Australian Rugby / RA

[stillmissit]

Geez, talk about naming names!

I know but he and Bob Dwyer are about it.. Never met Whiteley he was my friends next door neighbour when they were kids.
Bugger it, now I just have to repeat ad infinitum...

 

[dru]

I know but he and Bob Dwyer are about it.. Never met Whiteley he was my friends next door neighbour when they were kids.
Bugger it, now I just have to repeat ad infinitum...

in about 2008, travelling through Wales sipping Brains at the pub - I was amazed at how the pub rugby talk was dominated by Dwyer. Not much positive but they were fixated. It brought me back to rugby.

 

[Derpus]

Wouldn't move to England. Certainly not any of the major centres at least. And even then. Driving on some of those country roads can be perilous at times. Was in Wiltshire and Somerset in September and while it was lovely it is also very lacking.

If you are cursed with the fate of moving to England I'd recommend Bristol.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

If you are cursed with the fate of moving to England I'd recommend Bristol

Bristol is a solid call.

 

[Dan54]

I think you will have better weather than I had. I felt the same and all my friends were saying 'don't be a mean bastard and take bus.class" I reluctantly stumped up but didn't regret it, at 77 and 6' 4" I slept stretched out in those beds. I also split the trip in Japan for 5 days on the way there and 2 on the way back, loved it.
Enjoy your trip Dan, post an occasional update. Will you be watching any rugby?
This is a bit of a filler till rugby starts up!

Well I paid extra to get extra legroom etc, i not quite as tall as you mate, only 6.1 and as Mrs is only 5ft it still a waste of some money.
One of reasons I going is best mate from Aus is actually a Welshman, so we meeting up over there and doing some club rugby etc.
And cheers, I will sure be trying to enjoy.

 

[John S]

Green and Gold Travel?

 

[stillmissit]

Well I paid extra to get extra legroom etc, i not quite as tall as you mate, only 6.1 and as Mrs is only 5ft it still a waste of some money.
One of reasons I going is best mate from Aus is actually a Welshman, so we meeting up over there and doing some club rugby etc.
And cheers, I will sure be trying to enjoy.

No internationals Dan?

 

[Dan54]

No internationals Dan?

Naa mate originally was going to try and get tickets, then thought this one holiday rugby maybe can take a bit of a back seat (unless mate has got tickets to Wallabies and Wales) . Was going to actually joing up with AB supporter's group in France , but they were really just going places we have already been Add to that for about a week it would cost almost $30 grand for two of us. I will just enjoy holiday this time.

 

[stillmissit]

Naa mate originally was going to try and get tickets, then thought this one holiday rugby maybe can take a bit of a back seat (unless mate has got tickets to Wallabies and Wales) . Was going to actually joing up with AB supporter's group in France , but they were really just going places we have already been Add to that for about a week it would cost almost $30 grand for two of us. I will just enjoy holiday this time.

Good call on a farewell tour. I spent most of my time with old friends, some I hadn't seen in 53 years and didn't regret it, didn't even go to London.

 

[KOB1987]

Just back on this Super Rugby AU concept as the 3rd tier, one of the biggest challenges for RA is to keep the younger players in the game, and the way to do that is to offer more competitive professional contracts. Take that a step further, it's the grassroots products from NSW and Qld that need to be the centre of attention to stop them going to league or overseas. Also, to make this comp interesting there needs to be more than 4 teams, so I wondered if a solution is for Qld and NSW to have an age group team (say U21) as well as a open/senior one. Thus, there would be 8 teams as per below:

NSW - mostly club and non-Wallaby Tahs
NSW U21 - mostly academy
Qld - mostly club and non-Wallaby Reds
Qld U21 - mostly academy
Brumbies - mostly academy and non-Wallaby Brumbies
Force - mostly academy and non-Wallaby Forces
Melbourne - mix of club and academy
Drua - mix of academy and PI heritage club

Having written that, maybe something similar to the US college system in that the U21's players can play up to age 23 provided they were signed when under 21, and Melbourne get prioritised with the overflow of NSW/Qld players to help with their rebuild. Once these 'U21' players are on the open market a lot would go to other franchises, but the objective is to keep them in the game/system. Also use the U21 teams as a marketing tool to get a younger audience interested in the game.

