Australian Rugby / RA

[TahDan]

Lindo I read a survey about people who follow multiple sports in Australia.

Rugby fans were the most likely to be actively interested in other sports - cricket, league, soccer etc.

The most myopic? AFL fans.
.

Why am I not surprised...

Remember where you saw that survey by any chance?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I received an email from the ARU inviting me to connect with great Australian leaders. The thing was riddled with typos.
But John Howard's awards take some beating:

 

[disco]

Can anyone tell me where we are at with assistant coaches for the spring tour? Basically are the ARU and Cheika sticking with Larkham and Nathan Grey as is or are they dropping their super rugby roles and becoming full time Wallaby coaches?

 

[Rugbynutter39]

It's certainly the sort of thing that what we need to be doing. Obviously the ARU don't have anything like the money of the RFU. It's what we're up against though. It's taken 15 years, but we're starting to see the impact of neglect of junior club rugby and rugby in the CHS system on the professional game.

So many reasons - poor quality leadership at top levels of rugby had to be at top of the list.

Stop recruiting the old boy rugby network and employ professional sports administrators at highest levels might have a chance.

Big frigging broom needed to clean up some really shitty leadership been exposed to in rugby.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

So many reasons - poor quality leadership at top levels of rugby had to be at top of the list.

Stop recruiting the old boy rugby network and employ professional sports administrators at highest levels might have a chance.

Big frigging broom needed to clean up some really shitty leadership been exposed to in rugby.

I think the leadership and direction of the ARU is better now than it has been for a long time.

People make these statements constantly that somehow the ARU is different from other sports and is an old boy rugby network.

Look at similar groups of executives and board members in the other sporting codes and it is largely the same. The people who get involved in the game at just about all levels have a long history of involvement in the sport.

Senior employees of the ARU are paid less than their equivalents in the other major sports because the budget is much lower.

The people are there largely because they have a strong interest in the game and want to contribute. Almost without fail those people could earn more money working in the private sector.

It seems to me that people want an alternative that doesn't really exist and certainly not for the budget the ARU has.

 

[Quick Hands]

I think the leadership and direction of the ARU is better now than it has been for a long time.

That's certainly true, but working from an extremely low base.

Senior employees of the ARU are paid less than their equivalents in the other major sports because the budget is much lower.

And are paid much, much less than those who went before - and less in actual terms, not just in real terms. And there are now less of them. A tacit admission if nothing else on how bad the administration was previously.

It seems to me that people want an alternative that doesn't really exist and certainly not for the budget the ARU has.

I fear that you are suffering from some sort of Stockhom Syndrome. Yes we have seen some improvement, but let's not forget that the lack of money is in the main because of the actions of previous ARU administrations, as is the massive decline in the junior club base.

I'm grateful for the improvement, but I'm not so sure that we can't look at other sports which have far less money than rugby does and see how they do club based juniors. What concerns me greatly about the current administration is the level of private school group-think, which results from their own rugby experiences.

 

[Braveheart81]

That's certainly true, but working from an extremely low base.



And are paid much, much less than those who went before - and less in actual terms, not just in real terms. And there are now less of them. A tacit admission if nothing else on how bad the administration was previously.



I fear that you are suffering from some sort of Stockhom Syndrome. Yes we have seen some improvement, but let's not forget that the lack of money is in the main because of the actions of previous ARU administrations, as is the massive decline in the junior club base.

I'm grateful for the improvement, but I'm not so sure that we can't look at other sports which have far less money than rugby does and see how they do club based juniors. What concerns me greatly about the current administration is the level of private school group-think, which results from their own rugby experiences.

On the whole you are agreeing with the majority of points I have made.

I see little point in every discussion of the ARU being an attempt to rehash the mistakes of the last 20 years. These have been discussed ad infinitum in this thread and others. I don't think wanting to move the discussion on as being a case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Improving junior rugby needs to be a major area of focus but I don't see how it is fair to describe the current administration as exhibiting private school group-think. Change and improvement needs to happen at junior club level but I don't see that as having much crossover with private school rugby because that is almost entirely out of the control of the ARU.

An important thing the ARU needs to do in conjunction with the state and district rugby unions is to determine a way forward such that strategic decisions can be made by the ARU for the good of the game. Local rugby unions need to be able to run their competitions but they also need to have the necessary strategic control and direction so that they don't make poor decisions such as changing the day on which junior rugby is player (as an example) which might be to the detriment of the game.

