with depth everywhere, when is the 20yr old going to get his experiences? Is he to simply wait till 25yrs? But surely by then he’s deficient in professional rugby experience and surely isn’t going to be happy to sit around that long on 3rd string money to wait his turn. There is just far too many options these days to facilitate that thinking anymore. The young talented guy will head to France, Japan or the NRL (early days). The angus Crichton example is already famous for the Waratahs telling him he will get an opportunity at 22/23 when trying to sign him at 18 and that he would play club rugby. Souths jumped in and said he’d immediately be in contention for selection, plus the extra money on offer. He’s mentioned if Tahs had sold a vision of playing sooner he would of signed

 

[Wallaby Man]

Doran has more detail around the centralisation debate:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706779126169018788

This seems to be the long and short of the problem:


With the Brumbies worried about being moved, the Force still burnt from being cut and the Reds in a reasonably strong and financially stable position off the back of their assets all 3 states feel they have something to lose and need more to go on before they can trust Rugby Australia.

I think we will see consolidation. Can see RA handing perpetual licenses to both Brumbies and Force to get this over the line.

 

[LeCheese]

Doran has more detail around the centralisation debate:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706779126169018788

This seems to be the long and short of the problem:
Every review conducted by the Australian Rugby Union (now Rugby Australia) since 2008 has pointed towards becoming more aligned, The Roar understands.

The issue is, Rugby Australia has largely kept the review findings confidential and not engaged with the member unions.

Rugby insiders believe trust and respect are two of the biggest challenges facing the governing body’s desire to usher through reform

With the Brumbies worried about being moved, the Force still burnt from being cut and the Reds in a reasonably strong and financially stable position off the back of their assets all 3 states feel they have something to lose and need more to go on before they can trust Rugby Australia.

Yeah, should this be believed, the distrust from clubs is very understandable. Hugely concerning.

With the Brumbies worried about being moved, the Force still burnt from being cut and the Reds in a reasonably strong and financially stable position off the back of their assets all 3 states feel they have something to lose and need more to go on before they can trust Rugby Australia.

It's also not a surprise that the Tahs, who may have the most to gain / are already most aligned (at least administratively and with personnel) have kept quiet

 

[Wallaby Man]

God, the longer this has gone on, the worse the Phil Waugh appointment looks. He's going to be nothing more than a mouthpiece for McLennan. I wonder what value someone like David Gallop would add?

I don’t mind Phil Waugh, genuinely believe he has his heart in the right place, but so question his appointment because of his ties to the old boys network.

 

[HooperPocockSmith]

hang on so Nsw & Qld have 3 votes Wa, brums, rv 2 & the players 1

so atm a egm would win
Qld 3, act 2, WA 2 = 7
Nsw 3 RV 2 players 1 = 6

It seems like QLD, WA and ACTs reservations over centralisation are pretty reasonable. I hope that some clarity around these issues will resolve their aversion. It'd be interesting to see how it works in Ireland, where you have a financial powerhouse like Leinster working alongside Connacht.

 

[Wilson]

hang on so Nsw & Qld have 3 votes Wa, brums, rv 2 & the players 1

so atm a egm would win
Qld 3, act 2, WA 2 = 7
Nsw 3 RV 2 players 1 = 6

South Australia, Northern Territory and Tasmania all have one vote each as well.

It's also not clear what WA's voting intention around an EGM is, only QLD's and ACT's is stated outright, with the Western Force being listed as having "strong reservations about a move towards a more centralised system".

 

[Wilson]

Yeah, should this be believed, the distrust from clubs is very understandable. Hugely concerning.


It's also not a surprise that the Tahs, who may have the most to gain / are already most aligned (at least administratively and with personnel) have kept quiet

Yeah, all the reporting seems to suggest the tahs are basically dead in the water and will take anything to keep them afloat right now.