 

[stillmissit]

Just back on this Super Rugby AU concept as the 3rd tier, one of the biggest challenges for RA is to keep the younger players in the game, and the way to do that is to offer more competitive professional contracts. Take that a step further, it's the grassroots products from NSW and Qld that need to be the centre of attention to stop them going to league or overseas. Also, to make this comp interesting there needs to be more than 4 teams, so I wondered if a solution is for Qld and NSW to have an age group team (say U21) as well as a open/senior one. Thus, there would be 8 teams as per below:

NSW - mostly club and non-Wallaby Tahs
NSW U21 - mostly academy
Qld - mostly club and non-Wallaby Reds
Qld U21 - mostly academy
Brumbies - mostly academy and non-Wallaby Brumbies
Force - mostly academy and non-Wallaby Forces
Melbourne - mix of club and academy
Drua - mix of academy and PI heritage club

Having written that, maybe something similar to the US college system in that the U21's players can play up to age 23 provided they were signed when under 21, and Melbourne get prioritised with the overflow of NSW/Qld players to help with their rebuild. Once these 'U21' players are on the open market a lot would go to other franchises, but the objective is to keep them in the game/system. Also use the U21 teams as a marketing tool to get a younger audience interested in the game.

i Like the idea KOB but I am wondering if this would overlap the club's games where these young players would normally be competing. Isn't it another effort at a 3rd tier of rugby but for youngsters and would it get support or money?
It would be better if the Universities built such a competition as they have the funds to pay for it. I think there are intra Uni rugby comps in the UK but not sure about that as it gets no coverage unlike the USA.

 

[KOB1987]

i Like the idea KOB but I am wondering if this would overlap the club's games where these young players would normally be competing. Isn't it another effort at a 3rd tier of rugby but for youngsters and would it get support or money?
It would be better if the Universities built such a competition as they have the funds to pay for it. I think there are intra Uni rugby comps in the UK but not sure about that as it gets no coverage unlike the USA.

I reckon there are actually too many colts teams at club level anyway (from a competition administration perspective). If this meant Shute clubs only had 2-3 colts teams instead of 3-4 but a pro pathway for the best players then it can only be a positive. I'm not sure if the dynamic is the same with Qld Hospital Cup clubs though.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I reckon there are actually too many colts teams at club level anyway (from a competition administration perspective). If this meant Shute clubs only had 2-3 colts teams instead of 3-4 but a pro pathway for the best players then it can only be a positive. I'm not sure if the dynamic is the same with Qld Hospital Cup clubs though.

Not sure removing 20 to 40 players from each club is actually that positive for the game here

Unless the reforms Sully talks about happens, aren't you just removing the base of the pyramid for all these teams?

 

[KOB1987]

Not sure removing 20 to 40 players from each club is actually that positive for the game here

Unless the reforms Sully talks about happens, aren't you just removing the base of the pyramid for all these teams?

Squad of 30 would be an average of 2-3 players from each club for the Sydney comp, call it 3 allowing for a few injuries. They aren't being removed, they are being paid to go into a better system. I thought afterwards it probably wouldn't even affect the number of teams based on that.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Squad of 30 would be an average of 2-3 players from each club for the Sydney comp, call it 3 allowing for a few injuries. They aren't being removed, they are being paid to go into a better system. I thought afterwards it probably wouldn't even affect the number of teams based on that.

Yeah, but by cutting teams you wouldn't be removing the top colts teams at each club, you'd be removing the bottom ones. So losing players at each end.

 

[KOB1987]

Yeah, but by cutting teams you wouldn't be removing the top colts teams at each club, you'd be removing the bottom ones. So losing players at each end.

Do we want a third tier or not? The players have to come from somewhere for it. Again, I realised it probably wouldn't affect the number of teams at most clubs, notwithstanding that the objective is to get more people playing/staying with rugby, particularly younger ones. If the solution is to just have the same level of interest and no pathway then that's a different argument.

 

[Wilson]

Just back on this Super Rugby AU concept as the 3rd tier, one of the biggest challenges for RA is to keep the younger players in the game, and the way to do that is to offer more competitive professional contracts. Take that a step further, it's the grassroots products from NSW and Qld that need to be the centre of attention to stop them going to league or overseas. Also, to make this comp interesting there needs to be more than 4 teams, so I wondered if a solution is for Qld and NSW to have an age group team (say U21) as well as a open/senior one. Thus, there would be 8 teams as per below:

NSW - mostly club and non-Wallaby Tahs
NSW U21 - mostly academy
Qld - mostly club and non-Wallaby Reds
Qld U21 - mostly academy
Brumbies - mostly academy and non-Wallaby Brumbies
Force - mostly academy and non-Wallaby Forces
Melbourne - mix of club and academy
Drua - mix of academy and PI heritage club

Having written that, maybe something similar to the US college system in that the U21's players can play up to age 23 provided they were signed when under 21, and Melbourne get prioritised with the overflow of NSW/Qld players to help with their rebuild. Once these 'U21' players are on the open market a lot would go to other franchises, but the objective is to keep them in the game/system. Also use the U21 teams as a marketing tool to get a younger audience interested in the game.