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^^^You did open post #925 with a reference to past performance, so any response which didn't reflect on the past would have been out of context.

The reference which I made to private schools/junior clubs was to illustrate an admistrative disconnect. If one's rugby experience was largely derived from playing at a private school and being the parent of a player at a private school, then one has a different perspective from another person who has had a rugby experience which involved playing at junior club and possibly at state high school. I don't want to diminish private school rugby, I want junior club rugby to return to where it was 40 years ago - which was about the same size as the schools.

I certainly agree that (a) Pulver has the interests of the game at heart (which also applies to a lot of other perople) and (b) could earn more money elsewhere. I said as much a number of times on different threads. I don't think it's necessary for it to be said every time that the ARU is discussed.

The ARU have indeed done some good things recently - the NRC being the most obvious. They've flown some kites about juniors and state schools, but understandably as yet nothing much has happened. There are some of us (probably you too) who have either been invovled in other sports and/or have children currently involved with other sports. We can learn something from how some of these sports approach juniors and schools - doesn't mean we need to copy everything, but there are things which others do better than we do. And those organisations are smaller and have a significantly smaller budget that the ARU.

I realise that your instinct is defend the ARU (and sometimes the criticism is unfair), but we also need to be constantly evaluating our performance and seeking to improve - sometimes that involves accepting criticism and/or ideas from outside the establishment.

 

[Braveheart81]

Good post Quick Hands.

I realise that your instinct is defend the ARU (and sometimes the criticism is unfair), but we also need to be constantly evaluating our performance and seeking to improve - sometimes that involves accepting criticism and/or ideas from outside the establishment.

I don't think that is the case. I think the major thrust of my posts on this topic is not to conflate the mistakes and leadership of the past with what is happening currently. It really doesn't help anyone (unless the person's primary goal is just to rant).

One of the big issues is that the mistakes of the past take a long time to play out so a lot of the issues particularly around finance and participation that are happening now are due to decisions made years ago so it can be easy to point the finger at the current mob rather than digging deeper.

In hoping for improvement I think it is really important to drill down into the situation now and look at decisions that can and/or need to be made now to improve things in the future.

 

[I like to watch]

Pulver is in his fourth year.
When does it stop being JON's fault?
As others have pointed out, he has done some good things,but junior development and support has been very poor.

 

[Braveheart81]

Pulver is in his fourth year.
When does it stop being JON's fault?
As others have pointed out, he has done some good things,but junior development and support has been very poor.

All decisions and actions now are his responsibility and Pulver should be judged on them.

There's no point at looking at something that has played out due to a decision a decade or more ago and putting that at the feet of Pulver though. It is pointless.

Working out what can and should be done now is important.

I would argue that the ARU has taken control over the junior development pathways leading towards the elite game and those are now better than they have been at any other point in the professional era.

The ARU needs to find ways to significantly increase junior participation numbers and find a way to keep non-elite players in the game for longer (something that is happening across many sports).

Professionalism means that players push harder from a younger age so they can make it as a professional when they are older but that also massively alienates the non elite players who can no longer compete above a certain age in any sort of enjoyable way because the gap in skill and size etc. becomes too great. That is particularly important in a contact sport like rugby. Weight based junior competitions seem to be increasingly necessary.

 

[louie]

When does it stop being JON's fault?

When he hands back the money he took him and erases the stupidly of resigning deans before world cup

 

[Dave Beat]

Good post Quick Hands.




I don't think that is the case. I think the major thrust of my posts on this topic is not to conflate the mistakes and leadership of the past with what is happening currently. It really doesn't help anyone (unless the person's primary goal is just to rant).

One of the big issues is that the mistakes of the past take a long time to play out so a lot of the issues particularly around finance and participation that are happening now are due to decisions made years ago so it can be easy to point the finger at the current mob rather than digging deeper.

In hoping for improvement I think it is really important to drill down into the situation now and look at decisions that can and/or need to be made now to improve things in the future.

Pulver is in his fourth year.
When does it stop being JON's fault?
As others have pointed out, he has done some good things,but junior development and support has been very poor.

All good and ILTW kept it simple and accurate.
Plant the seeds and let it grow, water it, and spend time on it.
To good thing well, repeat, review, improve, repeat.
Keep it simple, there is no need to over complicate opportunity.

