Apologies but I also don't think my comments were snide. A little exasperated maybe.
I had read that post and I generally agree with it. It also begins with "(Predicated on the basis that anyone has enough money to implement these - which the ARU clearly don't)." Part of the problem is that there is clearly a big gap between able to implement the ideal solutions and what is viable given the financial and support situation of the game in Australia.
Your post was almost entirely about juniors. Your criticism of the ARU trying to emulate some of the aspects of the way the NZRU manages their Super Rugby teams seemed to relate more to rugby culture in the country rather than the administrative side of things which is what I was posting about.
So you disagree about the central control aspect. What do you think we should do to improve the situation we currently have?
It's mainly about juniors and the base because until and unless that is fixed nothing much is going to change at the top. While I've not been a huge fan of the ARU, I agree that it's performing better now that it has in the recent past. It's hamstrung by a lack of money, so that makes fixing the situation more difficult.
In terms of NZ, we should certainly be looking at the ways in which they develop players and coaches - their young players seem to have a much better skill set than ours. I'd like to know whether or not our players are over-coached or under-coached. I suspect the former as many of our teams seem quite regimented. I also think that there are some core skills in which we can improve - kicking being the most obvious. There's no logical reason why skilful footballers in Australia can't kick a ball, but players in almost every other country can - that comes down to coaching and development.
I'm just not sure that changing administration (i.e. who appoints coaches) is going to lead to better outcomes in terms of development of players and coaches. If people can provide reasons as to how and why it could, I'd like to see the reasoning, but people simply saying "this is what they do in NZ" doesn't seem to be a logical or convincing argument, unless we are in a similar context (which we aren't).
Short term, I honestly don't think that there is much that the ARU can do to improve the Wallabies without fixing what is going on below. NZ are good for a lot of reasons, one of which is that they have a significant part of the population playing the game as kids. We certainly have to be smarter at what we do, but until we have more kids playing at the bottom, we're going to be doing it tough.
Sorry that I haven't provided the magic bullet, but I don't believe it exists. If the solution was a simple as me writing a few lines on G&GR, I'd like to think that someone more influential would have come up with it by now. It's a bit like an onion, every layer you peel back the next layer needs fixing as well. How to fix the Wallabies - fix the super teams. How to fix the super teams - improve the 20s programme and the NRC. How to improve the 20s and the NRC - make club rugby at senior, junior and schools stronger. How to make the bottom stronger - get more kids playing and provide them with a well-structured player development programme.
What could/should the ARU do? Ensure that there are enough development officers and resources available to the grass roots. Make things as easy as possible to for junior and senior clubs to run. Promote the game in the state school systems. It all costs money - but it's the only way to secure the game long term.