I don't think mixing in age grade teams works at all for a comp like this.

If you're doing it to offer more pro contracts to young players then doing it this way creates a massive imbalance for young talent with QLD and NSW capable of offering so many more places and potential game time in the early years. Eventually that opportunity dries up as players age out and plenty have to head elsewhere. Yes there will be some oppurtunity at the Force and Brumbies for them, but they've missed time developing in system in Perth or Canberra and are much more likely to take the money overseas then they otherwise would have been.

If you're doing it for interest in the comp (financial return effectively), I can't see it being worth the cost. Adding a few more teams might help to add a bit of interest overall, but the age grade sides are always going to be more poorly supported than they're state equivalents. Over time that's likely to get worse as the players move through them at a much faster rate.

If there is money for 2 extra sides it would be much better spent on something like a city/country approach for QLD and NSW, with both teams being full sides in their own right. It's going to drive more interest than age grade sides, hopefully with more money coming in as a result and teams that can be built around long term. From a development persepective it's much better aligned with the top sides and doesn't force QLD and NSW into a position where they are incentivised to (and need to) swallow up all the age grade talent.

The alternative if you want a focus on age grade is to run an under 21s comp alongside this. Start contracting the best 18-21 year olds in much greater numbers on base contracts and play them all as double headers with this Super AU comp. That offers better flow through the pathways and gives the age grade players more top level game time. Balancing it with the under 19s might be a bit tricky, but there are options there, the biggest challenge is going to be cost, which with a lot more players contracted will be significant.

All that said I don't think they should be looking to stretch anything in the first few years of this Super AU if it gets up. Run lean and efficient and build a base that can then be built on as needed, probably not until the world cup. Then with that influx of cash and interest RA can build more on what they've already established.

 

[KOB1987]

I don't think mixing in age grade teams works at all for a comp like this.

If you're doing it to offer more pro contracts to young players then doing it this way creates a massive imbalance for young talent with QLD and NSW capable of offering so many more places and potential game time in the early years. Eventually that opportunity dries up as players age out and plenty have to head elsewhere. Yes there will be some oppurtunity at the Force and Brumbies for them, but they've missed time developing in system in Perth or Canberra and are much more likely to take the money overseas then they otherwise would have been.

If you're doing it for interest in the comp (financial return effectively), I can't see it being worth the cost. Adding a few more teams might help to add a bit of interest overall, but the age grade sides are always going to be more poorly supported than they're state equivalents. Over time that's likely to get worse as the players move through them at a much faster rate.

If there is money for 2 extra sides it would be much better spent on something like a city/country approach for QLD and NSW, with both teams being full sides in their own right. It's going to drive more interest than age grade sides, hopefully with more money coming in as a result and teams that can be built around long term. From a development persepective it's much better aligned with the top sides and doesn't force QLD and NSW into a position where they are incentivised to (and need to) swallow up all the age grade talent.

The alternative if you want a focus on age grade is to run an under 21s comp alongside this. Start contracting the best 18-21 year olds in much greater numbers on base contracts and play them all as double headers with this Super AU comp. That offers better flow through the pathways and gives the age grade players more top level game time. Balancing it with the under 19s might be a bit tricky, but there are options there, the biggest challenge is going to be cost, which with a lot more players contracted will be significant.

All that said I don't think they should be looking to stretch anything in the first few years of this Super AU if it gets up. Run lean and efficient and build a base that can then be built on as needed, probably not until the world cup. Then with that influx of cash and interest RA can build more on what they've already established.

I'd argue that the Country teams would be an even bigger imbalance, and there is the issue of where to base them as the travelling band concept during NRC didn't really work, not for the Eagles anyway. For NSW you'd likely be looking at Newcastle, and for Qld I assume either the Goldy or Toowoomba, but it's going to be hard to get people to relocate to any of those on a low level contract.

