Australian Rugby / RA

[Braveheart81]

My position is to take the current framework and realities and work within that.

Yours is to basically take a blank slate and start again with your preferred structure.

I agree with plenty of your ideas but I don't see them as a commercial reality. I don't think you can just turf out everything you have and start again without vast financial backing that we are not even close to having. If the ARU had $100m in the bank then maybe that would be the way to go.

Your major criticisms of the NRC seem to relate to things that it has never tried to be.

 

[RugbyReg]

Some are playing for less than that.
The gender equity argument,needs to take into consideration the effort expended.
At local level, the women are on par with 3rd grade in terms of intensity and number of sessions.

that's an argument you'll find hard to win. Easier in Women's tennis where it is 3 sets v 5 sets. But are you suggesting women rugby players don't put in as much effort as the men?

 

[I like to watch]

im talking preparation,not whether the "have a dig" when they play.

 

[RugbyReg]

im talking preparation,not whether the "have a dig" when they play.

I don't think the NRC teams train more than twice a week do they? I'm talking the non-contracted guys. I mean the club players, which would be the equivalent of the women players.

 

[kiap]

sorry, what do you mean?

Do you mean in reference to the wage component? Perhaps, but it hits pretty hard at the whole gender equity argument when you put have the women playing the same competition but aren't paying them the same amount.

Actually, the $500 per week may be excessive. I think some have suggested some of the men are getting just a couple of grand out of it.

Yep, but I'm looking at several ways. Too literal an interpretation of "same as the men’s".

Take a look at the AFL Women's comp. Is every AFL team represented? The answer is no. WNBL basketball doesn't have the same teams as the men's NBL. It also started out as amateur.

Any women's national rugby comp is not going to mirror the NRC (no Fiji for starters), so why try to rigidly apply the same model.

The first thing is to look at what women's XVs play now prior to national selection. One 3-day tournament cramming in eight teams × three matches each + a final. Better than nothing but only barely. Proponents like Sukkar want to progress this to a proper competition. And so she should.

Now take a leaf out of other sports and even rugby's own "Super Under 20s" where five teams play out their round robin – in the carpark – prior to Super Rugby matches.

So here's another model: 5 club/franchise sides (fill in your preferred names here), one per main rugby city. Play before selected NRC matches, 2 × home games, 2 × away games for each team + finals. Proper weeks breaks between games instead of playing two matches the same day.

But Qld Country don't have a team! … Too bad. The Sydney Swans ain't in the AFL Women's comp either. Begin and consolidate before expanding teams and number of rounds.

Costs? If Buildcorp tipped their $1m into this it would go a long way to funding the whole shebang. Start out amateur.

 

[I like to watch]

I don't think the NRC teams train more than twice a week do they? I'm talking the non-contracted guys. I mean the club players, which would be the equivalent of the women players.

That's my point, you are treating women club players as equal to men's club players(of NRC standard)
The women train once a week in most cases, the men 3(team sessions,excluding individual gym sessions)
The women train less than 3rd graders in most cases.
That's not equivalent.

If we were talking about 7's, I'd agree with you, as I see little difference in their respective programs.
No so in 15's IMO

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark about all this.

I agree. I think we're missing a vital piece of the puzzle.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Yep, but I'm looking at several ways. Too literal an interpretation of "same as the men’s".

Take a look at the AFL Women's comp. Is every AFL team represented? The answer is no. WNBL basketball doesn't have the same teams as the men's NBL. It also started out as amateur.

Any women's national rugby comp is not going to mirror the NRC (no Fiji for starters), so why try to rigidly apply the same model.

The first thing is to look at what women's XVs play now prior to national selection. One 3-day tournament cramming in eight teams × three matches each + a final. Better than nothing but only barely. Proponents like Sukkar want to progress this to a proper competition. And so she should.

Now take a leaf out of other sports and even rugby's own "Super Under 20s" where five teams play out their round robin – in the carpark – prior to Super Rugby matches.

So here's another model: 5 club/franchise sides (fill in your preferred names here), one per main rugby city. Play before selected NRC matches, 2 × home games, 2 × away games for each team + finals. Proper weeks breaks between games instead of playing two matches the same day.

But Qld Country don't have a team! … Too bad. The Sydney Swans ain't in the AFL Women's comp either. Begin and consolidate before expanding teams and number of rounds.

Costs? If Buildcorp tipped their $1m into this it would go a long way to funding the whole shebang. Start out amateur.

You could even use the basic Super Rugby set up for the women's. NSW, Qld, ACT, Vic and WA. Five squads and 8 games. If they really want to push it then add SA as well.

As a means of keeping the costs down go the FIFO model. It would need to start off largely amateur but should include a business plan that details the pathway forward to developing a level of professionalism for each.

 

[nightnday]

Could the moderators please move this talk of a national women's comp to its own thread? That way the thousand's and thousand's of spectators along with the large number of corporate sponsors so keen to watch and participate are not bothered with those of us interested in, albeit a lesser spectacle when compared to women's rugby, men's rugby.