 

[dru]

I see little point in every discussion of the ARU being an attempt to rehash the mistakes of the last 20 years. These have been discussed ad infinitum in this thread and others. I don't think wanting to move the discussion on as being a case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Braveheart, love your work but for me you are dealing with simple anti ARU over everything and after that their message is lost. Good luck to you sticking with it.

QH, I suspect you are talking to an ever decreasing audience even here on G&GR.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Braveheart, love your work but for me you are dealing with simple anti ARU over everything and after that their message is lost. Good luck to you sticking with it.

QH, I suspect you are talking to an ever decreasing audience even here on G&GR.

Which would be a shame if that is the case because as with nearly everyone who contribites to these kinds of discussions he does offer some provocative thoughts and ideas. While I don't tend to agree with his overall assessment of the ARU administration, he does offer some interesting perspective on looking outward at other sports particularly those who are growing their bases with even smaller resource pools than our own for ideas and strategies.

His posting of Hockey Australia's player development program is an example of a from what I have seen an excellent program that the ARU should seriously look at. It's inclusive nature alone would make it a worthwhile endeavour.

But, yes, I think the criticism of Pulver and his administration is a little unfair. He entered his role having inherited more than a decade of mismanangement and poor strategic thinking. It was always going to take longer than the 6 months many thought it would take to start righting the ship.

The effectiveness and success of the Pulver era at the ARU starts now. We have the pathways mostly sorted and have secured an overall better TV deal. He and his adminstration will now be judged on adding the finishing touches to those pathways and first stabilizing and then kickstarting the growth of in particular junior Rugby in this country.

 

[Quick Hands]

QH, I suspect you are talking to an ever decreasing audience even here on G&GR.

We're all talking to an ever decreasing audience - that's the big problem.

 

[Quick Hands]

Which would be a shame if that is the case because as with nearly everyone who contribites to these kinds of discussions he does offer some provocative thoughts and ideas. While I don't tend to agree with his overall assessment of the ARU administration, he does offer some interesting perspective on looking outward at other sports particularly those who are growing their bases with even smaller resource pools than our own for ideas and strategies.

His posting of Hockey Australia's player development program is an example of a from what I have seen an excellent program that the ARU should seriously look at. It's inclusive nature alone would make it a worthwhile endeavour.

But, yes, I think the criticism of Pulver and his administration is a little unfair. He entered his role having inherited more than a decade of mismanangement and poor strategic thinking. It was always going to take longer than the 6 months many thought it would take to start righting the ship.

The effectiveness and success of the Pulver era at the ARU starts now. We have the pathways mostly sorted and have secured an overall better TV deal. He and his adminstration will now be judged on adding the finishing touches to those pathways and first stabilizing and then kickstarting the growth of in particular junior Rugby in this country.

Although I haven't criticised Pulver or the current ARU administration in any of the above posts.

I even got a like from Braveheart.

EDIT: And what's more, I agree with what he says in post #931.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

On the whole you are agreeing with the majority of points I have made.

I see little point in every discussion of the ARU being an attempt to rehash the mistakes of the last 20 years. These have been discussed ad infinitum in this thread and others. I don't think wanting to move the discussion on as being a case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Improving junior rugby needs to be a major area of focus but I don't see how it is fair to describe the current administration as exhibiting private school group-think. Change and improvement needs to happen at junior club level but I don't see that as having much crossover with private school rugby because that is almost entirely out of the control of the ARU.

An important thing the ARU needs to do in conjunction with the state and district rugby unions is to determine a way forward such that strategic decisions can be made by the ARU for the good of the game. Local rugby unions need to be able to run their competitions but they also need to have the necessary strategic control and direction so that they don't make poor decisions such as changing the day on which junior rugby is player (as an example) which might be to the detriment of the game.

If want to grow revenues you need to pay key people who can do this - key leadership positions talking about here.

Sadly rugby's balance sheet is so poor it can't take those risks yes. Hence how can one seriously expect much change.

We are paying the price for past administrations failure to strike when rugby had a much better balance sheet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

If want to grow revenues you need to pay key people who can do this - key leadership positions talking about here.

Sadly rugby's balance sheet is so poor it can't take those risks yes. Hence how can one seriously expect much change.

We are paying the price for past administrations failure to strike when rugby had a much better balance sheet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To give pulver credit he has done more than many of his predecessors - that I agree


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[boyo]

Pulver is in his fourth year.
When does it stop being JON's fault?

You could say something similar about the current federal government.