I do agree that ideally you want an age group comp run alongside the senior one, but that would probably be a phase II development, and what I am proposing could be a pre-cursor to getting that off the ground. An alternative to mine, and possibly an even better one, would be to target the exact same players (i.e. the U21's-ish) and split the Tahs and Reds squads into North and South (harbour in Sydney, river in Brisbane) teams.

I agree that the age group sides would have a lower overall interest, but they would have a younger supporter base (their peers) with the objective that they also transition to the senior teams when the players do. I don't really have an issue with NSW/Qld being incentivised to swallow up the taklent as that is where the talent is coming from, but I also think they should carry part of the cost - it's only a short term solution to keeep the players both in the game and in their comfort zone geographically until the better ones get on a full pro contract and can justify relocating.

 

[Wilson]

I'd argue that the Country teams would be an even bigger imbalance, and there is the issue of where to base them as the travelling band concept during NRC didn't really work, not for the Eagles anyway. For NSW you'd likely be looking at Newcastle, and for Qld I assume either the Goldy or Toowoomba, but it's going to be hard to get people to relocate to any of those on a low level contract.

I do agree that ideally you want and age group comp run alongside the senior one, but that would probably be a phase II development, and what I am proposing could be a pre-cursor to getting that off the ground. An alternative to mine, and possibly an even better one, would be to target the exact same players (i.e. the U21's-ish) and split the Tahs and Reds squads into North and South (harbour in Sydney, river in Brisbane) teams.

I agree that the age group sides would have a lower overll interest, but they would have a younger supporter base (their peers) with the objective that they also transition to the senior teams when the players do. I don't really have an issue with NSW/Qld being incentivised to swallow up the taklent as that is where the talent is coming from, but I also think they should carry part of the cost - it's only a short term solution to keeep the players both in the game and in their comfort zone geographically until the better ones get on a full pro contract and can justify relocating.

As far as 'Country' goes I meant specifically the version that the Reds ran in the NRC - very much just a half split of the top squad. It doesn't even need to be country specifically, it could be East/West, North/South or whatever other split can be worked for those sides. I certainly wouldn't be looking at relocation any significant distance from the super rugby base.

I doubt the peer group interest would be anywhere near enough to justify the age group sides, particularly given the best of these guys would already be playing in any other setup bringing some of that support in. The reality of QLD and NSW bearing any extra cost for running age group sides would largely be from RA grants - in the case of NSW it would have to be, given they currently run at a loss. The players already move for opportunity and running this sides would start to reverse that in the early phase of their careers - guys like Fin Prass and Boston Fakafanua wouldn't make it to the Force until they were 22, hampering their development into the top side, but also putting them in a position where the overseas options are much more real and tempting. If there is any validity to Ben Darwin's cohesion argument than one of the main takeaways should be that any player movement that needs to happen should happen as early as possible in the players career, ideally before/as they go pro. The later you move a player the less efficient those development pathways are going to be for them and those around them.

 

[KOB1987]

As far as 'Country' goes I meant specifically the version that the Reds ran in the NRC - very much just a half split of the top squad. It doesn't even need to be country specifically, it could be East/West, North/South or whatever other split can be worked for those sides. I certainly wouldn't be looking at relocation any significant distance from the super rugby base.

I doubt the peer group interest would be anywhere near enough to justify the age group sides, particularly given the best of these guys would already be playing in any other setup bringing some of that support in. The reality of QLD and NSW bearing any extra cost for running age group sides would largely be from RA grants - in the case of NSW it would have to be, given they currently run at a loss. The players already move for opportunity and running this sides would start to reverse that in the early phase of their careers - guys like Fin Prass and Boston Fakafanua wouldn't make it to the Force until they were 22, hampering their development into the top side, but also putting them in a position where the overseas options are much more real and tempting. If there is any validity to Ben Darwin's cohesion argument than one of the main takeaways should be that any player movement that needs to happen should happen as early as possible in the players career, ideally before/as they go pro. The later you move a player the less efficient those development pathways are going to be for them and those around them.

No I'm not suggesting it's mandatory for all NSW and Qld players to stay in their home state until they are 22, it's a way of providing an opportunity for more of them as that seems to be where we are letting ourselves down as there aren't enough opportunities. AT the end of the day it's probably only an additional 40-50 players australia wide that would be 'snapped up' as part of a program like this but that could make a huge difference to the Wallabies over a 5 year timeframe.