 

[kiap]

I didn't even copy this bit for my post. Honest

 

[nightnday]

Mate, you are an absolute lemon.

No, the lemon would be a national women's comp.

 

[Gnostic]

^^^^^



BH, I don't think we will ever agree on the NRC.



No disrespect intended, but I feel you represent many in rugby, and where you see rugby and where you see it going, I feel we over a beer we would disagree on most things pertaining to rugby.



The essential difference between us IMO is a mind set of whats important in rugby a sorta pecking order if you want. Maybe I am wrong but you see Wallaby success as close to the top of your pile. I don't.



My value system, rates spreading the game and creating pathways and structures. Over time they will do more to Wallaby success than short term fix's today.



Take the NRC, two general points made in the establishment and development of the NRC, first was preparing players for higher honours, in this regard it has been a success. I tend to think your thinking is this is what it was set up to do in the main.



However in the grand set up and equally but now almost forgotten aspect was to grown rugby, in this regard it has failed in fact given it lacks total support it has almost not helped grow rugby. This IMO is a huge nay mega fail.



The engagement outside the hard core rusted on is almost nil, and many within rugby don't support it.



So its the test in many ways to rugby thinking. Because it helps the national team its a success which to me translates that many in rugby see Wallaby success as whats wanted as the first order objective.



Me I want to expand the game, and our wants are so very different I don't think we will ever agree.

I agree fully with the entirety of your post Half, except the bolded bit. That part in particular is highly debateable. Do not forget that Coaching pathways were also apparently a massive reason for the NRC. How does that correlate with the massive success of Nick Stiles and Co.

 

[Gnostic]

My position is to take the current framework and realities and work within that.



Yours is to basically take a blank slate and start again with your preferred structure.



I agree with plenty of your ideas but I don't see them as a commercial reality. I don't think you can just turf out everything you have and start again without vast financial backing that we are not even close to having. If the ARU had $100m in the bank then maybe that would be the way to go.



Your major criticisms of the NRC seem to relate to things that it has never tried to be.

BH I have been saying for three years that the NRC is not viable in the medium or long term. You and others wishfully and wilfully refused to see it. It is only recently with the cluster F^%$% of the team reduction that many would even entertain the thought of gross ARU mismanagement.

The current framework is broken. It is f*&^%ed. It does not work and has not really since at the latest 2003, but I could argue the model has been flawed from the inception of Professionalism when they rushed to counter the Turnbull/Levi/Packer World Rugby Corp.

 

[Braveheart81]

I agree fully with the entirety of your post Half, except the bolded bit. That part in particular is highly debateable. Do not forget that Coaching pathways were also apparently a massive reason for the NRC. How does that correlate with the massive success of Nick Stiles and Co.

Is it providing a domestic coaching opportunity between club rugby and Super Rugby? Yes.

Who knows how much it is improving the coaches who coach there but the reality is we sorely need more professional coaching opportunities in Australia to help develop our coaches.

It is hard to find a successful Australian coach who hasn't spent a lot of their coaching development in Europe. We surely need to try and provide more opportunities so it can improve the outcome for coaches who don't go and work overseas.

I know you hate the NRC but I still think it is achieving a fair bit of terms of creating opportunities for players in particular. It has showcased the ability of a bunch of players who weren't signed up to Super Rugby teams as under 20s stars and allowed them to sign professional contracts.

It is creating the opportunity for the best club players to play more games with Wallabies and Super Rugby players than they have been able to previously.

 

[Gnostic]

I love these flexible KPIs. The sort of KPIs bank managers and the assorted parasites who ride their coat tails have, who can send their organisations to the wall and require Public bail outs and nationalisation (and in Australia the Big 4 get Deposit Insurance for free) but they still get their over inflated salaries and bonuses.

Oh wait - sounds like the ARU. Carry on.

 

[Dave Beat]

At that Rugby Business Network night Josephine Sukkar went into alot of detail on woman's sport.

Get a girl to play rugby and enjoy it.
That Girl becomes a mum.
When kids arrive mum would encourage the same sport.

 

[Dave Beat]

So not only is the ARU upsetting;
Soup teams,
Supporters,
It is now upsetting sponsors - WOW.

 

[Scrubber2050]

About time we all get with the modern view:

Women can do anything men can !

Get rid of gender bias and just have sport. So no mens and womens tennis, rugby, swimming, weight lifting, boxing etc etc.

That way everybody men and women, are on a level field. The best players get the contracts and the money.

It's all about being fair to both genders

 

[Micheal]

About time we all get with the modern view:

Women can do anything men can !

Get rid of gender bias and just have sport. So no mens and womens tennis, rugby, swimming, weight lifting, boxing etc etc.

That way everybody men and women, are on a level field. The best players get the contracts and the money.

It's all about being fair to both genders

Scrubs please tell me you wrote that in the front Sarcastica because surely no one can actually advocate for the removal of gender barriers in contact sports?

Something like tennis I could semi understand, but boxing, weight lifting and rugby?!

 

[Scrubber2050]

Just trying to be fair Michael and not appear discriminatory